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: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <5156CF50.8080006@itforchange.net> <65097FAF-79DA-4C09-824A-D3CC1406D698@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130401111425.2cc11862@quill.bollow.ch> Suresh Ramasubramanian 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: References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <5156C9D8.4010203@itforchange.net> <13dbb4bd731.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130401115030.761e36fa@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] David Allen 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: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <5156CF50.8080006@itforchange.net> <65097FAF-79DA-4C09-824A-D3CC1406D698@hserus.net> <20130401111425.2cc11862@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: 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 wrote: > Suresh Ramasubramanian 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: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <5156C9D8.4010203@itforchange.net> <13dbb4bd731.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20130401115030.761e36fa@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: +1 On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > David Allen 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> <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: 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> <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: <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" > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> <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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> <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: On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 10:37 AM, parminder 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: References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> <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: <5159B261.9020303@itforchange.net> On Monday 01 April 2013 09:23 PM, McTim wrote: > On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 10:37 AM, parminder wrote: >> > >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: 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 > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: References: <51587463.10300@gih.com> Message-ID: <20130402152753.32647772@quill.bollow.ch> Baudouin SCHOMBE 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> <20130402152753.32647772@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: 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 > Baudouin SCHOMBE 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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> <20130402152753.32647772@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On 02-Apr-2013, at 18:57, Norbert Bollow 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: References: <51587463.10300@gih.com> <20130402152753.32647772@quill.bollow.ch> 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 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 >> Baudouin SCHOMBE 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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> <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 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> <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 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 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: References: <51587463.10300@gih.com> <20130402152753.32647772@quill.bollow.ch> 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 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> <20130402152753.32647772@quill.bollow.ch> <0d7901ce2fb5$fca83070$f5f89150$@gmail.com> Message-ID: 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" 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 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> <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 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 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> <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" 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 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 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: References: <51587463.10300@gih.com> <20130402152753.32647772@quill.bollow.ch> <0d7901ce2fb5$fca83070$f5f89150$@gmail.com> 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: 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" 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 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$@gmail.com> References: <51587463.10300@gih.com> <20130402152753.32647772@quill.bollow.ch> <0d7901ce2fb5$fca83070$f5f89150$@gmail.com> <0de101ce2fbc$490514f0$db0f3ed0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: 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" 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: > 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" 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 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: 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: On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 6:25 PM, michael gurstein 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: 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" 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: References: <093d01ce2f02$50eafaa0$f2c0efe0$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A230F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0ffc01ce2ff1$0c8994d0$259cbe70$@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" 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: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> <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> <5159B261.9020303@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 31/03/2013, at 17:35 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > +1 > > On 29 Mar 2013 13:57, "McTim" wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Jeremy Malcolm 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> <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> <5159B261.9020303@itforchange.net> 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 wrote: > On 31/03/2013, at 17:35 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On 29 Mar 2013 13:57, "McTim" wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Jeremy Malcolm 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> <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> <5159B261.9020303@itforchange.net> <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 >> wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On 29 Mar 2013 13:57, "McTim" wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Jeremy Malcolm >>> 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> <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> <5159B261.9020303@itforchange.net> <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 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 > >> wrote: > >> > >>> +1 > >>> > >>> On 29 Mar 2013 13:57, "McTim" wrote: > >>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Jeremy Malcolm > >>> 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 12:32 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. 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: References: <093d01ce2f02$50eafaa0$f2c0efe0$@gmail.com> <515A64D4.9050600@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A270B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> 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> <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: References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> <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: <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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> <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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A2886@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <515C8632.1050407@gmail.com> Message-ID: 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 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: References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <5156C9D8.4010203@itforchange.net> <13dbb4bd731.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20130401115030.761e36fa@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: 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 > +1 > > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> David Allen 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: References: <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <5156C9D8.4010203@itforchange.net> <13dbb4bd731.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20130401115030.761e36fa@quill.bollow.ch> 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 > >> +1 >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >>> >>> David Allen 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: References: 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 ________________________________ One World, One Internet: An open discussion…in China 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://assets.feedblitz.com/i/googleplus20.png][http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/linkedin20.png][http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/pinterest20.png][http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/twitter20.png] • Email to a friend • Article Search • View comments • Track comments • How ARIN and U.S. Commerce Department were duped by the ITU 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://assets.feedblitz.com/i/googleplus20.png][http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/linkedin20.png][http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/pinterest20.png][http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/twitter20.png] • Email to a friend • Article Search • View comments • Track comments • The End of Needs Assessments in IPv4? 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://assets.feedblitz.com/i/googleplus20.png][http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/linkedin20.png][http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/pinterest20.png][http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/twitter20.png] • Email to a friend • Article Search • View comments • Track comments • Regulating the Market for Zero-day Exploits: Look to the demand side 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://assets.feedblitz.com/i/googleplus20.png][http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/linkedin20.png][http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/pinterest20.png][http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/twitter20.png] • Email to a friend • Article Search • View comments • Track comments • Freedom to innovate and new top level domains 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://assets.feedblitz.com/i/googleplus20.png][http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/linkedin20.png][http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/pinterest20.png][http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/twitter20.png] • Email to a friend • Article Search • View comments • Track comments • China, the US and cybersecurity: is Mandiant promoting a Cold War mentality? 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://assets.feedblitz.com/i/googleplus20.png][http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/linkedin20.png][http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/pinterest20.png][http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/twitter20.png] • Email to a friend • Article Search • View comments • Track comments • On second thought, let’s NOT kill all the lawyers 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://assets.feedblitz.com/i/googleplus20.png][http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/linkedin20.png][http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/pinterest20.png][http://assets.feedblitz.com/i/twitter20.png] • Email to a friend • Article Search • View comments • Track comments • ________________________________ Click here to safely unsubscribe from "Internet Governance Project Headlines." Click here to view mailing archives, here to change your preferences, or here to subscribe • Privacy [http://p.feedblitz.com/logos/4570886/175425/11399627/logo.gif] ________________________________ ________________________________ Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 9 Thoreau Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: 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 > Date: April 7, 2013, 5:26:11 PM GMT+08:00 > To: ALAC Working List , APRALO ALSes > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530 To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , parminder 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 wrote: > > On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Wow, Gotcha... >> >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder >> w= rote: >>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 > > 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 > Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530 > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > parminder > 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 wrote: > > > > > On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Wow, Gotcha... > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder > >> w= > rote: > >>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 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 > > > > 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: On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 7:20 PM, 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. 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: References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> 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 Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 19:48:48 To: ; Milton L Mueller Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,McTim Cc: Norbert Bollow; Suresh Ramasubramanian Subject: Re: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 7:20 PM, 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. 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 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 > Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530 > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > parminder > 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 wrote: > >> >> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> Wow, Gotcha... >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder >>> w= > rote: >>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 >> >> 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 >> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530 >> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , >> parminder >> 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 wrote: >> >>> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> Wow, Gotcha... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder >>>> w= >> rote: >>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>> 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: +1 on Anriette's view On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen 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 > >> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530 > >> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > >> parminder > >> 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 wrote: > >> > >>> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >>>> Wow, Gotcha... > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder > >>>> w= > >> rote: > >>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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 > >>> 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: Agree with Milton Sivasubramanian M On Apr 8, 2013 7:21 AM, "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 > > Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530 > > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > > parminder > > 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 wrote: > > > > > > > > On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > > >> Wow, Gotcha... > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder > > >> w= > > rote: > > >>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> 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 > > > > > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: 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 > 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 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 > > Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530 > > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > > parminder > > 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 wrote: > > > >> > >> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >>> Wow, Gotcha... > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder > >>> w= > > rote: > >>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 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 > >> > >> 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <987B0AC5-3257-4701-8CFB-6B1E8F60AFB3@hserus.net> Message-ID: 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 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 > >> 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 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 >> > Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530 >> > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , >> > parminder >> > 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 wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> Wow, Gotcha... >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder >> >>> w= >> > rote: >> >>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 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 >> >> >> >> 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 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 >>> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530 >>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , >>> parminder >>> 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 >wrote: >>> >>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>> Wow, Gotcha... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder >>>>> w= >>> rote: >>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 > >>>> 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 > >> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530 > >> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > >> parminder > >> 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 wrote: > >> > >>> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >>>> Wow, Gotcha... > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder > >>>> w= > >> rote: > >>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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 > >>> 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: +another Bill On Apr 8, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Tapani Tarvainen 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 >>>> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530 >>>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , >>>> parminder >>>> 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 wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>>> Wow, Gotcha... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder >>>>>> w= >>>> rote: >>>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>> 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: References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5162642A.2040901@apc.org> <20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: 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 PGP: https://alkasir.com/doc/admin_alkasir_pub_key.txt On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:29 PM, William Drake wrote: > +another > > Bill > > On Apr 8, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Tapani Tarvainen > 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 > >>>> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530 > >>>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > >>>> parminder > >>>> 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 > wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >>>>>> Wow, Gotcha... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder > >>>>>> w= > >>>> rote: > >>>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 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 > > >>>>> 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch>,<987B0AC5-3257-4701-8CFB-6B1E8F60AFB3@hserus.net>,, Message-ID: + 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 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 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 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 > Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530 > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > parminder > 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 wrote: > >> >> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> Wow, Gotcha... >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder >>> w= > rote: >>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 >> >> 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: 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 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 >>>> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530 >>>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , >>>> parminder >>>> 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 wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>>> Wow, Gotcha... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder >>>>>> w= >>>> rote: >>>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>> 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: References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5162642A.2040901@apc.org> <20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info> 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 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 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 >>>>> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530 >>>>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , >>>>> parminder >>>>> 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 wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>>>> Wow, Gotcha... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder >>>>>>> w= >>>>> rote: >>>>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>> 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: References: <0B7261D2-4063-41A3-AE16-A2D6216C8A49@gmail.com> <5AEE852B-1839-4847-9296-087205EF085A@gmail.com> Message-ID: 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 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> <456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Suresh Ramasubramanian 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 > >>>>> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530 > >>>>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > >>>>> , parminder > >>>>> 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 > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >>>>>>> Wow, Gotcha... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder > >>>>>>> w= > >>>>> rote: > >>>>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 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 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> 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> <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 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 >> >>>>> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530 >> >>>>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >> >>>>> , parminder >> >>>>> 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 >> >>>>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>>>>>> Wow, Gotcha... >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder >> >>>>>>> w= >> >>>>> rote: >> >>>>>>>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> 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 >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> 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> <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 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> <456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net> <20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch> <20130408113058.GA31767@hserus.net> <20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: 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 wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Suresh Ramasubramanian 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> <456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net> <20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Norbert, On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:37 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Suresh Ramasubramanian 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: References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5162642A.2040901@apc.org> <20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info> <456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net> <20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch> <20130408113058.GA31767@hserus.net> <20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <6204EF90-1C83-473B-9F33-3EBCC9FEC68B@ciroap.org> On 08/04/2013, at 8:16 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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> <456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net> <20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch> <20130408113058.GA31767@hserus.net> <20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: 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: References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5162642A.2040901@apc.org> <20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info> <456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net> <20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch> <20130408113058.GA31767@hserus.net> <20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <4C8B1CCD-369A-49F9-85C3-703F5F732364@ciroap.org> +1 On 8 Apr, 2013, at 8:44 PM, Daniel Pimienta 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: References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5162642A.2040901@apc.org> <20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info> <456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net> <20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch> <20130408113058.GA31767@hserus.net> <20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch> 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> 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 escribió: > On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 7:20 PM, 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. > > 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: References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5162642A.2040901@apc.org> <20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info> <456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net> <20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch> <20130408113058.GA31767@hserus.net> <20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130408162404.0573c829@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Suresh Ramasubramanian 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> <456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net> <20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch> <20130408113058.GA31767@hserus.net> <20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch> <20130408162404.0573c829@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: 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 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: References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5162642A.2040901@apc.org> <20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info> <456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net> <20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch> <20130408113058.GA31767@hserus.net> <20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch> <20130408162404.0573c829@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130408174559.128a82e1@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Kerry Brown 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: 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: References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5162642A.2040901@apc.org> Message-ID: <20130408203428.4ee15d72@quill.bollow.ch> David Allen 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> <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> <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: References: Message-ID: 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) On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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> <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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> <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: > > > 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. > > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: References: Message-ID: 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 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: References: Message-ID: 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 > 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: References: 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 | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue 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: References: Message-ID: 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 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 >> >> 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 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: <5163A2CD.8020606@ciroap.org> Message-ID: 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 > 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 > > -- >> 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: References: Message-ID: @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 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 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 >>> >>> 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 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 Print This Post 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: printer_famfamfam.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1035 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From 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: 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 wrote: > > ICANN CEO Wants To Shift “Centre Of Gravity” Away From US Published on 9 > April 2013 @ 1:20 am > > [image: Print This Post] > Print This Post > > 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: printer_famfamfam.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1035 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From 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: 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 wrote: > > 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 >> >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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> <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: <5163A2CD.8020606@ciroap.org> Message-ID: +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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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> <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 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> <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 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: References: <5163AEE0.1010405@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: References: <5163AEE0.1010405@gmail.com> Message-ID: 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: References: <5163AEE0.1010405@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar 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: References: <5163AEE0.1010405@gmail.com> Message-ID: 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 wrote: > On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: References: <5163AEE0.1010405@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130409162933.2ea3dc82@quill.bollow.ch> Chaitanya Dhareshwar 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> <20130409162933.2ea3dc82@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: 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 wrote: > Chaitanya Dhareshwar 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Print This Post 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: printer_famfamfam.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1035 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From 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 *Quartz* | By Leo Mirani Posted: 04/09/2013 10:13 am EDT | Updated: 04/09/2013 10:13 am EDT *This story originally appeared on Quartz . * 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 , 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 , 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 . It also passes on the notices 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DYFVC2R.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 7815 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com 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 * * 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/ , 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 45395 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com 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: References: Message-ID: Hi Naresh, > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Naresh Ajwani > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > > 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: References: Message-ID: <20130409230309.47173bf7@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] McTim wrote: > > From: Naresh Ajwani > > > > 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: 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: <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: <20130409230309.47173bf7@quill.bollow.ch> <51650F74.1030204@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130410125800.699cc179@quill.bollow.ch> Riaz K Tayob 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: References: 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" Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 7:37 PM To: 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: 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 > Date: April 11, 2013, 9:05:53 AM GMT+08:00 > To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: <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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: <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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: <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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: <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 wrote: > > From: Naresh Ajwani > > > > 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: <20130409230309.47173bf7@quill.bollow.ch> <51650F74.1030204@gmail.com> <516645D6.7080503@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, A rich vein to mine, see inline below: On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:10 AM, parminder 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. > > 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"? > 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. > > 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: <20130409230309.47173bf7@quill.bollow.ch> <51650F74.1030204@gmail.com> <516645D6.7080503@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1081564d-26a6-4cea-9751-139b6db1104f@email.android.com> parminder 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: <20130409230309.47173bf7@quill.bollow.ch> <51650F74.1030204@gmail.com> <516645D6.7080503@itforchange.net> <1081564d-26a6-4cea-9751-139b6db1104f@email.android.com> Message-ID: > 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: References: <20130409230309.47173bf7@quill.bollow.ch> <51650F74.1030204@gmail.com> <516645D6.7080503@itforchange.net> <1081564d-26a6-4cea-9751-139b6db1104f@email.android.com> Message-ID: On Apr 11, 2013, at 10:50 PM, Kerry Brown 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 | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: <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 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: 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] [image: Twitter] [image: Youtube] [image: LinkedIn] *Before you print - Think about the** **ENVIRONMENT* On 12 April 2013 13:13, Norbert Bollow 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: <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 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: <20130409230309.47173bf7@quill.bollow.ch> <51650F74.1030204@gmail.com> <516645D6.7080503@itforchange.net> <1081564d-26a6-4cea-9751-139b6db1104f@email.android.com> Message-ID: 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 > > > parminder 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: <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: 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 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: 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: References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> Roland Perry 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: 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 -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at 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: 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: <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 wrote: >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 > >-- > >-- >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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: 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: In message , at 13:56:01 on Sat, 13 Apr 2013, Andrea Glorioso 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: 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: <24bf59c1fe1a663e39791062e14dc7ae@localhost> Hi all, On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 13:56:01 +0800, Andrea Glorioso 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: 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: 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 wrote: > In message , at 13:56:01 on Sat, 13 Apr 2013, Andrea Glorioso 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: 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: In message , at 17:35:50 on Sat, 13 Apr 2013, Andrea Glorioso 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 wrote: >> In message c6aAjOROBVArLDEjQ at mail.gmail.com>, at 13:56:01 on Sat, 13 Apr 2013, >Andrea Glorioso 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: 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 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. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> 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 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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> ,<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 > 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. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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> 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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" To: , Cc: "Gene Kimmelman" 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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> <092e01ce3880$c4d9cae0$4e8d60a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: 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 wrote: > Roland Perry 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 $billons of investment on which > > their shareholders [many of whom are the consumers' pension funds] > > expect a return, versus many customers who feel entitled to have > > unlimited usage for a relatively trivial monthly payment (which they > > sometimes dress up as "Network Neutrality"). > > > > I post this not to support either of the above points of view, but > > merely to inform readers of the conflict it unquestionably represents. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sat Apr 13 20:30:53 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 20:30:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Question about inappropriate behavior was RE: [] US House Bill ... In-Reply-To: <080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.com> References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.com> Message-ID: michael gurstein 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> 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 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 wrote: > >> Roland Perry 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.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 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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> <080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Michael, I, like Avri have some questions about this post: On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 10:26 AM, michael gurstein 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> <080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.com> <09d201ce38b7$d34a8510$79df8f30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 10:28 PM, michael gurstein 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: References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@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 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/$badthingthat > we don't like? > > I'm inclined to agree with Avri that the letter in reaction to this > bill is a bit of a stretch. > > I also agree with her that it's not a very helpful tone you have > chosen, and join her in asking > if "tone" like this would trigger a warning. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Apr 14 02:38:29 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 08:38:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Question about inappropriate behavior was RE: [] US House Bill ... In-Reply-To: References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130414083829.0945988f@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Avri Doria 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: References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> 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 '. 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 > *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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> 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 > *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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> Message-ID: In message <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40 at email.android.com>, at 20:50:06 on Sat, 13 Apr 2013, Avri Doria 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> <516A6FA6.6070802@itforchange.net> Message-ID: 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <516A6FA6.6070802@itforchange.net> 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 > *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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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> <080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.com> <20130414083829.0945988f@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 2:38 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Avri Doria 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: References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.com> <20130414083829.0945988f@quill.bollow.ch> 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 wrote: >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> Avri Doria 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> <080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.com> <20130414083829.0945988f@quill.bollow.ch> <516AB980.3020405@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Riaz K Tayob 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> Message-ID: > 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> <080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.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 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> <080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.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 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: References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> Message-ID: <9R9mW+WzstaRFAJI@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 15:58:23 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013, Kerry Brown 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> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <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 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 wrote: >> >>> Roland Perry 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: References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> Message-ID: <+BCmiJYOCuaRFA5i@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 15:58:23 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013, Kerry Brown 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> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <9R9mW+WzstaRFAJI@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: > 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> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <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 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 wrote: >> >>> Roland Perry 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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> <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: On 14/04/2013, at 11:26 PM, Milton L Mueller 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <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> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <+BCmiJYOCuaRFA5i@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: On 15/04/2013, at 12:59 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 15:58:23 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013, Kerry Brown 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> <080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.com> <20130414083829.0945988f@quill.bollow.ch> <6C15A96C-05A0-455B-B70D-1D4FE3DE3523@acm.org> Message-ID: 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 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 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <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 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 wrote: >>> >>>> Roland Perry 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> <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> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <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 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 wrote: >>> >>>> Roland Perry 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <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 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 wrote: >>> >>>> Roland Perry 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 Guru at ITforChange.net Mon Apr 15 01:21:22 2013 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:51:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <82DC3510-3E51-4464-BD67-42D0EE5CDA5C@acm.org> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <9R9mW+WzstaRFAJI@internetpolicyagency.com> <82DC3510-3E51-4464-BD67-42D0EE5CDA5C@acm.org> Message-ID: <516B8E52.908@ITforChange.net> On 04/15/2013 06:55 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > 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 Avri Do you think government needs to enforce law. would such enforcement require 'control'? (I think andrea glorioso asked this question in two emails pointedly but i think without response) Guru -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Mon Apr 15 02:44:00 2013 From: matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at (Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at)) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:44:00 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear all, I think we can gain much from the debate of what the Internet is – we probably won’t find consensus, but we will understand the Internet better. International law is charged, inter alia, with regulating global public goods. These are usually defined as non-exclusive and exhibit non-rivalry in the usage. Now, people can be (and unfortunately are being) excluded from (usage of) the Internet. (The non-rivalry aspect can be interesting as an argument against artificially limiting domain name resources and as a argument to strengthen net neutrality). So I have some problems with stating that the Internet is just one global public good like air. Safeguarding the Internet necessitates action; safeguarding air and water prima facie not – of corse, once they are polluted, remedial action is required. Would it make more sense to say that the Internet’s stability, functionality and security (understood as encompassing human rights-sensitivity) is a global public good? Or is that distinction only conceptually interesting? Kind regards Matthias Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von parminder Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2013 06:51 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance 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 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 wrote: Roland Perry 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Apr 15 03:21:50 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 02:21:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear Anriette, Have u checked the definition adopted.by the draft of the INet Bill of Rights (Marco Civil) in Brazil? It is very narrow definition. Im using mobile web now. Let me know if u need help with the translation. Regards Diego On Apr 14, 2013 11:59 AM, "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 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 wrote: > >> > >>> Roland Perry 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 15 04:17:39 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:17:39 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <516BB7A3.8090609@apc.org> Dear Matthias, Parminder and all (thanks for changing the subject-line Parminder) Matthias, yes.. I think this is the kind of conceptual debate that we need to have. Parminder, I like the idea of civil society adopting a 'definition'. But we need to be sure it is one that is robust enough to be used from social, economic and legal perspectives. So perhaps we need some debate and discussion and then come back to your proposed text. Whenever I raise the idea of the internet as a 'global public good' people make similar points to those made by Matthias - and I take these seriously. At the same time I believe that there is a strong movement towards the internet being becoming non-exclusive and non-rivalrous in use. Is that not what we want? So perhaps I am saying I want the internet to be a global public good and to be accepted as such - if not now, in the near future. I sometimes use the rather meaningless term 'public-good-like' entity. Your suggestion makes sense to me, Matthias: "Would it make more sense to say that the Internet’s stability, functionality and security (understood as encompassing human rights-sensitivity) is a global public good? Or is that distinction only conceptually interesting." It is conceptually interesting. The internet is not 'just one thing', as Avri and Parminder's definitions capture. That adds conceptual and legal difficulties. But in terms of the role it plays in cultural, social, economic, political and individual life' it has a distinct identity. We need a debate that involves legal people, activists, and economists. But I believe we should not back down on developing such a definition and advocating for its adoption. Many people will say it is not possible, or will actively not want it. But I believe it is the key to being able to consolidate IG principles, and also to have a clearer understanding of the 'respective' and diverse roles of stakeholders referred to in WSIS documents. In the longer term I think arriving at such an understanding is necessary not just to protect the public interest (which does mean different things to different people, but I won't go there now ) and to preserve what we are referring to as the internet 'commons', but also to help create and maintain a level playing field for the large variety and number of private sector entities and social enterprises that operate on or through the internet. Anriette On 15/04/2013 08:44, Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote: > Dear all, > > I think we can gain much from the debate of what the Internet is – we probably won’t find consensus, but we will understand the Internet better. > > International law is charged, inter alia, with regulating global public goods. These are usually defined as non-exclusive and exhibit non-rivalry in the usage. Now, people can be (and unfortunately are being) excluded from (usage of) the Internet. (The non-rivalry aspect can be interesting as an argument against artificially limiting domain name resources and as a argument to strengthen net neutrality). > > So I have some problems with stating that the Internet is just one global public good like air. Safeguarding the Internet necessitates action; safeguarding air and water prima facie not – of corse, once they are polluted, remedial action is required. > > Would it make more sense to say that the Internet’s stability, functionality and security (understood as encompassing human rights-sensitivity) is a global public good? Or is that distinction only conceptually interesting? > > Kind regards > Matthias > > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von parminder > Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2013 06:51 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance > > > > 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 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 wrote: > > > > Roland Perry 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 Mon Apr 15 04:39:14 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 01:39:14 -0700 Subject: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <516BB7A3.8090609@apc.org> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> <516BB7A3.8090609@apc.org> Message-ID: <00fc01ce39b4$bbbcc450$33364cf0$@gmail.com> I sent this email below just after Christmas last year so folks must have missed it... The application of the concept of a "global public good" to the Internet was discussed at some length as part of a broader re-definition of global public goods initiated through the UNDP and the Human Development Report and particularly in the work of the German/UN economist Inge Kaul. (this below was as part of an on-going discussion with Michael Lebrant covering much the same ground as is being covered here. M ---------------------------------------------- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 9:20 AM To: 'Michael Leibrandt'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org' Subject: RE: [governance] FW: Towards the Internet as a Global Public Good: A Seasonal Wish to One and All: Hi Michael, Thanks for raising the issues that you do. I`m not an economist but in reviewing your comments I realize that I should have mentioned in the blogpost that rather than referring to the mainstream perspective on Global Public Goods (GPG) (as evidenced by the Wikipedia reference), my own thinking in this area was formed largely by the work of a Inge Kaul when and after she was working with the UNDP and specifically on the UN Human Development Report and the International Task Force on Global Public Goods. In her discussion, rather than seeing GPG as a ``market failure`` counterpart to private (market) goods, as neo-classical economists would have it, she developed (through linking her discussion to Ostrom among others) a ``positive`` perspective on GPG`s as an element in achieving what she calls active policy driven objectives (and specifically linking these with civil society and the broad public interest including in areas of global social and economic justice and environmental management). I believe that her approach to GPG`s is directly consistent with a public interest approach to the global development and ``management`` of the Internet. http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf (Note that I`ve updated my GPG link in the blogpost.) Best, Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 1:18 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) Cc: parminder Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance Dear Matthias, Parminder and all (thanks for changing the subject-line Parminder) Matthias, yes.. I think this is the kind of conceptual debate that we need to have. Parminder, I like the idea of civil society adopting a 'definition'. But we need to be sure it is one that is robust enough to be used from social, economic and legal perspectives. So perhaps we need some debate and discussion and then come back to your proposed text. Whenever I raise the idea of the internet as a 'global public good' people make similar points to those made by Matthias - and I take these seriously. At the same time I believe that there is a strong movement towards the internet being becoming non-exclusive and non-rivalrous in use. Is that not what we want? So perhaps I am saying I want the internet to be a global public good and to be accepted as such - if not now, in the near future. I sometimes use the rather meaningless term 'public-good-like' entity. Your suggestion makes sense to me, Matthias: "Would it make more sense to say that the Internet’s stability, functionality and security (understood as encompassing human rights-sensitivity) is a global public good? Or is that distinction only conceptually interesting." It is conceptually interesting. The internet is not 'just one thing', as Avri and Parminder's definitions capture. That adds conceptual and legal difficulties. But in terms of the role it plays in cultural, social, economic, political and individual life' it has a distinct identity. We need a debate that involves legal people, activists, and economists. But I believe we should not back down on developing such a definition and advocating for its adoption. Many people will say it is not possible, or will actively not want it. But I believe it is the key to being able to consolidate IG principles, and also to have a clearer understanding of the 'respective' and diverse roles of stakeholders referred to in WSIS documents. In the longer term I think arriving at such an understanding is necessary not just to protect the public interest (which does mean different things to different people, but I won't go there now ) and to preserve what we are referring to as the internet 'commons', but also to help create and maintain a level playing field for the large variety and number of private sector entities and social enterprises that operate on or through the internet. Anriette On 15/04/2013 08:44, Kettemann, Matthias ( matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote: > Dear all, > > I think we can gain much from the debate of what the Internet is – we probably won’t find consensus, but we will understand the Internet better. > > International law is charged, inter alia, with regulating global public goods. These are usually defined as non-exclusive and exhibit non-rivalry in the usage. Now, people can be (and unfortunately are being) excluded from (usage of) the Internet. (The non-rivalry aspect can be interesting as an argument against artificially limiting domain name resources and as a argument to strengthen net neutrality). > > So I have some problems with stating that the Internet is just one global public good like air. Safeguarding the Internet necessitates action; safeguarding air and water prima facie not – of corse, once they are polluted, remedial action is required. > > Would it make more sense to say that the Internet’s stability, functionality and security (understood as encompassing human rights-sensitivity) is a global public good? Or is that distinction only conceptually interesting? > > Kind regards > Matthias > > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [ mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von > parminder > Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2013 06:51 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, > Conflicts in Internet Governance > > > > 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>< mailto: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>< mailto:nb at bollow.ch> wrote: > > > > Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com>< mailto: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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Philipp.Mirtl at oiip.ac.at Mon Apr 15 04:54:56 2013 From: Philipp.Mirtl at oiip.ac.at (Philipp Mirtl) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:54:56 +0000 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <00fc01ce39b4$bbbcc450$33364cf0$@gmail.com> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> <516BB7A3.8090609@apc.org> <00fc01ce39b4$bbbcc450$33364cf0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <226802F2536F4F4D838639571C930BE8077C10@OIIP-W9-SRV001.OIIP.local> Dear all, I find Parminder’s definition of the Internet as both a common (non-exclusive/rivalrous) as well as a public good (non-exclusive/non-rivalrous) interesting. I think there is a vivid discussion on this which is probably why this point has potential to go beyond its conceptual nature: 1. Rosenzweig (2011), “Cybersecurity and Public Goods. The Public/Private ‘Partnership’”, http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/EmergingThreats_Rosenzweig.pdf (e.g., see figure on p. 8), which defines the “early Internet” – as Avri did below – as having been a commons. 2. Bauer/van Eeten (2009), “Cybersecurity: Stakeholder incentives, externalities, and policy options”, which argues – similar, but not identical to Matthias’ argument – that cyber security “has strong public good characteristics”. When applied to the Internet, this seems to me to be sort of consistent with Anriette’s term “public-good-like” 3. I am sure there is a bunch of other articles on this I also think that a positive perspective on global public goods makes good sense, especially when viewed in light of Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote on knowledge: “he who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.” Personally, I think Anriette’s point is quite interesting, holding that it is probably difficult to define the Internet as 'just one thing'. But maybe parts of it fall into one of the above categories? Best, Philipp Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von michael gurstein Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2013 10:39 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Anriette Esterhuysen'; 'Kettemann, Matthias' Cc: 'parminder' Betreff: RE: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance I sent this email below just after Christmas last year so folks must have missed it... The application of the concept of a "global public good" to the Internet was discussed at some length as part of a broader re-definition of global public goods initiated through the UNDP and the Human Development Report and particularly in the work of the German/UN economist Inge Kaul. (this below was as part of an on-going discussion with Michael Lebrant covering much the same ground as is being covered here. M ---------------------------------------------- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 9:20 AM To: 'Michael Leibrandt'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org' Subject: RE: [governance] FW: Towards the Internet as a Global Public Good: A Seasonal Wish to One and All: Hi Michael, Thanks for raising the issues that you do. I`m not an economist but in reviewing your comments I realize that I should have mentioned in the blogpost that rather than referring to the mainstream perspective on Global Public Goods (GPG) (as evidenced by the Wikipedia reference), my own thinking in this area was formed largely by the work of a Inge Kaul when and after she was working with the UNDP and specifically on the UN Human Development Report and the International Task Force on Global Public Goods. In her discussion, rather than seeing GPG as a ``market failure`` counterpart to private (market) goods, as neo-classical economists would have it, she developed (through linking her discussion to Ostrom among others) a ``positive`` perspective on GPG`s as an element in achieving what she calls active policy driven objectives (and specifically linking these with civil society and the broad public interest including in areas of global social and economic justice and environmental management). I believe that her approach to GPG`s is directly consistent with a public interest approach to the global development and ``management`` of the Internet. http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf (Note that I`ve updated my GPG link in the blogpost.) Best, Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 1:18 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) Cc: parminder Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance Dear Matthias, Parminder and all (thanks for changing the subject-line Parminder) Matthias, yes.. I think this is the kind of conceptual debate that we need to have. Parminder, I like the idea of civil society adopting a 'definition'. But we need to be sure it is one that is robust enough to be used from social, economic and legal perspectives. So perhaps we need some debate and discussion and then come back to your proposed text. Whenever I raise the idea of the internet as a 'global public good' people make similar points to those made by Matthias - and I take these seriously. At the same time I believe that there is a strong movement towards the internet being becoming non-exclusive and non-rivalrous in use. Is that not what we want? So perhaps I am saying I want the internet to be a global public good and to be accepted as such - if not now, in the near future. I sometimes use the rather meaningless term 'public-good-like' entity. Your suggestion makes sense to me, Matthias: "Would it make more sense to say that the Internet’s stability, functionality and security (understood as encompassing human rights-sensitivity) is a global public good? Or is that distinction only conceptually interesting." It is conceptually interesting. The internet is not 'just one thing', as Avri and Parminder's definitions capture. That adds conceptual and legal difficulties. But in terms of the role it plays in cultural, social, economic, political and individual life' it has a distinct identity. We need a debate that involves legal people, activists, and economists. But I believe we should not back down on developing such a definition and advocating for its adoption. Many people will say it is not possible, or will actively not want it. But I believe it is the key to being able to consolidate IG principles, and also to have a clearer understanding of the 'respective' and diverse roles of stakeholders referred to in WSIS documents. In the longer term I think arriving at such an understanding is necessary not just to protect the public interest (which does mean different things to different people, but I won't go there now ) and to preserve what we are referring to as the internet 'commons', but also to help create and maintain a level playing field for the large variety and number of private sector entities and social enterprises that operate on or through the internet. Anriette On 15/04/2013 08:44, Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote: > Dear all, > > I think we can gain much from the debate of what the Internet is – we probably won’t find consensus, but we will understand the Internet better. > > International law is charged, inter alia, with regulating global public goods. These are usually defined as non-exclusive and exhibit non-rivalry in the usage. Now, people can be (and unfortunately are being) excluded from (usage of) the Internet. (The non-rivalry aspect can be interesting as an argument against artificially limiting domain name resources and as a argument to strengthen net neutrality). > > So I have some problems with stating that the Internet is just one global public good like air. Safeguarding the Internet necessitates action; safeguarding air and water prima facie not – of corse, once they are polluted, remedial action is required. > > Would it make more sense to say that the Internet’s stability, functionality and security (understood as encompassing human rights-sensitivity) is a global public good? Or is that distinction only conceptually interesting? > > Kind regards > Matthias > > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von > parminder > Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2013 06:51 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, > Conflicts in Internet Governance > > > > 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 > 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 > wrote: > > > > Roland Perry > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 05:23:48 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:53:48 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <516BC724.6030001@itforchange.net> On Monday 15 April 2013 12:14 PM, Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote: > > Dear all, > > I think we can gain much from the debate of what the Internet is – we > probably won’t find consensus, but we will understand the Internet > better. > > International law is charged, inter alia, with regulating global > public goods. These are usually defined as non-exclusive and exhibit > non-rivalry in the usage. Now, people can be (and unfortunately are > being) excluded from (usage of) the Internet. (The non-rivalry aspect > can be interesting as an argument against artificially limiting domain > name resources and as a argument to strengthen net neutrality). > > So I have some problems with stating that the Internet is just one > global public good like air. Safeguarding the Internet necessitates > action; safeguarding air and water prima facie not – of corse, once > they are polluted, remedial action is required. > > Would it make more sense to say that the Internet’s stability, > functionality and security (understood as encompassing human > rights-sensitivity) is a global public good? Or is that distinction > only conceptually interesting? > I think in getting descriptive we may open up new discussions (for instance, 'which kinds of functionalities are included here and which not). Now when education is considered as a public good, of course not all kinds of education are included. Similarly, Internet as a public good would not mean that all kinds of online games for instance have to provided free to everyone. It only builds a certain orientation to how we socially see the Internet, in a somewhat loose sense. As we see basic education and health, which then determines our policy orientation to these sectors.... In any case, I think Internet can hardly be separated from its (basic) functionality and seen without it, at least not for common people/ users of the Internet. best, parminder > > Kind regards > > Matthias > > *Von:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *Im Auftrag von *parminder > *Gesendet:* Montag, 15. April 2013 06:51 > *An:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Betreff:* [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, > Conflicts in Internet Governance > > > 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 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 wrote: > > > > Roland Perry 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Apr 15 05:34:20 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:34:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <+BCmiJYOCuaRFA5i@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <84m2sQ2cm8aRFAbu@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 10:36:09 on Mon, 15 Apr 2013, David Cake writes >> 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. Agreed. I have come away from such meetings with a much clearer view of the implications (eg) of Cloud Computing. But I'd be disappointed if many of the attendees arrived not knowing what Cloud Computing was, and intending to find out. -- 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Apr 15 05:39:13 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:39:13 +0900 Subject: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <226802F2536F4F4D838639571C930BE8077C10@OIIP-W9-SRV001.OIIP.local> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> <516BB7A3.8090609@apc.org> <00fc01ce39b4$bbbcc450$33364cf0$@gmail.com> <226802F2536F4F4D838639571C930BE8077C10@OIIP-W9-SRV001.OIIP.local> Message-ID: Hi, The ITU SG's Report for WTPF-13 contains the following, page 8: o) Today, the Internet is becoming “one of the basic commodities of life” and various studies have cited the information and knowledge provided over the Internet as examples of global public goods and this footnote from the para: “Knowledge as a Global Public Good”, Joseph Stiglitz, available at: http://cgt.columbia.edu/files/papers/1999_Knowledge_as_Global_Public_Good_stiglitz.pdf. A chapter in Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globalization argues that telecommunications and the Internet are themselves global public goods; however, most observers agree that it is the knowledge and information provided over the Internet which are non-rivalrous and non-excludable, rather than the networks (which may be rivalrous and excludable). See also the ICT For Development Report (World Bank, 2009) and “Confronting the Crisis: ICT Stimulus Plans for Economic Growth” (ITU, 2009). (end quote) Expect at some point we will think about submitting comments to WTPF, this short para and footnote might be worth focusing on. Networks/access may be rivalrous and excludable. What runs over the Internet, non-rivalrous and non-excludable Critical internet resources, rivalrous and excludable. And should be managed to minimize former, and if we hold this to be true "[Internet is becoming] one of the basic commodities of life" must be managed to prevent exclusion... which I think means we should re-write the "U.S. Principles on the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System" from June 2005, and then the IANA contract :-) Adam On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Philipp Mirtl wrote: > Dear all, > > > > I find Parminder’s definition of the Internet as both a common > (non-exclusive/rivalrous) as well as a public good > (non-exclusive/non-rivalrous) interesting. I think there is a vivid > discussion on this which is probably why this point has potential to go > beyond its conceptual nature: > > > > 1. Rosenzweig (2011), “Cybersecurity and Public Goods. The > Public/Private ‘Partnership’”, > http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/EmergingThreats_Rosenzweig.pdf > (e.g., see figure on p. 8), which defines the “early Internet” – as Avri > did below – as having been a commons. > > > > 2. Bauer/van Eeten (2009), “Cybersecurity: Stakeholder > incentives, externalities, and policy options”, which argues – similar, but > not identical to Matthias’ argument – that cyber security “has strong public > good characteristics”. When applied to the Internet, this seems to me to be > sort of consistent with Anriette’s term “public-good-like” > > > > 3. I am sure there is a bunch of other articles on this > > > > I also think that a positive perspective on global public goods makes good > sense, especially when viewed in light of Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote on > knowledge: “he who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself > without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light > without darkening me.” > > > > Personally, I think Anriette’s point is quite interesting, holding that it > is probably difficult to define the Internet as 'just one thing'. But maybe > parts of it fall into one of the above categories? > > > > Best, > > > > Philipp > > > > > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von michael > gurstein > Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2013 10:39 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Anriette Esterhuysen'; 'Kettemann, > Matthias' > Cc: 'parminder' > Betreff: RE: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, > Conflicts in Internet Governance > > > > I sent this email below just after Christmas last year so folks must have > missed it... The application of the concept of a "global public good" to the > Internet was discussed at some length as part of a broader re-definition of > global public goods initiated through the UNDP and the Human Development > Report and particularly in the work of the German/UN economist Inge Kaul. > (this below was as part of an on-going discussion with Michael Lebrant > covering much the same ground as is being covered here. > > > > M > > > > ---------------------------------------------- > > From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 9:20 AM > > To: 'Michael Leibrandt'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org' > > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: Towards the Internet as a Global Public Good: > A Seasonal Wish to One and All: > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > Thanks for raising the issues that you do. I`m not an economist but in > reviewing your comments I realize that I should have mentioned in the > blogpost that rather than referring to the mainstream perspective on Global > Public Goods (GPG) (as evidenced by the Wikipedia reference), my own > thinking in this area was formed largely by the work of a Inge Kaul when and > after she was working with the UNDP and specifically on the UN Human > Development Report and the International Task Force on Global Public Goods. > > > > In her discussion, rather than seeing GPG as a ``market failure`` > counterpart to private (market) goods, as neo-classical economists would > have it, she developed (through linking her discussion to Ostrom among > others) a ``positive`` perspective on GPG`s as an element in achieving what > she calls active policy driven objectives (and specifically linking these > with civil society and the broad public interest including in areas of > global social and economic justice and environmental management). I believe > that her approach to GPG`s is directly consistent with a public interest > approach to the global development and ``management`` of the Internet. > > > > http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf (Note that I`ve > updated my GPG link in the blogpost.) > > > > Best, > > > > Mike > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette > Esterhuysen > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 1:18 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kettemann, Matthias > (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) > Cc: parminder > Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, > Conflicts in Internet Governance > > > > Dear Matthias, Parminder and all (thanks for changing the subject-line > > Parminder) > > > > Matthias, yes.. I think this is the kind of conceptual debate that we need > to have. > > > > Parminder, I like the idea of civil society adopting a 'definition'. But we > need to be sure it is one that is robust enough to be used from social, > economic and legal perspectives. So perhaps we need some debate and > discussion and then come back to your proposed text. > > > > Whenever I raise the idea of the internet as a 'global public good' > > people make similar points to those made by Matthias - and I take these > seriously. At the same time I believe that there is a strong movement > towards the internet being becoming non-exclusive and non-rivalrous in use. > Is that not what we want? So perhaps I am saying I want the internet to be > a global public good and to be accepted as such - if not now, in the near > future. > > > > I sometimes use the rather meaningless term 'public-good-like' entity. > > Your suggestion makes sense to me, Matthias: > > > > "Would it make more sense to say that the Internet’s stability, > functionality and security (understood as encompassing human > > rights-sensitivity) is a global public good? Or is that distinction only > conceptually interesting." > > > > It is conceptually interesting. The internet is not 'just one thing', as > Avri and Parminder's definitions capture. That adds conceptual and legal > difficulties. But in terms of the role it plays in cultural, social, > economic, political and individual life' it has a distinct identity. > > > > We need a debate that involves legal people, activists, and economists. > > But I believe we should not back down on developing such a definition and > advocating for its adoption. Many people will say it is not possible, or > will actively not want it. But I believe it is the key to being able to > consolidate IG principles, and also to have a clearer understanding of the > 'respective' and diverse roles of stakeholders referred to in WSIS > documents. > > > > In the longer term I think arriving at such an understanding is necessary > not just to protect the public interest (which does mean different things to > different people, but I won't go there now ) and to preserve what we are > referring to as the internet 'commons', but also to help create and maintain > a level playing field for the large variety and number of private sector > entities and social enterprises that operate on or through the internet. > > > > Anriette > > > > > > On 15/04/2013 08:44, Kettemann, Matthias > > (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote: > >> Dear all, > >> > >> I think we can gain much from the debate of what the Internet is – we >> probably won’t find consensus, but we will understand the Internet better. > >> > >> International law is charged, inter alia, with regulating global public >> goods. These are usually defined as non-exclusive and exhibit non-rivalry in >> the usage. Now, people can be (and unfortunately are being) excluded from >> (usage of) the Internet. (The non-rivalry aspect can be interesting as an >> argument against artificially limiting domain name resources and as a >> argument to strengthen net neutrality). > >> > >> So I have some problems with stating that the Internet is just one global >> public good like air. Safeguarding the Internet necessitates action; >> safeguarding air and water prima facie not – of corse, once they are >> polluted, remedial action is required. > >> > >> Would it make more sense to say that the Internet’s stability, >> functionality and security (understood as encompassing human >> rights-sensitivity) is a global public good? Or is that distinction only >> conceptually interesting? > >> > >> Kind regards > >> Matthias > >> > >> > >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von > >> parminder > >> Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2013 06:51 > >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> Betreff: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, > >> Conflicts in Internet Governance > >> > >> > >> > >> 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 >> 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 >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> Roland Perry >> >> 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Apr 15 05:38:23 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:38:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <82DC3510-3E51-4464-BD67-42D0EE5CDA5C@acm.org> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <9R9mW+WzstaRFAJI@internetpolicyagency.com> <82DC3510-3E51-4464-BD67-42D0EE5CDA5C@acm.org> Message-ID: In message <82DC3510-3E51-4464-BD67-42D0EE5CDA5C at acm.org>, at 21:25:41 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013, Avri Doria writes >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. So not in fact dissimilar in concept to something like "international travel", which is also a great enabler and even regarded by some as a "right" (with which may come some responsibilities). The problem is, governing "international travel" requires attention to be paid to individual aspects of it (in different ways and to different extents). So there's policies surrounding immigration, visas and passports; public health issues to do with vaccinations and pest control, certification of airports, planes and pilots, and even mundane stuff like the size of baggage allowances, what happens about lost/damaged bags, and getting a refund if the airline delays you. Each of these (like each of the aspects of "the Internet" you list above) has to be discussed on its own merits, and there's often little overlap (eg between the mandatory training a pilot gets and how easy it is to get a visa). And governments have, over the years, found many reason to "control" numerous of the aspects I listed above. Often because of pressure from the public, rather than simply because they like wielding the power for its own sake. I think we should apply this approach to the Internet, and look at whether "Government control" is appropriate for each part separately, because it's not possible to make a sole "yes/no" decision about control, a decision that that would apply to everything to do with the Internet. Just think of the outcry if governments declared that privacy law no longer applied to the Internet, and that anyone (including themselves) could freely snoop on what everyone else was doing. >I beleive "no government interference" is an inaccurate representation of what I wish for. I wish for "no government control," Fair enough, I'm happy to go with your terminology. [In another posting to the list yesterday, there seemed to be a suggestion that someone (presumably government) should exercise some control over Google's network deployment in Kansas. I mention this merely to highlight that different people have different views about many things, especially statutory "universal service obligations".] > I also wish for government participation as equal/equivalent stakeholders in Internet governance. Yes, participation is essential. -- 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 nashton at consensus.pro Mon Apr 15 06:08:44 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:08:44 +0000 Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A8071@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <0000013e0d2b07e6-e37c3694-e007-4f38-bea6-5c07719b5bf5-000000@email.amazonses.com> "Compromise" with countries like those below isn't in the interests of anyone except the leaders of those countries. On 15 Apr 2013, at 02:37, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 15 06:15:04 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:15:04 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <00fc01ce39b4$bbbcc450$33364cf0$@gmail.com> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> <516BB7A3.8090609@apc.org> <00fc01ce39b4$bbbcc450$33364cf0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <516BD328.1010406@apc.org> Dear Michael I do remember this. Thanks for the reminder. Inge does not dwell on the internet that much.. but raises really useful, and relevant questions. APC has proposed a workshop on this topic for the IGF. Do you think there is any chance that we can get Inge Caul to attend the IGF to speak at this workshop? She might also be a good speaker for one of the main sessions on 'IG principles' if we have one. She is based in Berlin, Jeanette, Wolfgang... do you know her? Here is what she says about new definitions of public goods in the paper Michael sent: "The analysis in this paper suggests that the present standard definition of public goods is of limited analytical, and therefore also, limited practical-political value. This is not a new insight. In effect, an extensive literature exists critiquing the standard definition of public goods. But so far, no revised definition has emerged. In part I of this paper we will, therefore, attempt such a redefinition. The proposal is to require public goods to be inclusive (public in consumption), based on participatory decision-making (public in provision) and offering a fair deal for all (public in the distribution of benefits)." Anriette On 15/04/2013 10:39, michael gurstein wrote: > I sent this email below just after Christmas last year so folks must have missed it... The application of the concept of a "global public good" to the Internet was discussed at some length as part of a broader re-definition of global public goods initiated through the UNDP and the Human Development Report and particularly in the work of the German/UN economist Inge Kaul. (this below was as part of an on-going discussion with Michael Lebrant covering much the same ground as is being covered here. > > > > M > > > > ---------------------------------------------- > > From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 9:20 AM > > To: 'Michael Leibrandt'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org' > > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: Towards the Internet as a Global Public Good: A Seasonal Wish to One and All: > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > Thanks for raising the issues that you do. I`m not an economist but in reviewing your comments I realize that I should have mentioned in the blogpost that rather than referring to the mainstream perspective on Global Public Goods (GPG) (as evidenced by the Wikipedia reference), my own thinking in this area was formed largely by the work of a Inge Kaul when and after she was working with the UNDP and specifically on the UN Human Development Report and the International Task Force on Global Public Goods. > > > > In her discussion, rather than seeing GPG as a ``market failure`` counterpart to private (market) goods, as neo-classical economists would have it, she developed (through linking her discussion to Ostrom among others) a ``positive`` perspective on GPG`s as an element in achieving what she calls active policy driven objectives (and specifically linking these with civil society and the broad public interest including in areas of global social and economic justice and environmental management). I believe that her approach to GPG`s is directly consistent with a public interest approach to the global development and ``management`` of the Internet. > > > > http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf (Note that I`ve updated my GPG link in the blogpost.) > > > > Best, > > > > Mike > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 1:18 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) > Cc: parminder > Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance > > > > Dear Matthias, Parminder and all (thanks for changing the subject-line > > Parminder) > > > > Matthias, yes.. I think this is the kind of conceptual debate that we need to have. > > > > Parminder, I like the idea of civil society adopting a 'definition'. But we need to be sure it is one that is robust enough to be used from social, economic and legal perspectives. So perhaps we need some debate and discussion and then come back to your proposed text. > > > > Whenever I raise the idea of the internet as a 'global public good' > > people make similar points to those made by Matthias - and I take these seriously. At the same time I believe that there is a strong movement towards the internet being becoming non-exclusive and non-rivalrous in use. Is that not what we want? So perhaps I am saying I want the internet to be a global public good and to be accepted as such - if not now, in the near future. > > > > I sometimes use the rather meaningless term 'public-good-like' entity. > > Your suggestion makes sense to me, Matthias: > > > > "Would it make more sense to say that the Internet’s stability, functionality and security (understood as encompassing human > > rights-sensitivity) is a global public good? Or is that distinction only conceptually interesting." > > > > It is conceptually interesting. The internet is not 'just one thing', as Avri and Parminder's definitions capture. That adds conceptual and legal difficulties. But in terms of the role it plays in cultural, social, economic, political and individual life' it has a distinct identity. > > > > We need a debate that involves legal people, activists, and economists. > > But I believe we should not back down on developing such a definition and advocating for its adoption. Many people will say it is not possible, or will actively not want it. But I believe it is the key to being able to consolidate IG principles, and also to have a clearer understanding of the 'respective' and diverse roles of stakeholders referred to in WSIS documents. > > In the longer term I think arriving at such an understanding is necessary not just to protect the public interest (which does mean different things to different people, but I won't go there now ) and to preserve what we are referring to as the internet 'commons', but also to help create and maintain a level playing field for the large variety and number of private sector entities and social enterprises that operate on or through the internet. > > > > Anriette > > > > > > On 15/04/2013 08:44, Kettemann, Matthias > > ( matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote: > >> Dear all, >> I think we can gain much from the debate of what the Internet is – we probably won’t find consensus, but we will understand the Internet better. >> International law is charged, inter alia, with regulating global public goods. These are usually defined as non-exclusive and exhibit non-rivalry in the usage. Now, people can be (and unfortunately are being) excluded from (usage of) the Internet. (The non-rivalry aspect can be interesting as an argument against artificially limiting domain name resources and as a argument to strengthen net neutrality). >> So I have some problems with stating that the Internet is just one global public good like air. Safeguarding the Internet necessitates action; safeguarding air and water prima facie not – of corse, once they are polluted, remedial action is required. >> Would it make more sense to say that the Internet’s stability, functionality and security (understood as encompassing human rights-sensitivity) is a global public good? Or is that distinction only conceptually interesting? >> Kind regards >> Matthias >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [ mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von >> parminder >> Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2013 06:51 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Betreff: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, >> Conflicts in Internet Governance >> 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>< mailto: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>< mailto:nb at bollow.ch> wrote: >> Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com>< mailto: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 > > > > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ 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 Mon Apr 15 06:16:59 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:16:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <1A69CA05-6519-4CCE-BD08-76C735A603C4@acm.org> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <002701ce3941$4ad566c0$e0803440$@gmail.com> <1A69CA05-6519-4CCE-BD08-76C735A603C4@acm.org> Message-ID: <1L3EwU8bO9aRFAJZ@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <1A69CA05-6519-4CCE-BD08-76C735A603C4 at acm.org>, at 00:39:31 on Mon, 15 Apr 2013, Avri Doria writes >Some of the things I think of as government enabled theft in the Internet: > >- trademark of common words, on the Internet or in general. One of the fundamental principles of the Internet is the facilitation provided by uniqueness. Whether that's IP addresses, email addresses, or labels we attach to things. Trademarks (in the bricks and mortar world) are simply a way for someone to protect the uniqueness of their product names, which also helps avoid confusion in the minds of consumers. If someone wishes to Trademark a common (or generic) word, it can be very difficult. But once a Trademark has been "won" it should apply to any situation where the assumption of uniqueness might cause confusion if not enforced. In the bricks and mortar world, one way of determining whether confusion might arise is by also taking into account the type of business. Therefore a recording company and a PC manufacturer both called "Apple" only risk confusion arising if they drift into one another's line of work. Yesterday I bought some petrol (aka gas) for my car at a filling station branded "Apple" (a complete co-incidence, I've never shopped there before). Who should be entitled to labels like "apple.music" and "apple.pc", well I hope good sense would prevail (and I exclude here any licencing agreements which might or might not be in force in this particular example). apple.com? Well that's where policy making has to be involved (first come first served vs an auction being likely candidates). Governments can be a stakeholder in such a debate, but also have a role to play confirming the registration of the original trademark. >- exorbitant fees for wireless bandwidth/access charged in some regions, especially when protected by government sanction mono/duopololy Fees charged for bandwidth and access have two components, one is the cost of supply (which can vary enormously on the territory and the access method) and the other is the profit element. I completely agree that excessive profits should be curbed, but that usually requires government intervention, rather than a lack of government control. Government imposed monopolies are often a bad idea, but that's not something which is unique to the Internet. -- 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 Mon Apr 15 06:19:35 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 12:19:35 +0200 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> <080901ce3852$dd763b70$9862b250$@gmail.com> <20130414083829.0945988f@quill.bollow.ch> <6C15A96C-05A0-455B-B70D-1D4FE3DE3523@acm.org> Message-ID: <20130415121935.3cc5086d@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Avri Doria : > BTW is this a a warning that if if i discuss such subject i am > infringing the rules of this list? No. If I recommend or discourage something, that is not intended to imply that acting to the contrary would infringe the rules of this list. I discourage seeking caselaw on what is or isn't acceptable wording in postings because the process of bringing up words that someone else has used, and criticizing their words (as opposed to just addressing the substantive content in a constructive manner) is not conductive to having a climate of constructive substantive discussion. What I have written here is to some extent a special case of the recommendation that I made earlier to generally avoid ad hominem references of any kind unless they are clearly friendly: It is not really possible to claim that some remark constitutes unacceptable behavior without at least implicitly making an unfriendly ad hominem reference to the author of the remark. (In fact it might easily be in fact a personal attack on the author of the original remark, and in that case it is not only contrary to my recommendation but also against the posting rules.) Also, whatever was wrong with the original remark is not likely to be made better by repeating it for the sake of criticizing the remark, and it is likely to come up again if/when the original author of the remark and/or people with similar viewpoint defend it, etc. Some kinds of remarks have the effect of turning the IGC into an environment with so much hostility that it is not conductive to constructive discussion. That is the problem to which the coordinators need to offer a solution. If I as one of the coordinators chose to participate in discussions about whether specific remarks have violated the posting rules, would that help to achieve the objective of facilitating constructive discussions? I believe that it would do the opposite. And I further believe that such discussions in the absence of participation of the coordinators are not helpful either. Let us look for a better way forward. The general recommendation about ad hominem remarks intentionally goes above and beyond the posting rules of the IGC Charter. To the extent that this recommendation goes beyond those rules, it will of course not be enforced. I believe that whether we will succeed in significantly improving to climate of discussions in IGC, to make it a less hostile place, more conductive to constructive discussions, will depend primarily on whether sufficiently many of the more active participants in this group will choose to follow this recommendation about ad hominem remarks, or something similar. This recommendation can of course be discussed and refined, and I think that it would be worthwhile to do so - certainly more worthwhile than trying to work out precise caselaw on the boundaries of the posting rules. Precisely knowing the boundaries of the posting rules is not going to significantly help to solve the problem that we have in the IGC, but avoiding unfriendly ad hominem references more generally (i.e. also outside the contexts of personal attacks and outside of clearly increasing the degree of hostility of the overall climate of interaction in IGC) will help significantly. I certainly hope that sufficiently many of the people here value the intended outcome of having a more productive discussion space highly enough that they are willing to choose the words in their postings in a way that is conductive to achieving that outcome. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Apr 15 06:22:23 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:22:23 +0800 Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <0000013e0d2b07e6-e37c3694-e007-4f38-bea6-5c07719b5bf5-000000@email.amazonses.com> References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A8071@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0000013e0d2b07e6-e37c3694-e007-4f38-bea6-5c07719b5bf5-000000@email.amazonses.com> Message-ID: <516BD4DF.2090702@ciroap.org> On 15/04/13 18:08, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > "Compromise" with countries like those below isn't in the interests of > anyone except the leaders of those countries. Since "those below" included the United States, I certainly agree with you. But there are 190 other countries in the world, many of which are more reasonable to deal with. ;-) -- *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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 06:27:24 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:57:24 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <516BD328.1010406@apc.org> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> <516BB7A3.8090609@apc.org> <00fc01ce39b4$bbbcc450$33364cf0$@gmail.com> <516BD328.1010406@apc.org> Message-ID: <516BD60C.5010401@itforchange.net> Yes, we can asterisk our definition with a footnote that we follow a broader socio-political conception of public goods as for instance articulted by Kaul in this UNDP publication rather than the narrow definition used by economists in determining and following up on market failure. On Monday 15 April 2013 03:45 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Michael > > I do remember this. Thanks for the reminder. Inge does not dwell on the > internet that much.. but raises really useful, and relevant questions. > > APC has proposed a workshop on this topic for the IGF. > > Do you think there is any chance that we can get Inge Caul to attend the > IGF to speak at this workshop? She might also be a good speaker for one > of the main sessions on 'IG principles' if we have one. > > She is based in Berlin, Jeanette, Wolfgang... do you know her? > > Here is what she says about new definitions of public goods in the > paper Michael sent: > > "The analysis in this paper suggests that the present standard > definition of public > goods is of limited analytical, and therefore also, limited > practical-political value. This is > not a new insight. In effect, an extensive literature exists critiquing > the standard > definition of public goods. But so far, no revised definition has > emerged. In part I of this > paper we will, therefore, attempt such a redefinition. The proposal is > to require public > goods to be inclusive (public in consumption), based on participatory > decision-making > (public in provision) and offering a fair deal for all (public in the > distribution of benefits)." > > Anriette > > > On 15/04/2013 10:39, michael gurstein wrote: >> I sent this email below just after Christmas last year so folks must have missed it... The application of the concept of a "global public good" to the Internet was discussed at some length as part of a broader re-definition of global public goods initiated through the UNDP and the Human Development Report and particularly in the work of the German/UN economist Inge Kaul. (this below was as part of an on-going discussion with Michael Lebrant covering much the same ground as is being covered here. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------- >> >> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 9:20 AM >> >> To: 'Michael Leibrandt'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org' >> >> Subject: RE: [governance] FW: Towards the Internet as a Global Public Good: A Seasonal Wish to One and All: >> >> >> >> Hi Michael, >> >> >> >> Thanks for raising the issues that you do. I`m not an economist but in reviewing your comments I realize that I should have mentioned in the blogpost that rather than referring to the mainstream perspective on Global Public Goods (GPG) (as evidenced by the Wikipedia reference), my own thinking in this area was formed largely by the work of a Inge Kaul when and after she was working with the UNDP and specifically on the UN Human Development Report and the International Task Force on Global Public Goods. >> >> >> >> In her discussion, rather than seeing GPG as a ``market failure`` counterpart to private (market) goods, as neo-classical economists would have it, she developed (through linking her discussion to Ostrom among others) a ``positive`` perspective on GPG`s as an element in achieving what she calls active policy driven objectives (and specifically linking these with civil society and the broad public interest including in areas of global social and economic justice and environmental management). I believe that her approach to GPG`s is directly consistent with a public interest approach to the global development and ``management`` of the Internet. >> >> >> >> http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf (Note that I`ve updated my GPG link in the blogpost.) >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen >> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 1:18 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) >> Cc: parminder >> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance >> >> >> >> Dear Matthias, Parminder and all (thanks for changing the subject-line >> >> Parminder) >> >> >> >> Matthias, yes.. I think this is the kind of conceptual debate that we need to have. >> >> >> >> Parminder, I like the idea of civil society adopting a 'definition'. But we need to be sure it is one that is robust enough to be used from social, economic and legal perspectives. So perhaps we need some debate and discussion and then come back to your proposed text. >> >> >> >> Whenever I raise the idea of the internet as a 'global public good' >> >> people make similar points to those made by Matthias - and I take these seriously. At the same time I believe that there is a strong movement towards the internet being becoming non-exclusive and non-rivalrous in use. Is that not what we want? So perhaps I am saying I want the internet to be a global public good and to be accepted as such - if not now, in the near future. >> >> >> >> I sometimes use the rather meaningless term 'public-good-like' entity. >> >> Your suggestion makes sense to me, Matthias: >> >> >> >> "Would it make more sense to say that the Internet’s stability, functionality and security (understood as encompassing human >> >> rights-sensitivity) is a global public good? Or is that distinction only conceptually interesting." >> >> >> >> It is conceptually interesting. The internet is not 'just one thing', as Avri and Parminder's definitions capture. That adds conceptual and legal difficulties. But in terms of the role it plays in cultural, social, economic, political and individual life' it has a distinct identity. >> >> >> >> We need a debate that involves legal people, activists, and economists. >> >> But I believe we should not back down on developing such a definition and advocating for its adoption. Many people will say it is not possible, or will actively not want it. But I believe it is the key to being able to consolidate IG principles, and also to have a clearer understanding of the 'respective' and diverse roles of stakeholders referred to in WSIS documents. >> >> In the longer term I think arriving at such an understanding is necessary not just to protect the public interest (which does mean different things to different people, but I won't go there now ) and to preserve what we are referring to as the internet 'commons', but also to help create and maintain a level playing field for the large variety and number of private sector entities and social enterprises that operate on or through the internet. >> >> >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> >> >> On 15/04/2013 08:44, Kettemann, Matthias >> >> ( matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> I think we can gain much from the debate of what the Internet is – we probably won’t find consensus, but we will understand the Internet better. >>> International law is charged, inter alia, with regulating global public goods. These are usually defined as non-exclusive and exhibit non-rivalry in the usage. Now, people can be (and unfortunately are being) excluded from (usage of) the Internet. (The non-rivalry aspect can be interesting as an argument against artificially limiting domain name resources and as a argument to strengthen net neutrality). >>> So I have some problems with stating that the Internet is just one global public good like air. Safeguarding the Internet necessitates action; safeguarding air and water prima facie not – of corse, once they are polluted, remedial action is required. >>> Would it make more sense to say that the Internet’s stability, functionality and security (understood as encompassing human rights-sensitivity) is a global public good? Or is that distinction only conceptually interesting? >>> Kind regards >>> Matthias >>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>> [ mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von >>> parminder >>> Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2013 06:51 >>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Betreff: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, >>> Conflicts in Internet Governance >>> 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>< mailto: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>< mailto:nb at bollow.ch> wrote: >>> Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com>< mailto: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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 15 07:21:18 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:21:18 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> <516BB7A3.8090609@apc.org> <00fc01ce39b4$bbbcc450$33364cf0$@gmail.com> <226802F2536F4F4D838639571C930BE8077C10@OIIP-W9-SRV001.OIIP.local> Message-ID: <516BE2AE.6030700@apc.org> Thanks Adam.. and I think you posted some of this previously as well. I really like the idea of submitting something to the WTPF. Anriette On 15/04/2013 11:39, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi, > > The ITU SG's Report for WTPF-13 > contains the following, > page 8: > > o) Today, the Internet is becoming “one of the basic commodities of > life” and various studies have cited the information and knowledge > provided over the Internet as examples of global public goods > > and this footnote from the para: > > “Knowledge as a Global Public Good”, Joseph Stiglitz, available at: > http://cgt.columbia.edu/files/papers/1999_Knowledge_as_Global_Public_Good_stiglitz.pdf. > A chapter in Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globalization > argues that telecommunications and the Internet are themselves global > public goods; however, most observers agree that it is the knowledge > and information provided over the Internet which are non-rivalrous and > non-excludable, rather than the networks (which may be rivalrous and > excludable). See also the ICT For Development Report (World Bank, > 2009) and “Confronting the Crisis: ICT Stimulus Plans for Economic > Growth” (ITU, 2009). (end quote) > > > Expect at some point we will think about submitting comments to WTPF, > this short para and footnote might be worth focusing on. > > > Networks/access may be rivalrous and excludable. > What runs over the Internet, non-rivalrous and non-excludable > Critical internet resources, rivalrous and excludable. And should be > managed to minimize former, and if we hold this to be true "[Internet > is becoming] one of the basic commodities of life" must be managed to > prevent exclusion... which I think means we should re-write the "U.S. > Principles on the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System" from > June 2005, and then the IANA contract :-) > > Adam > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Philipp Mirtl wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> I find Parminder’s definition of the Internet as both a common >> (non-exclusive/rivalrous) as well as a public good >> (non-exclusive/non-rivalrous) interesting. I think there is a vivid >> discussion on this which is probably why this point has potential to go >> beyond its conceptual nature: >> >> >> >> 1. Rosenzweig (2011), “Cybersecurity and Public Goods. The >> Public/Private ‘Partnership’”, >> http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/EmergingThreats_Rosenzweig.pdf >> (e.g., see figure on p. 8), which defines the “early Internet” – as Avri >> did below – as having been a commons. >> >> >> >> 2. Bauer/van Eeten (2009), “Cybersecurity: Stakeholder >> incentives, externalities, and policy options”, which argues – similar, but >> not identical to Matthias’ argument – that cyber security “has strong public >> good characteristics”. When applied to the Internet, this seems to me to be >> sort of consistent with Anriette’s term “public-good-like” >> >> >> >> 3. I am sure there is a bunch of other articles on this >> >> >> >> I also think that a positive perspective on global public goods makes good >> sense, especially when viewed in light of Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote on >> knowledge: “he who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself >> without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light >> without darkening me.” >> >> >> >> Personally, I think Anriette’s point is quite interesting, holding that it >> is probably difficult to define the Internet as 'just one thing'. But maybe >> parts of it fall into one of the above categories? >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Philipp >> >> >> >> >> >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von michael >> gurstein >> Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2013 10:39 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Anriette Esterhuysen'; 'Kettemann, >> Matthias' >> Cc: 'parminder' >> Betreff: RE: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, >> Conflicts in Internet Governance >> >> >> >> I sent this email below just after Christmas last year so folks must have >> missed it... The application of the concept of a "global public good" to the >> Internet was discussed at some length as part of a broader re-definition of >> global public goods initiated through the UNDP and the Human Development >> Report and particularly in the work of the German/UN economist Inge Kaul. >> (this below was as part of an on-going discussion with Michael Lebrant >> covering much the same ground as is being covered here. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------- >> >> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 9:20 AM >> >> To: 'Michael Leibrandt'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org' >> >> Subject: RE: [governance] FW: Towards the Internet as a Global Public Good: >> A Seasonal Wish to One and All: >> >> >> >> Hi Michael, >> >> >> >> Thanks for raising the issues that you do. I`m not an economist but in >> reviewing your comments I realize that I should have mentioned in the >> blogpost that rather than referring to the mainstream perspective on Global >> Public Goods (GPG) (as evidenced by the Wikipedia reference), my own >> thinking in this area was formed largely by the work of a Inge Kaul when and >> after she was working with the UNDP and specifically on the UN Human >> Development Report and the International Task Force on Global Public Goods. >> >> >> >> In her discussion, rather than seeing GPG as a ``market failure`` >> counterpart to private (market) goods, as neo-classical economists would >> have it, she developed (through linking her discussion to Ostrom among >> others) a ``positive`` perspective on GPG`s as an element in achieving what >> she calls active policy driven objectives (and specifically linking these >> with civil society and the broad public interest including in areas of >> global social and economic justice and environmental management). I believe >> that her approach to GPG`s is directly consistent with a public interest >> approach to the global development and ``management`` of the Internet. >> >> >> >> http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf (Note that I`ve >> updated my GPG link in the blogpost.) >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette >> Esterhuysen >> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 1:18 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kettemann, Matthias >> (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) >> Cc: parminder >> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, >> Conflicts in Internet Governance >> >> >> >> Dear Matthias, Parminder and all (thanks for changing the subject-line >> >> Parminder) >> >> >> >> Matthias, yes.. I think this is the kind of conceptual debate that we need >> to have. >> >> >> >> Parminder, I like the idea of civil society adopting a 'definition'. But we >> need to be sure it is one that is robust enough to be used from social, >> economic and legal perspectives. So perhaps we need some debate and >> discussion and then come back to your proposed text. >> >> >> >> Whenever I raise the idea of the internet as a 'global public good' >> >> people make similar points to those made by Matthias - and I take these >> seriously. At the same time I believe that there is a strong movement >> towards the internet being becoming non-exclusive and non-rivalrous in use. >> Is that not what we want? So perhaps I am saying I want the internet to be >> a global public good and to be accepted as such - if not now, in the near >> future. >> >> >> >> I sometimes use the rather meaningless term 'public-good-like' entity. >> >> Your suggestion makes sense to me, Matthias: >> >> >> >> "Would it make more sense to say that the Internet’s stability, >> functionality and security (understood as encompassing human >> >> rights-sensitivity) is a global public good? Or is that distinction only >> conceptually interesting." >> >> >> >> It is conceptually interesting. The internet is not 'just one thing', as >> Avri and Parminder's definitions capture. That adds conceptual and legal >> difficulties. But in terms of the role it plays in cultural, social, >> economic, political and individual life' it has a distinct identity. >> >> >> >> We need a debate that involves legal people, activists, and economists. >> >> But I believe we should not back down on developing such a definition and >> advocating for its adoption. Many people will say it is not possible, or >> will actively not want it. But I believe it is the key to being able to >> consolidate IG principles, and also to have a clearer understanding of the >> 'respective' and diverse roles of stakeholders referred to in WSIS >> documents. >> >> >> >> In the longer term I think arriving at such an understanding is necessary >> not just to protect the public interest (which does mean different things to >> different people, but I won't go there now ) and to preserve what we are >> referring to as the internet 'commons', but also to help create and maintain >> a level playing field for the large variety and number of private sector >> entities and social enterprises that operate on or through the internet. >> >> >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> >> >> On 15/04/2013 08:44, Kettemann, Matthias >> >> (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> I think we can gain much from the debate of what the Internet is – we >>> probably won’t find consensus, but we will understand the Internet better. >>> International law is charged, inter alia, with regulating global public >>> goods. These are usually defined as non-exclusive and exhibit non-rivalry in >>> the usage. Now, people can be (and unfortunately are being) excluded from >>> (usage of) the Internet. (The non-rivalry aspect can be interesting as an >>> argument against artificially limiting domain name resources and as a >>> argument to strengthen net neutrality). >>> So I have some problems with stating that the Internet is just one global >>> public good like air. Safeguarding the Internet necessitates action; >>> safeguarding air and water prima facie not – of corse, once they are >>> polluted, remedial action is required. >>> Would it make more sense to say that the Internet’s stability, >>> functionality and security (understood as encompassing human >>> rights-sensitivity) is a global public good? Or is that distinction only >>> conceptually interesting? >>> Kind regards >>> Matthias >>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von >>> parminder >>> Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2013 06:51 >>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Betreff: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, >>> Conflicts in Internet Governance >>> 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 >>> 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 >>> wrote: >>> Roland Perry >>> >>> 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 >> -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Apr 15 07:37:48 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:37:48 +0900 Subject: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <516BE2AE.6030700@apc.org> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> <516BB7A3.8090609@apc.org> <00fc01ce39b4$bbbcc450$33364cf0$@gmail.com> <226802F2536F4F4D838639571C930BE8077C10@OIIP-W9-SRV001.OIIP.local> <516BE2AE.6030700@apc.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Thanks Adam.. and I think you posted some of this previously as well. > I did (though the WTPF paper is now final not draft.) And aiming to have something for the WTPF would give a target of a kind, given the statement in the paper, how do we respond? Adam > I really like the idea of submitting something to the WTPF. > > Anriette > > > On 15/04/2013 11:39, Adam Peake wrote: >> Hi, >> >> The ITU SG's Report for WTPF-13 >> contains the following, >> page 8: >> >> o) Today, the Internet is becoming “one of the basic commodities of >> life” and various studies have cited the information and knowledge >> provided over the Internet as examples of global public goods >> >> and this footnote from the para: >> >> “Knowledge as a Global Public Good”, Joseph Stiglitz, available at: >> http://cgt.columbia.edu/files/papers/1999_Knowledge_as_Global_Public_Good_stiglitz.pdf. >> A chapter in Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globalization >> argues that telecommunications and the Internet are themselves global >> public goods; however, most observers agree that it is the knowledge >> and information provided over the Internet which are non-rivalrous and >> non-excludable, rather than the networks (which may be rivalrous and >> excludable). See also the ICT For Development Report (World Bank, >> 2009) and “Confronting the Crisis: ICT Stimulus Plans for Economic >> Growth” (ITU, 2009). (end quote) >> >> >> Expect at some point we will think about submitting comments to WTPF, >> this short para and footnote might be worth focusing on. >> >> >> Networks/access may be rivalrous and excludable. >> What runs over the Internet, non-rivalrous and non-excludable >> Critical internet resources, rivalrous and excludable. And should be >> managed to minimize former, and if we hold this to be true "[Internet >> is becoming] one of the basic commodities of life" must be managed to >> prevent exclusion... which I think means we should re-write the "U.S. >> Principles on the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System" from >> June 2005, and then the IANA contract :-) >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Philipp Mirtl wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> >>> >>> I find Parminder’s definition of the Internet as both a common >>> (non-exclusive/rivalrous) as well as a public good >>> (non-exclusive/non-rivalrous) interesting. I think there is a vivid >>> discussion on this which is probably why this point has potential to go >>> beyond its conceptual nature: >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. Rosenzweig (2011), “Cybersecurity and Public Goods. The >>> Public/Private ‘Partnership’”, >>> http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/EmergingThreats_Rosenzweig.pdf >>> (e.g., see figure on p. 8), which defines the “early Internet” – as Avri >>> did below – as having been a commons. >>> >>> >>> >>> 2. Bauer/van Eeten (2009), “Cybersecurity: Stakeholder >>> incentives, externalities, and policy options”, which argues – similar, but >>> not identical to Matthias’ argument – that cyber security “has strong public >>> good characteristics”. When applied to the Internet, this seems to me to be >>> sort of consistent with Anriette’s term “public-good-like” >>> >>> >>> >>> 3. I am sure there is a bunch of other articles on this >>> >>> >>> >>> I also think that a positive perspective on global public goods makes good >>> sense, especially when viewed in light of Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote on >>> knowledge: “he who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself >>> without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light >>> without darkening me.” >>> >>> >>> >>> Personally, I think Anriette’s point is quite interesting, holding that it >>> is probably difficult to define the Internet as 'just one thing'. But maybe >>> parts of it fall into one of the above categories? >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> >>> >>> Philipp >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von michael >>> gurstein >>> Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2013 10:39 >>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Anriette Esterhuysen'; 'Kettemann, >>> Matthias' >>> Cc: 'parminder' >>> Betreff: RE: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, >>> Conflicts in Internet Governance >>> >>> >>> >>> I sent this email below just after Christmas last year so folks must have >>> missed it... The application of the concept of a "global public good" to the >>> Internet was discussed at some length as part of a broader re-definition of >>> global public goods initiated through the UNDP and the Human Development >>> Report and particularly in the work of the German/UN economist Inge Kaul. >>> (this below was as part of an on-going discussion with Michael Lebrant >>> covering much the same ground as is being covered here. >>> >>> >>> >>> M >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------- >>> >>> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 9:20 AM >>> >>> To: 'Michael Leibrandt'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org' >>> >>> Subject: RE: [governance] FW: Towards the Internet as a Global Public Good: >>> A Seasonal Wish to One and All: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Michael, >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks for raising the issues that you do. I`m not an economist but in >>> reviewing your comments I realize that I should have mentioned in the >>> blogpost that rather than referring to the mainstream perspective on Global >>> Public Goods (GPG) (as evidenced by the Wikipedia reference), my own >>> thinking in this area was formed largely by the work of a Inge Kaul when and >>> after she was working with the UNDP and specifically on the UN Human >>> Development Report and the International Task Force on Global Public Goods. >>> >>> >>> >>> In her discussion, rather than seeing GPG as a ``market failure`` >>> counterpart to private (market) goods, as neo-classical economists would >>> have it, she developed (through linking her discussion to Ostrom among >>> others) a ``positive`` perspective on GPG`s as an element in achieving what >>> she calls active policy driven objectives (and specifically linking these >>> with civil society and the broad public interest including in areas of >>> global social and economic justice and environmental management). I believe >>> that her approach to GPG`s is directly consistent with a public interest >>> approach to the global development and ``management`` of the Internet. >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf (Note that I`ve >>> updated my GPG link in the blogpost.) >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette >>> Esterhuysen >>> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 1:18 AM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kettemann, Matthias >>> (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) >>> Cc: parminder >>> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, >>> Conflicts in Internet Governance >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Matthias, Parminder and all (thanks for changing the subject-line >>> >>> Parminder) >>> >>> >>> >>> Matthias, yes.. I think this is the kind of conceptual debate that we need >>> to have. >>> >>> >>> >>> Parminder, I like the idea of civil society adopting a 'definition'. But we >>> need to be sure it is one that is robust enough to be used from social, >>> economic and legal perspectives. So perhaps we need some debate and >>> discussion and then come back to your proposed text. >>> >>> >>> >>> Whenever I raise the idea of the internet as a 'global public good' >>> >>> people make similar points to those made by Matthias - and I take these >>> seriously. At the same time I believe that there is a strong movement >>> towards the internet being becoming non-exclusive and non-rivalrous in use. >>> Is that not what we want? So perhaps I am saying I want the internet to be >>> a global public good and to be accepted as such - if not now, in the near >>> future. >>> >>> >>> >>> I sometimes use the rather meaningless term 'public-good-like' entity. >>> >>> Your suggestion makes sense to me, Matthias: >>> >>> >>> >>> "Would it make more sense to say that the Internet’s stability, >>> functionality and security (understood as encompassing human >>> >>> rights-sensitivity) is a global public good? Or is that distinction only >>> conceptually interesting." >>> >>> >>> >>> It is conceptually interesting. The internet is not 'just one thing', as >>> Avri and Parminder's definitions capture. That adds conceptual and legal >>> difficulties. But in terms of the role it plays in cultural, social, >>> economic, political and individual life' it has a distinct identity. >>> >>> >>> >>> We need a debate that involves legal people, activists, and economists. >>> >>> But I believe we should not back down on developing such a definition and >>> advocating for its adoption. Many people will say it is not possible, or >>> will actively not want it. But I believe it is the key to being able to >>> consolidate IG principles, and also to have a clearer understanding of the >>> 'respective' and diverse roles of stakeholders referred to in WSIS >>> documents. >>> >>> >>> >>> In the longer term I think arriving at such an understanding is necessary >>> not just to protect the public interest (which does mean different things to >>> different people, but I won't go there now ) and to preserve what we are >>> referring to as the internet 'commons', but also to help create and maintain >>> a level playing field for the large variety and number of private sector >>> entities and social enterprises that operate on or through the internet. >>> >>> >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 15/04/2013 08:44, Kettemann, Matthias >>> >>> (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> I think we can gain much from the debate of what the Internet is – we >>>> probably won’t find consensus, but we will understand the Internet better. >>>> International law is charged, inter alia, with regulating global public >>>> goods. These are usually defined as non-exclusive and exhibit non-rivalry in >>>> the usage. Now, people can be (and unfortunately are being) excluded from >>>> (usage of) the Internet. (The non-rivalry aspect can be interesting as an >>>> argument against artificially limiting domain name resources and as a >>>> argument to strengthen net neutrality). >>>> So I have some problems with stating that the Internet is just one global >>>> public good like air. Safeguarding the Internet necessitates action; >>>> safeguarding air and water prima facie not – of corse, once they are >>>> polluted, remedial action is required. >>>> Would it make more sense to say that the Internet’s stability, >>>> functionality and security (understood as encompassing human >>>> rights-sensitivity) is a global public good? Or is that distinction only >>>> conceptually interesting? >>>> Kind regards >>>> Matthias >>>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> parminder >>>> Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2013 06:51 >>>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> Betreff: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, >>>> Conflicts in Internet Governance >>>> 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 >>>> 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 >>>> wrote: >>>> Roland Perry >>>> >>>> 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 >>> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Mon Apr 15 07:48:54 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 07:48:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <516B8E52.908@ITforChange.net> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <9R9mW+WzstaRFAJI@internetpolicyagency.com> <82DC3510-3E51-4464-BD67-42D0EE5CDA5C@acm.org> <516B8E52.908@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <6b819825-adf1-439f-88b1-49ae71a97f2a@email.android.com> I think I answered it several times in several ways. Within their respective countries they, whether North Korea, Azerbaijan or Sweden, get to enforce laws to the extent that citizens allow on those within their physical territory. "Guru गुरु" wrote: >On 04/15/2013 06:55 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> 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 >Avri > >Do you think government needs to enforce law. would such enforcement >require 'control'? (I think andrea glorioso asked this question in two >emails pointedly but i think without response) > >Guru ~~~ avri -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Apr 15 07:43:14 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:43:14 -0300 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <516BE7D2.9050704@cafonso.ca> Not sure about the "...Accordingly..." in the statement. --c.a. On 04/15/2013 01:51 AM, parminder wrote: > > > 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 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 wrote: >>>> >>>>> Roland Perry 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 15 07:54:55 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:54:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] Message to IGC/ was formal notice to Suresh In-Reply-To: <71061265-1578-4CC3-9CC1-52AAA886A48B@acm.org> References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5162642A.2040901@apc.org> <20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info> <456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net> <20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch> <20130408113058.GA31767@hserus.net> <20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch> <71061265-1578-4CC3-9CC1-52AAA886A48B@acm.org> Message-ID: <20130415135455.324819c0@quill.bollow.ch> Avri Doria wrote: > 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? There are different types of lists in regard to what rules there are and how the rules are to be enforced or not, and there are different ways in which the set of acceptable discussion topics can be chosen. The fundamental situation that we had was that there was, on the same list, a set of written rules and elected coordinators tasked with enforcing them, and in addition someone who not only promoted a different set of rules but who also systematically brought criticism and personal attacks on those who failed to comply with that different set of rules. Unsurprisingly this conflicted situation was not conductive to constructive discussion and discourse. There is however no reason why different sets of rules, and entirely different philosophies in regard to the concept of posting rules, can't peacefully coexist by means different lists functioning according to different principles. Of course we have other aspects of conflict and hostility besides what I have described above, but the suggestion that people who desire a fundamentally different type of list join a different list (unless they believe that they are able to achieve the needed qualified majority and quorum to change the IGC Charter) refers to the above-described kind of disagreement with how the IGC Charter defines what IGC is supposed to be. The logic of the IGC Charter is to either accept it (you don't have to love it in order to accept it, and nobody will hate you for grumbling occasionally about the aspects that you don't like) or you're not a member of the IGC. I haven't invented that, that's just how it is. Maybe it could be improved... in my opinion in order for a proposal for a big change to have any chance of success, a proposer would need to provide, as a first step, a way in which the potential improvement can be tried out. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Apr 15 07:44:49 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:44:49 -0300 Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <516BD4DF.2090702@ciroap.org> References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A8071@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0000013e0d2b07e6-e37c3694-e007-4f38-bea6-5c07719b5bf5-000000@email.amazonses.com> <516BD4DF.2090702@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <516BE831.3090104@cafonso.ca> Actually more than 240... :) --c.a. On 04/15/2013 07:22 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 15/04/13 18:08, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> "Compromise" with countries like those below isn't in the interests of >> anyone except the leaders of those countries. > > Since "those below" included the United States, I certainly agree with > you. But there are 190 other countries in the world, many of which are > more reasonable to deal with. ;-) > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 08:18:31 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 17:48:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <516BE7D2.9050704@cafonso.ca> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> <516BE7D2.9050704@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <516BF017.4000805@itforchange.net> On Monday 15 April 2013 05:13 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Not sure about the "...Accordingly..." in the statement. > > --c.a. Agree. The second sentence does not follow from the first. The amended text, removing 'accordingly' will stand as: "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. 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." (* Here we employ a wider socio-political meaning of a 'public good', as for instance articulated by Inge Kaul in her UNDP publication , rather than the narrow construction employed by many neo- classical economists) I have just put a text back for consideration because I have a feeling that discussions are more focussed and purposeful when there is a specific text/ purpose towards which they move. So, even if finally we change every single word in the above, lets see if we can get to some agreed text for the Caucus. parminder > > On 04/15/2013 01:51 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> >> 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 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 >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Roland Perry 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 08:33:04 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:03:04 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <516BE2AE.6030700@apc.org> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> <516BB7A3.8090609@apc.org> <00fc01ce39b4$bbbcc450$33364cf0$@gmail.com> <226802F2536F4F4D838639571C930BE8077C10@OIIP-W9-SRV001.OIIP.local> <516BE2AE.6030700@apc.org> Message-ID: <516BF380.3050304@itforchange.net> On Monday 15 April 2013 04:51 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Thanks Adam.. and I think you posted some of this previously as well. > > I really like the idea of submitting something to the WTPF. that a good idea for civil society to contribute the basic principle for developing Internet related public polices which is the theme of this WTPF... I mean recognition of Internet's common's/ public good characteristic... parminder > > Anriette > > > On 15/04/2013 11:39, Adam Peake wrote: >> Hi, >> >> The ITU SG's Report for WTPF-13 >> contains the following, >> page 8: >> >> o) Today, the Internet is becoming “one of the basic commodities of >> life” and various studies have cited the information and knowledge >> provided over the Internet as examples of global public goods >> >> and this footnote from the para: >> >> “Knowledge as a Global Public Good”, Joseph Stiglitz, available at: >> http://cgt.columbia.edu/files/papers/1999_Knowledge_as_Global_Public_Good_stiglitz.pdf. >> A chapter in Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globalization >> argues that telecommunications and the Internet are themselves global >> public goods; however, most observers agree that it is the knowledge >> and information provided over the Internet which are non-rivalrous and >> non-excludable, rather than the networks (which may be rivalrous and >> excludable). See also the ICT For Development Report (World Bank, >> 2009) and “Confronting the Crisis: ICT Stimulus Plans for Economic >> Growth” (ITU, 2009). (end quote) >> >> >> Expect at some point we will think about submitting comments to WTPF, >> this short para and footnote might be worth focusing on. >> >> >> Networks/access may be rivalrous and excludable. >> What runs over the Internet, non-rivalrous and non-excludable >> Critical internet resources, rivalrous and excludable. And should be >> managed to minimize former, and if we hold this to be true "[Internet >> is becoming] one of the basic commodities of life" must be managed to >> prevent exclusion... which I think means we should re-write the "U.S. >> Principles on the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System" from >> June 2005, and then the IANA contract :-) >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Philipp Mirtl wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> >>> >>> I find Parminder’s definition of the Internet as both a common >>> (non-exclusive/rivalrous) as well as a public good >>> (non-exclusive/non-rivalrous) interesting. I think there is a vivid >>> discussion on this which is probably why this point has potential to go >>> beyond its conceptual nature: >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. Rosenzweig (2011), “Cybersecurity and Public Goods. The >>> Public/Private ‘Partnership’”, >>> http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/EmergingThreats_Rosenzweig.pdf >>> (e.g., see figure on p. 8), which defines the “early Internet” – as Avri >>> did below – as having been a commons. >>> >>> >>> >>> 2. Bauer/van Eeten (2009), “Cybersecurity: Stakeholder >>> incentives, externalities, and policy options”, which argues – similar, but >>> not identical to Matthias’ argument – that cyber security “has strong public >>> good characteristics”. When applied to the Internet, this seems to me to be >>> sort of consistent with Anriette’s term “public-good-like” >>> >>> >>> >>> 3. I am sure there is a bunch of other articles on this >>> >>> >>> >>> I also think that a positive perspective on global public goods makes good >>> sense, especially when viewed in light of Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote on >>> knowledge: “he who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself >>> without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light >>> without darkening me.” >>> >>> >>> >>> Personally, I think Anriette’s point is quite interesting, holding that it >>> is probably difficult to define the Internet as 'just one thing'. But maybe >>> parts of it fall into one of the above categories? >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> >>> >>> Philipp >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von michael >>> gurstein >>> Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2013 10:39 >>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Anriette Esterhuysen'; 'Kettemann, >>> Matthias' >>> Cc: 'parminder' >>> Betreff: RE: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, >>> Conflicts in Internet Governance >>> >>> >>> >>> I sent this email below just after Christmas last year so folks must have >>> missed it... The application of the concept of a "global public good" to the >>> Internet was discussed at some length as part of a broader re-definition of >>> global public goods initiated through the UNDP and the Human Development >>> Report and particularly in the work of the German/UN economist Inge Kaul. >>> (this below was as part of an on-going discussion with Michael Lebrant >>> covering much the same ground as is being covered here. >>> >>> >>> >>> M >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------- >>> >>> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 9:20 AM >>> >>> To: 'Michael Leibrandt'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org' >>> >>> Subject: RE: [governance] FW: Towards the Internet as a Global Public Good: >>> A Seasonal Wish to One and All: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Michael, >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks for raising the issues that you do. I`m not an economist but in >>> reviewing your comments I realize that I should have mentioned in the >>> blogpost that rather than referring to the mainstream perspective on Global >>> Public Goods (GPG) (as evidenced by the Wikipedia reference), my own >>> thinking in this area was formed largely by the work of a Inge Kaul when and >>> after she was working with the UNDP and specifically on the UN Human >>> Development Report and the International Task Force on Global Public Goods. >>> >>> >>> >>> In her discussion, rather than seeing GPG as a ``market failure`` >>> counterpart to private (market) goods, as neo-classical economists would >>> have it, she developed (through linking her discussion to Ostrom among >>> others) a ``positive`` perspective on GPG`s as an element in achieving what >>> she calls active policy driven objectives (and specifically linking these >>> with civil society and the broad public interest including in areas of >>> global social and economic justice and environmental management). I believe >>> that her approach to GPG`s is directly consistent with a public interest >>> approach to the global development and ``management`` of the Internet. >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf (Note that I`ve >>> updated my GPG link in the blogpost.) >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette >>> Esterhuysen >>> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 1:18 AM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kettemann, Matthias >>> (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) >>> Cc: parminder >>> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, >>> Conflicts in Internet Governance >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Matthias, Parminder and all (thanks for changing the subject-line >>> >>> Parminder) >>> >>> >>> >>> Matthias, yes.. I think this is the kind of conceptual debate that we need >>> to have. >>> >>> >>> >>> Parminder, I like the idea of civil society adopting a 'definition'. But we >>> need to be sure it is one that is robust enough to be used from social, >>> economic and legal perspectives. So perhaps we need some debate and >>> discussion and then come back to your proposed text. >>> >>> >>> >>> Whenever I raise the idea of the internet as a 'global public good' >>> >>> people make similar points to those made by Matthias - and I take these >>> seriously. At the same time I believe that there is a strong movement >>> towards the internet being becoming non-exclusive and non-rivalrous in use. >>> Is that not what we want? So perhaps I am saying I want the internet to be >>> a global public good and to be accepted as such - if not now, in the near >>> future. >>> >>> >>> >>> I sometimes use the rather meaningless term 'public-good-like' entity. >>> >>> Your suggestion makes sense to me, Matthias: >>> >>> >>> >>> "Would it make more sense to say that the Internet’s stability, >>> functionality and security (understood as encompassing human >>> >>> rights-sensitivity) is a global public good? Or is that distinction only >>> conceptually interesting." >>> >>> >>> >>> It is conceptually interesting. The internet is not 'just one thing', as >>> Avri and Parminder's definitions capture. That adds conceptual and legal >>> difficulties. But in terms of the role it plays in cultural, social, >>> economic, political and individual life' it has a distinct identity. >>> >>> >>> >>> We need a debate that involves legal people, activists, and economists. >>> >>> But I believe we should not back down on developing such a definition and >>> advocating for its adoption. Many people will say it is not possible, or >>> will actively not want it. But I believe it is the key to being able to >>> consolidate IG principles, and also to have a clearer understanding of the >>> 'respective' and diverse roles of stakeholders referred to in WSIS >>> documents. >>> >>> >>> >>> In the longer term I think arriving at such an understanding is necessary >>> not just to protect the public interest (which does mean different things to >>> different people, but I won't go there now ) and to preserve what we are >>> referring to as the internet 'commons', but also to help create and maintain >>> a level playing field for the large variety and number of private sector >>> entities and social enterprises that operate on or through the internet. >>> >>> >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 15/04/2013 08:44, Kettemann, Matthias >>> >>> (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> I think we can gain much from the debate of what the Internet is – we >>>> probably won’t find consensus, but we will understand the Internet better. >>>> International law is charged, inter alia, with regulating global public >>>> goods. These are usually defined as non-exclusive and exhibit non-rivalry in >>>> the usage. Now, people can be (and unfortunately are being) excluded from >>>> (usage of) the Internet. (The non-rivalry aspect can be interesting as an >>>> argument against artificially limiting domain name resources and as a >>>> argument to strengthen net neutrality). >>>> So I have some problems with stating that the Internet is just one global >>>> public good like air. Safeguarding the Internet necessitates action; >>>> safeguarding air and water prima facie not – of corse, once they are >>>> polluted, remedial action is required. >>>> Would it make more sense to say that the Internet’s stability, >>>> functionality and security (understood as encompassing human >>>> rights-sensitivity) is a global public good? Or is that distinction only >>>> conceptually interesting? >>>> Kind regards >>>> Matthias >>>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> parminder >>>> Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2013 06:51 >>>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> Betreff: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, >>>> Conflicts in Internet Governance >>>> 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 >>>> 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 >>>> wrote: >>>> Roland Perry >>>> >>>> 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 andrea at digitalpolicy.it Mon Apr 15 08:33:31 2013 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:33:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance In-Reply-To: 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: Dear Roland, On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > 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] > Apologies but I'm not sure I understand the question: are you asking whether people who break the law are legitimate stakeholders or not? Ciao, -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Mon Apr 15 08:36:54 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 08:36:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Message to IGC/ was formal notice to Suresh In-Reply-To: <20130415135455.324819c0@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5162642A.2040901@apc.org> <20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info> <456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net> <20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch> <20130408113058.GA31767@hserus.net> <20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch> <71061265-1578-4CC3-9CC1-52AAA886A48B@acm.org> <20130415135455.324819c0@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <9869a5da-d551-409d-91f4-a30828082c66@email.android.com> Hi, I think you are confusing member with list participant. I know some people crave that change to the way the list works. Also, other than minimal netiquette, I do not read the charter as imposing any content or topical restrictions. If someone did want to change how the list worked, would not the list be the place to do so? And if someone has a different set of interpretations of the charter, isn't the list the place to discuss them? If someone wants transparency on the basis on which coordinators' made their decision, why isn't the list the place to ask that? If people want to understand whether they should appeal a decision, isn't the list the place to discuss that? Norbert Bollow wrote: >Avri Doria wrote: > >> 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? > >There are different types of lists in regard to what rules there are >and >how the rules are to be enforced or not, and there are different ways >in >which the set of acceptable discussion topics can be chosen. > >The fundamental situation that we had was that there was, on the same >list, a set of written rules and elected coordinators tasked with >enforcing them, and in addition someone who not only promoted a >different set of rules but who also systematically brought criticism >and >personal attacks on those who failed to comply with that different set >of rules. > >Unsurprisingly this conflicted situation was not conductive to >constructive discussion and discourse. > >There is however no reason why different sets of rules, and entirely >different philosophies in regard to the concept of posting rules, can't >peacefully coexist by means different lists functioning according to >different principles. > >Of course we have other aspects of conflict and hostility besides what >I have described above, but the suggestion that people who desire a >fundamentally different type of list join a different list (unless they >believe that they are able to achieve the needed qualified majority and >quorum to change the IGC Charter) refers to the above-described kind of >disagreement with how the IGC Charter defines what IGC is supposed to >be. The logic of the IGC Charter is to either accept it (you don't have >to love it in order to accept it, and nobody will hate you for >grumbling >occasionally about the aspects that you don't like) or you're not a >member of the IGC. I haven't invented that, that's just how it is. >Maybe >it could be improved... in my opinion in order for a proposal for a big >change to have any chance of success, a proposer would need to provide, >as a first step, a way in which the potential improvement can be tried >out. > >Greetings, >Norbert Avri Doria -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 15 08:47:41 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:47:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <516BF017.4000805@itforchange.net> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> <516BE7D2.9050704@cafonso.ca> <516BF017.4000805@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130415144741.0fe484bb@quill.bollow.ch> Parminder : > Agree. The second sentence does not follow from the first. The > amended text, removing 'accordingly' will stand as: > > "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. 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." This part is pretty good already I think. > (* Here we employ a wider socio-political meaning of a 'public good', > as for instance articulated by Inge Kaul in her UNDP publication > , > rather than the narrow construction employed by many neo- classical > economists) I think we should reword the last part a bit to make it sound less like a criticism of economists. How about for example: "... rather than the narrower meaning often attached to the term in contexts of economics." ? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Apr 15 09:07:08 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:07:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance In-Reply-To: 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: In message , at 14:33:31 on Mon, 15 Apr 2013, Andrea Glorioso writes >On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Roland Perry > wrote: >  >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] > >Apologies but I'm not sure I understand the question: are you asking >whether people who break the law are legitimate stakeholders or not Yes; one argument *for* is "full inclusion", one argument *against* is "but won't they try to adjust the law to their advantage during the negotiations". Some might even say "if they break the law they have lost their right to be a stakeholder", others might argue it's helpful (and I apologise for an English language ideom) to employ "poachers turned gamekeepers" because they understand what the shortcomings in the proposals might be. -- 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 Mon Apr 15 09:26:41 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:26:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] Message to IGC/ was formal notice to Suresh In-Reply-To: <9869a5da-d551-409d-91f4-a30828082c66@email.android.com> References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5162642A.2040901@apc.org> <20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info> <456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net> <20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch> <20130408113058.GA31767@hserus.net> <20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch> <71061265-1578-4CC3-9CC1-52AAA886A48B@acm.org> <20130415135455.324819c0@quill.bollow.ch> <9869a5da-d551-409d-91f4-a30828082c66@email.android.com> Message-ID: <20130415152641.3b14d154@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Avri Doria wrote: > I think you are confusing member with list participant. I'm pretty sure that I'm not confusing the two, even though I've referred to both concepts. > Also, other than minimal netiquette, I do not read the charter as > imposing any content or topical restrictions. Under "posting rules" we have: "Inappropriate postings to the IGC list include... * Discussion of subjects unrelated to the IGC mission and objectives" > If someone did want to change how the list worked, would not the list > be the place to do so? Yes, of course... the way to go about it is to propose a change for discussion, etc., and if the idea requires a Charter change, we're aware of the process for trying to achieve that (and since the recent failed attempt we also have renewed awareness of the need to have constant reminders during the process in order to have a chance to meet the quorum requirement-) > And if someone has a different set of interpretations of the charter, > isn't the list the place to discuss them? Sure, interpretation of the charter is something that can be discussed on the list if desired. > If someone wants transparency on the basis on which coordinators' > made their decision, why isn't the list the place to ask that? The list isn't a wrong place for requests for transparency. But there is one particular type of such requests that is so likely to have effects of its own which very much go against the goal of having a non-hostile environment that I consider it appropriate to discourage that particular type of requests for transparency. That said, I think that by its very nature, the concept of private warnings implies that there will not be full transparency. I think that if full transparency in regard to all efforts of the coordinators to enforce the Charter's posting rules is desired, it would be necessary to first eliminate the concept of private warnings from the process that is outlined in the Charter. > If people want to understand whether they should appeal a decision, > isn't the list the place to discuss that? Yes, of course. If someone considers to appeal a formal private warning, they can post about the issue here on the list. If someone has not received a formal private warning, but wants one, and considers to appeal not having been warned, they can also post about the issue here on the list. :-) I am however not going to publicly disclose private warnings, or hint about who may have received one. That would be quite contrary to the concept of private warnings. There is no such problem with public warnings, or other publicly announced decisions, of course. 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 Guru at ITforChange.net Mon Apr 15 09:34:51 2013 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 19:04:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <6b819825-adf1-439f-88b1-49ae71a97f2a@email.android.com> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <9R9mW+WzstaRFAJI@internetpolicyagency.com> <82DC3510-3E51-4464-BD67-42D0EE5CDA5C@acm.org> <516B8E52.908@ITforChange.net> <6b819825-adf1-439f-88b1-49ae71a97f2a@email.android.com> Message-ID: <516C01FB.4020007@ITforChange.net> On 04/15/2013 05:18 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > I think I answered it several times in several ways. > > Within their respective countries they, whether North Korea, > Azerbaijan or Sweden, get to enforce laws to the extent that citizens > allow on those within their physical territory. > Avri, 1. From your line above, I suppose you accept that other stakeholders in each of these (and other) countries will not have a role in enforcing law within their physical territory, which the Governments have. If you do accept this, then your wish that "government participation as equal/equivalent stakeholders in Internet governance" contradicts the above, in the context of law enforcement within their physical territory. Will you accept that your wish is meaningless to the extent of this contradiction. 2. I could not understand what you mean by "to the extent that citizens allow", do you mean that the citizens can refuse enforcement of law by the Government. Would you extend such a privilege to decide what laws to follow and what not to follow to areas other than IG? I request your clarifications. Guru ps - On the issue of law enforcement beyond territorial borders, I hope to seek clarification separately > "Guru गुरु" wrote: > > On 04/15/2013 06:55 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > 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 > > Avri > > Do you think government needs to enforce law. would such enforcement > require 'control'? (I think andrea glorioso asked this question in two > emails pointedly but i think without response) > > Guru > > > > > > > ~~~ > avri -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Mon Apr 15 09:55:10 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:55:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <516C01FB.4020007@ITforChange.net> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <9R9mW+WzstaRFAJI@internetpolicyagency.com> <82DC3510-3E51-4464-BD67-42D0EE5CDA5C@acm.org> <516B8E52.908@ITforChange.net> <6b819825-adf1-439f-88b1-49ae71a97f2a@email.android.com> <516C01FB.4020007@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <2e914496-538b-47e9-a52e-3a356beb22e6@email.android.com> Hi, I do not see the contradiction in 1. You are assuming that the citizens have only one form of participation. And you are assuming that people only interact in government in one way. Personally I also advocate a multistakeholder approach within a country by those living in that country. Of course that its not the case very often at this point. As for enforcement that happens in many ways, some of which may even be citizen based. On the second point, ultimately the legitimacy of any government rests with the citizen, whether as voter, organizer, advocate, demonstrator or activist. So government only rules to the extent to which those who live in a country allow them to rule. Indeed in case of the worse autocracy the citizen effort to change things is quite huge and sometimes deadly, but as the seasonal, color and other revolutions show, the people have the power when they decide they need to take the power. "Guru गुरु" wrote: >On 04/15/2013 05:18 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> I think I answered it several times in several ways. >> >> Within their respective countries they, whether North Korea, >> Azerbaijan or Sweden, get to enforce laws to the extent that citizens > >> allow on those within their physical territory. >> > >Avri, > >1. From your line above, I suppose you accept that other stakeholders >in >each of these (and other) countries will not have a role in enforcing >law within their physical territory, which the Governments have. > >If you do accept this, then your wish that "government participation >as >equal/equivalent stakeholders in Internet governance" contradicts the >above, in the context of law enforcement within their physical >territory. Will you accept that your wish is meaningless to the extent >of this contradiction. > > >2. I could not understand what you mean by "to the extent that citizens > >allow", do you mean that the citizens can refuse enforcement of law by >the Government. Would you extend such a privilege to decide what laws >to >follow and what not to follow to areas other than IG? > >I request your clarifications. > >Guru >ps - On the issue of law enforcement beyond territorial borders, I >hope to seek clarification separately > > >> "Guru गुरु" wrote: >> >> On 04/15/2013 06:55 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> 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 >> >> Avri >> >> Do you think government needs to enforce law. would such >enforcement >> require 'control'? (I think andrea glorioso asked this question >in two >> emails pointedly but i think without response) >> >> Guru >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ~~~ >> avri ~~~ avri -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Philipp.Mirtl at oiip.ac.at Mon Apr 15 10:25:53 2013 From: Philipp.Mirtl at oiip.ac.at (Philipp Mirtl) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:25:53 +0000 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> <516BB7A3.8090609@apc.org> <00fc01ce39b4$bbbcc450$33364cf0$@gmail.com> <226802F2536F4F4D838639571C930BE8077C10@OIIP-W9-SRV001.OIIP.local> Message-ID: <226802F2536F4F4D838639571C930BE8078E10@OIIP-W9-SRV001.OIIP.local> Dear Adam, In case my previous post was misunderstood: I did not at all intend to challenge any definitions describing the Internet as a global commons and a global public good. Nevertheless, I sometimes have the impression that people (not always economists) are not totally aware of the fact that the Internet is not 'just one thing', but in fact many, and that these many things (or components) can indeed qualify for different characteristics (e.g., non-rivalrous/non-excludable). In this context, I found Matthias' point interesting, suggesting to make a distinction when talking about "the Internet". In fact, I think that some people (outside this list and concerned organizations) do sometimes not really have a clear understanding of the differences you made, say between network access and critical internet resources. However, I also understand that too much detail does not serve the purpose of a short definition and could, even worse, be misleading in the end. Sorry for any misunderstanding, Philipp -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] Im Auftrag von Adam Peake Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2013 11:39 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Philipp Mirtl Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance Hi, The ITU SG's Report for WTPF-13 contains the following, page 8: o) Today, the Internet is becoming "one of the basic commodities of life" and various studies have cited the information and knowledge provided over the Internet as examples of global public goods and this footnote from the para: "Knowledge as a Global Public Good", Joseph Stiglitz, available at: http://cgt.columbia.edu/files/papers/1999_Knowledge_as_Global_Public_Good_stiglitz.pdf. A chapter in Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globalization argues that telecommunications and the Internet are themselves global public goods; however, most observers agree that it is the knowledge and information provided over the Internet which are non-rivalrous and non-excludable, rather than the networks (which may be rivalrous and excludable). See also the ICT For Development Report (World Bank, 2009) and "Confronting the Crisis: ICT Stimulus Plans for Economic Growth" (ITU, 2009). (end quote) Expect at some point we will think about submitting comments to WTPF, this short para and footnote might be worth focusing on. Networks/access may be rivalrous and excludable. What runs over the Internet, non-rivalrous and non-excludable Critical internet resources, rivalrous and excludable. And should be managed to minimize former, and if we hold this to be true "[Internet is becoming] one of the basic commodities of life" must be managed to prevent exclusion... which I think means we should re-write the "U.S. Principles on the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System" from June 2005, and then the IANA contract :-) Adam On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Philipp Mirtl > wrote: > Dear all, > > > > I find Parminder's definition of the Internet as both a common > (non-exclusive/rivalrous) as well as a public good > (non-exclusive/non-rivalrous) interesting. I think there is a vivid > discussion on this which is probably why this point has potential to > go beyond its conceptual nature: > > > > 1. Rosenzweig (2011), "Cybersecurity and Public Goods. The > Public/Private 'Partnership'", > http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/EmergingThreats_ > Rosenzweig.pdf (e.g., see figure on p. 8), which defines the "early > Internet" - as Avri did below - as having been a commons. > > > > 2. Bauer/van Eeten (2009), "Cybersecurity: Stakeholder > incentives, externalities, and policy options", which argues - > similar, but not identical to Matthias' argument - that cyber security > "has strong public good characteristics". When applied to the > Internet, this seems to me to be sort of consistent with Anriette's term "public-good-like" > > > > 3. I am sure there is a bunch of other articles on this > > > > I also think that a positive perspective on global public goods makes > good sense, especially when viewed in light of Thomas Jefferson's > famous quote on > knowledge: "he who receives an idea from me, receives instruction > himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, > receives light without darkening me." > > > > Personally, I think Anriette's point is quite interesting, holding > that it is probably difficult to define the Internet as 'just one > thing'. But maybe parts of it fall into one of the above categories? > > > > Best, > > > > Philipp > > > > > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von michael > gurstein > Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2013 10:39 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Anriette Esterhuysen'; 'Kettemann, > Matthias' > Cc: 'parminder' > Betreff: RE: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, > Conflicts in Internet Governance > > > > I sent this email below just after Christmas last year so folks must > have missed it... The application of the concept of a "global public > good" to the Internet was discussed at some length as part of a > broader re-definition of global public goods initiated through the > UNDP and the Human Development Report and particularly in the work of the German/UN economist Inge Kaul. > (this below was as part of an on-going discussion with Michael Lebrant > covering much the same ground as is being covered here. > > > > M > > > > ---------------------------------------------- > > From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 9:20 AM > > To: 'Michael Leibrandt'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org' > > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: Towards the Internet as a Global Public Good: > A Seasonal Wish to One and All: > > > > Hi Michael, > > > > Thanks for raising the issues that you do. I`m not an economist but > in reviewing your comments I realize that I should have mentioned in > the blogpost that rather than referring to the mainstream perspective > on Global Public Goods (GPG) (as evidenced by the Wikipedia > reference), my own thinking in this area was formed largely by the > work of a Inge Kaul when and after she was working with the UNDP and > specifically on the UN Human Development Report and the International Task Force on Global Public Goods. > > > > In her discussion, rather than seeing GPG as a ``market failure`` > counterpart to private (market) goods, as neo-classical economists > would have it, she developed (through linking her discussion to Ostrom > among > others) a ``positive`` perspective on GPG`s as an element in achieving > what she calls active policy driven objectives (and specifically > linking these with civil society and the broad public interest > including in areas of global social and economic justice and > environmental management). I believe that her approach to GPG`s is > directly consistent with a public interest approach to the global development and ``management`` of the Internet. > > > > http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf (Note that I`ve > updated my GPG link in the blogpost.) > > > > Best, > > > > Mike > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette > Esterhuysen > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 1:18 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kettemann, Matthias > (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) > Cc: parminder > Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, > Conflicts in Internet Governance > > > > Dear Matthias, Parminder and all (thanks for changing the subject-line > > Parminder) > > > > Matthias, yes.. I think this is the kind of conceptual debate that we > need to have. > > > > Parminder, I like the idea of civil society adopting a 'definition'. > But we need to be sure it is one that is robust enough to be used from > social, economic and legal perspectives. So perhaps we need some > debate and discussion and then come back to your proposed text. > > > > Whenever I raise the idea of the internet as a 'global public good' > > people make similar points to those made by Matthias - and I take > these seriously. At the same time I believe that there is a strong > movement towards the internet being becoming non-exclusive and non-rivalrous in use. > Is that not what we want? So perhaps I am saying I want the internet > to be a global public good and to be accepted as such - if not now, in > the near future. > > > > I sometimes use the rather meaningless term 'public-good-like' entity. > > Your suggestion makes sense to me, Matthias: > > > > "Would it make more sense to say that the Internet's stability, > functionality and security (understood as encompassing human > > rights-sensitivity) is a global public good? Or is that distinction > only conceptually interesting." > > > > It is conceptually interesting. The internet is not 'just one thing', > as Avri and Parminder's definitions capture. That adds conceptual and > legal difficulties. But in terms of the role it plays in cultural, > social, economic, political and individual life' it has a distinct identity. > > > > We need a debate that involves legal people, activists, and economists. > > But I believe we should not back down on developing such a definition > and advocating for its adoption. Many people will say it is not > possible, or will actively not want it. But I believe it is the key to > being able to consolidate IG principles, and also to have a clearer > understanding of the 'respective' and diverse roles of stakeholders > referred to in WSIS documents. > > > > In the longer term I think arriving at such an understanding is > necessary not just to protect the public interest (which does mean > different things to different people, but I won't go there now ) and > to preserve what we are referring to as the internet 'commons', but > also to help create and maintain a level playing field for the large > variety and number of private sector entities and social enterprises that operate on or through the internet. > > > > Anriette > > > > > > On 15/04/2013 08:44, Kettemann, Matthias > > (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote: > >> Dear all, > >> > >> I think we can gain much from the debate of what the Internet is - we >> probably won't find consensus, but we will understand the Internet better. > >> > >> International law is charged, inter alia, with regulating global >> public goods. These are usually defined as non-exclusive and exhibit >> non-rivalry in the usage. Now, people can be (and unfortunately are >> being) excluded from (usage of) the Internet. (The non-rivalry aspect >> can be interesting as an argument against artificially limiting >> domain name resources and as a argument to strengthen net neutrality). > >> > >> So I have some problems with stating that the Internet is just one >> global public good like air. Safeguarding the Internet necessitates >> action; safeguarding air and water prima facie not - of corse, once >> they are polluted, remedial action is required. > >> > >> Would it make more sense to say that the Internet's stability, >> functionality and security (understood as encompassing human >> rights-sensitivity) is a global public good? Or is that distinction >> only conceptually interesting? > >> > >> Kind regards > >> Matthias > >> > >> > >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von > >> parminder > >> Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2013 06:51 > >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> Betreff: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, > >> Conflicts in Internet Governance > >> > >> > >> > >> 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 >> > 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 >> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> Roland Perry >> >> 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 10:32:13 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 10:32:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] Message to IGC/ was formal notice to Suresh In-Reply-To: <20130415152641.3b14d154@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130407232959.71d8ba56@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A45A0@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5162642A.2040901@apc.org> <20130408071457.GA20985@tarvainen.info> <456A67EE-97C9-417F-BE7B-0F3495EC91A3@hserus.net> <20130408123726.6056bbab@quill.bollow.ch> <20130408113058.GA31767@hserus.net> <20130408140805.5f69559a@quill.bollow.ch> <71061265-1578-4CC3-9CC1-52AAA886A48B@acm.org> <20130415135455.324819c0@quill.bollow.ch> <9869a5da-d551-409d-91f4-a30828082c66@email.android.com> <20130415152641.3b14d154@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On 15 Apr 2013, at 09:26, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > I am however not going to publicly disclose private warnings, or hint > about who may have received one. That would be quite contrary to the > concept of private warnings. Never asked for whom. Asked for indications of the type of speech that prompted it. But I can tell I am not going to get any transparency on this issue. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Apr 15 11:49:59 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:49:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <84m2sQ2cm8aRFAbu@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <+BCmiJYOCuaRFA5i@internetpolicyagency.com> <84m2sQ2cm8aRFAbu@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: In message <84m2sQ2cm8aRFAbu at internetpolicyagency.com>, at 10:34:20 on Mon, 15 Apr 2013, Roland Perry writes >>> 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. > >Agreed. I have come away from such meetings with a much clearer view of >the implications (eg) of Cloud Computing. But I'd be disappointed if >many of the attendees arrived not knowing what Cloud Computing was, and >intending to find out. Perhaps I should explain what it was I learnt: Which was that suppliers of consumer-grade cloud services said that they did not approve of organisations with mission-critical applications, including those who needed to know if Data-Protection 'Safe harbour" requirements were being met, using those services. Of course, they have more expensive services where the parameters are better defined, and wish to sell those, but I'm constantly coming across important projects using the 'consumer grade' services, without fully understanding the implications. -- 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 nne75 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 15 12:20:05 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:20:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <20130415144741.0fe484bb@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> <516BE7D2.9050704@cafonso.ca> <516BF017.4000805@itforchange.net> <20130415144741.0fe484bb@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <1366042805.74170.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>  Hi people Thanks for this discussion.  This is what interests me in this group.  I have added a few things and returning the text. = We reconise the Internet as an emergent and emerging reality. Its specificity is inherent in its intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality and a new kind of social spatiality, brought together by a common set of design principles, and constrained by policies established by due democratic processes. We consider the Internetas a global commons and a global public good. The design principles and policies that constitute its governance should, therefore, flow from such recognition of the Internet as a commons and public good. =   "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. 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." (* Here we employ a wider socio-political meaning of a 'public good', as for instance articulated by Inge Kaul in her UNDP publication, rather than the narrow construction employed by many neo- classical economists) == I cut out the initial sentence. I think it has more presence when it is shorter.  I love the word "reality" as it is not a commodity, or a thing. I started off the second sentence on the "specificity which is inherent".  I changed "fashioned" to "established".. but still thinking we may find a better word, liked "forged". I rearranged the last sentence to lead from reason to action. So on top is text 2, and below is text 1 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: Norbert Bollow To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 12:47 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance Parminder : > Agree. The second sentence does not follow from the first. The > amended text, removing 'accordingly' will stand as: > >    "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. 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." This part is pretty good already I think. > (* Here we employ a wider socio-political meaning of a 'public good', > as for instance articulated by Inge Kaul in her UNDP publication > , > rather than the narrow construction employed by many neo- classical > economists) I think we should reword the last part a bit to make it sound less like a criticism of economists. How about for example: "... rather than the narrower meaning often attached to the term in contexts of economics." ? Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Apr 15 13:02:50 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 19:02:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance In-Reply-To: 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: <20130415190250.2c3977de@quill.bollow.ch> Andrea Glorioso wrote: > How can be governments / public authorities be "one of the > stakeholders" when enforcing existing laws? I would suggest to distinguish between: a) General discourse that is not part of a consensus process or any other decision-making process. This includes for example any reasonable process to develop the proposed IGF "outcomes". b) Various types of consensus-oriented decision making processes, such as e.g. the processes of IETF or the typical processes of negotiating international treaties. c) Decision-making processes to decide policy matters that can be used in the absence of consensus, such as e.g. in parliamentary democracies the decision-making processes of the national parliament. d) Implementation of laws, other rules, and other policy decisions that have been made. The concept of governments participating on an equal footing together with other stakeholders is in my opinion applicable only to a) and b). In c) some government office will be in charge of organizing the process, and they are going to make sure that all other government offices that are going to be affected by the decision will be able to communicate their perspective in a prominent manner. Hence it is in my opinion obvious that the government as a whole is going to be more than equal to the other stakeholders. I don't see that as being wrong in any way, provided that the actual decision-making is democratic (i.e. by means of processes of parliamentary democracy, or by means of a public referendum, in the context of a democratic society.) Law enforcement is an aspect of implementation, i.e. part of d). Clearly in respect to implementation the responsibilities of the different types of stakeholders are different. Greetings, Norbert ** Glossary: IGF=Internet Governance Forum, http://intgovforum.org/ IETF=Internet Engineering Task Force, http://ietf.org/ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Apr 15 14:08:08 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:08:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <1366042805.74170.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> <516BE7D2.9050704@cafonso.ca> <516BF017.4000805@itforchange.net> <20130415144741.0fe484bb@quill.bollow.ch> <1366042805.74170.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: All, For ~3 decades the Internet has been define as a "network of networks". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet We seem to be defining it by its epiphenomenal effects rather than by its its core definition. Is that what we want to do? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Nnenna wrote: > > Hi people > > Thanks for this discussion. This is what interests me in this group. I > have added a few things and returning the text. > > = > We reconise the Internet as an emergent and emerging reality. Its > specificity is inherent in its intricate combination of hardware, software, > protocols, human intentionality and a new kind of social spatiality, brought > together by a common set of design principles, and constrained by policies > established by due democratic processes. We consider the Internetas a global > commons and a global public good. The design principles and policies that > constitute its governance should, therefore, flow from such recognition of > the Internet as a commons and public good. > > > = > > "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. 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." > > (* Here we employ a wider socio-political meaning of a 'public good', as for > instance articulated by Inge Kaul in her UNDP publication, rather than the > narrow construction employed by many neo- classical economists) > > == > I cut out the initial sentence. I think it has more presence when it is > shorter. I love the word "reality" as it is not a commodity, or a thing. I > started off the second sentence on the "specificity which is inherent". I > changed "fashioned" to "established".. but still thinking we may find a > better word, liked "forged". I rearranged the last sentence to lead from > reason to action. > > So on top is text 2, and below is text 1 > > 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: Norbert Bollow > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 12:47 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts > in Internet Governance > > Parminder : > >> Agree. The second sentence does not follow from the first. The >> amended text, removing 'accordingly' will stand as: >> >> "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. 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." > > This part is pretty good already I think. > >> (* Here we employ a wider socio-political meaning of a 'public good', >> as for instance articulated by Inge Kaul in her UNDP publication >> , >> rather than the narrow construction employed by many neo- classical >> economists) > > I think we should reword the last part a bit to make it sound less like > a criticism of economists. > > How about for example: > > "... rather than the narrower meaning often attached to the term in > contexts of economics." > > ? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Mon Apr 15 15:35:43 2013 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:35:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <516BD328.1010406@apc.org> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> <516BB7A3.8090609@apc.org> <00fc01ce39b4$bbbcc450$33364cf0$@gmail.com> <516BD328.1010406@apc.org> Message-ID: <516C568F.2060604@wzb.eu> Hi Anriette, I don't know her in person and wasn't aware that she lives in Berlin. If you have her contact details pls send them along. jeanette Am 15.04.13 12:15, schrieb Anriette Esterhuysen: > Dear Michael > > I do remember this. Thanks for the reminder. Inge does not dwell on the > internet that much.. but raises really useful, and relevant questions. > > APC has proposed a workshop on this topic for the IGF. > > Do you think there is any chance that we can get Inge Caul to attend the > IGF to speak at this workshop? She might also be a good speaker for one > of the main sessions on 'IG principles' if we have one. > > She is based in Berlin, Jeanette, Wolfgang... do you know her? > > Here is what she says about new definitions of public goods in the > paper Michael sent: > > "The analysis in this paper suggests that the present standard > definition of public > goods is of limited analytical, and therefore also, limited > practical-political value. This is > not a new insight. In effect, an extensive literature exists critiquing > the standard > definition of public goods. But so far, no revised definition has > emerged. In part I of this > paper we will, therefore, attempt such a redefinition. The proposal is > to require public > goods to be inclusive (public in consumption), based on participatory > decision-making > (public in provision) and offering a fair deal for all (public in the > distribution of benefits)." > > Anriette > > > On 15/04/2013 10:39, michael gurstein wrote: >> I sent this email below just after Christmas last year so folks must have missed it... The application of the concept of a "global public good" to the Internet was discussed at some length as part of a broader re-definition of global public goods initiated through the UNDP and the Human Development Report and particularly in the work of the German/UN economist Inge Kaul. (this below was as part of an on-going discussion with Michael Lebrant covering much the same ground as is being covered here. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------- >> >> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 9:20 AM >> >> To: 'Michael Leibrandt'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org' >> >> Subject: RE: [governance] FW: Towards the Internet as a Global Public Good: A Seasonal Wish to One and All: >> >> >> >> Hi Michael, >> >> >> >> Thanks for raising the issues that you do. I`m not an economist but in reviewing your comments I realize that I should have mentioned in the blogpost that rather than referring to the mainstream perspective on Global Public Goods (GPG) (as evidenced by the Wikipedia reference), my own thinking in this area was formed largely by the work of a Inge Kaul when and after she was working with the UNDP and specifically on the UN Human Development Report and the International Task Force on Global Public Goods. >> >> >> >> In her discussion, rather than seeing GPG as a ``market failure`` counterpart to private (market) goods, as neo-classical economists would have it, she developed (through linking her discussion to Ostrom among others) a ``positive`` perspective on GPG`s as an element in achieving what she calls active policy driven objectives (and specifically linking these with civil society and the broad public interest including in areas of global social and economic justice and environmental management). I believe that her approach to GPG`s is directly consistent with a public interest approach to the global development and ``management`` of the Internet. >> >> >> >> http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf (Note that I`ve updated my GPG link in the blogpost.) >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen >> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 1:18 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) >> Cc: parminder >> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance >> >> >> >> Dear Matthias, Parminder and all (thanks for changing the subject-line >> >> Parminder) >> >> >> >> Matthias, yes.. I think this is the kind of conceptual debate that we need to have. >> >> >> >> Parminder, I like the idea of civil society adopting a 'definition'. But we need to be sure it is one that is robust enough to be used from social, economic and legal perspectives. So perhaps we need some debate and discussion and then come back to your proposed text. >> >> >> >> Whenever I raise the idea of the internet as a 'global public good' >> >> people make similar points to those made by Matthias - and I take these seriously. At the same time I believe that there is a strong movement towards the internet being becoming non-exclusive and non-rivalrous in use. Is that not what we want? So perhaps I am saying I want the internet to be a global public good and to be accepted as such - if not now, in the near future. >> >> >> >> I sometimes use the rather meaningless term 'public-good-like' entity. >> >> Your suggestion makes sense to me, Matthias: >> >> >> >> "Would it make more sense to say that the Internet’s stability, functionality and security (understood as encompassing human >> >> rights-sensitivity) is a global public good? Or is that distinction only conceptually interesting." >> >> >> >> It is conceptually interesting. The internet is not 'just one thing', as Avri and Parminder's definitions capture. That adds conceptual and legal difficulties. But in terms of the role it plays in cultural, social, economic, political and individual life' it has a distinct identity. >> >> >> >> We need a debate that involves legal people, activists, and economists. >> >> But I believe we should not back down on developing such a definition and advocating for its adoption. Many people will say it is not possible, or will actively not want it. But I believe it is the key to being able to consolidate IG principles, and also to have a clearer understanding of the 'respective' and diverse roles of stakeholders referred to in WSIS documents. >> >> In the longer term I think arriving at such an understanding is necessary not just to protect the public interest (which does mean different things to different people, but I won't go there now ) and to preserve what we are referring to as the internet 'commons', but also to help create and maintain a level playing field for the large variety and number of private sector entities and social enterprises that operate on or through the internet. >> >> >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> >> >> On 15/04/2013 08:44, Kettemann, Matthias >> >> ( matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> I think we can gain much from the debate of what the Internet is – we probably won’t find consensus, but we will understand the Internet better. >>> International law is charged, inter alia, with regulating global public goods. These are usually defined as non-exclusive and exhibit non-rivalry in the usage. Now, people can be (and unfortunately are being) excluded from (usage of) the Internet. (The non-rivalry aspect can be interesting as an argument against artificially limiting domain name resources and as a argument to strengthen net neutrality). >>> So I have some problems with stating that the Internet is just one global public good like air. Safeguarding the Internet necessitates action; safeguarding air and water prima facie not – of corse, once they are polluted, remedial action is required. >>> Would it make more sense to say that the Internet’s stability, functionality and security (understood as encompassing human rights-sensitivity) is a global public good? Or is that distinction only conceptually interesting? >>> Kind regards >>> Matthias >>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>> [ mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von >>> parminder >>> Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2013 06:51 >>> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Betreff: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, >>> Conflicts in Internet Governance >>> 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>< mailto: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>< mailto:nb at bollow.ch> wrote: >>> Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com>< mailto: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 Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de Mon Apr 15 15:59:53 2013 From: Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 21:59:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <516C568F.2060604@wzb.eu> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> <516BB7A3.8090609@apc.org> <00fc01ce39b4$bbbcc450$33364cf0$@gmail.com> <516BD328.1010406@apc.org> <516C568F.2060604@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <677a24c0cdefab87825ae1c69a13b6cd@webmail.lrz.de> http://www.ingekaul.net/contacts/ Dr. Inge Kaul Global Policy Studies Niebuhrstr. 78 D-10629 Berlin Germany Tel +49-30-887 09092 Email contact at ingekaul.net info at globalpolicystudies.net Press Photo Photo 1 Dr. Inge Kaul Links http://www.hertie-school.org http://www.globalpublicgoods.org http://www.thenewpublicfinance.org http://www.gpgnet.net Cheers, Lorena Am 2013-04-15 21:35, schrieb Jeanette Hofmann: > Hi Anriette, I don't know her in person and wasn't aware that she > lives in Berlin. If you have her contact details pls send them along. > jeanette > > Am 15.04.13 12:15, schrieb Anriette Esterhuysen: >> Dear Michael >> >> I do remember this. Thanks for the reminder. Inge does not dwell on >> the >> internet that much.. but raises really useful, and relevant >> questions. >> >> APC has proposed a workshop on this topic for the IGF. >> >> Do you think there is any chance that we can get Inge Caul to attend >> the >> IGF to speak at this workshop? She might also be a good speaker for >> one >> of the main sessions on 'IG principles' if we have one. >> >> She is based in Berlin, Jeanette, Wolfgang... do you know her? >> >> Here is what she says about new definitions of public goods in the >> paper Michael sent: >> >> "The analysis in this paper suggests that the present standard >> definition of public >> goods is of limited analytical, and therefore also, limited >> practical-political value. This is >> not a new insight. In effect, an extensive literature exists >> critiquing >> the standard >> definition of public goods. But so far, no revised definition has >> emerged. In part I of this >> paper we will, therefore, attempt such a redefinition. The proposal >> is >> to require public >> goods to be inclusive (public in consumption), based on >> participatory >> decision-making >> (public in provision) and offering a fair deal for all (public in >> the >> distribution of benefits)." >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 15/04/2013 10:39, michael gurstein wrote: >>> I sent this email below just after Christmas last year so folks >>> must have missed it... The application of the concept of a "global >>> public good" to the Internet was discussed at some length as part of >>> a broader re-definition of global public goods initiated through the >>> UNDP and the Human Development Report and particularly in the work of >>> the German/UN economist Inge Kaul. (this below was as part of an >>> on-going discussion with Michael Lebrant covering much the same >>> ground as is being covered here. >>> >>> >>> >>> M >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------- >>> >>> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 9:20 AM >>> >>> To: 'Michael Leibrandt'; 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org' >>> >>> Subject: RE: [governance] FW: Towards the Internet as a Global >>> Public Good: A Seasonal Wish to One and All: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Michael, >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks for raising the issues that you do. I`m not an economist >>> but in reviewing your comments I realize that I should have mentioned >>> in the blogpost >>> >>> that rather than referring to the mainstream perspective on Global >>> Public Goods (GPG) (as evidenced by the Wikipedia reference), my own >>> thinking in this area was formed largely by the work of a Inge Kaul >>> when and after she was working with the UNDP and specifically on the >>> UN Human Development Report and the International Task Force on >>> Global Public Goods. >>> >>> >>> >>> In her discussion, rather than seeing GPG as a ``market failure`` >>> counterpart to private (market) goods, as neo-classical economists >>> would have it, she developed (through linking her discussion to >>> Ostrom among others) a ``positive`` perspective on GPG`s as an >>> element in achieving what she calls active policy driven objectives >>> (and specifically linking these with civil society and the broad >>> public interest including in areas of global social and economic >>> justice and environmental management). I believe that her approach to >>> GPG`s is directly consistent with a public interest approach to the >>> global development and ``management`` of the Internet. >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf (Note that >>> I`ve updated my GPG link in the blogpost.) >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette >>> Esterhuysen >>> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 1:18 AM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kettemann, Matthias >>> (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) >>> Cc: parminder >>> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; >>> was, Conflicts in Internet Governance >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Matthias, Parminder and all (thanks for changing the >>> subject-line >>> >>> Parminder) >>> >>> >>> >>> Matthias, yes.. I think this is the kind of conceptual debate that >>> we need to have. >>> >>> >>> >>> Parminder, I like the idea of civil society adopting a >>> 'definition'. But we need to be sure it is one that is robust enough >>> to be used from social, economic and legal perspectives. So perhaps >>> we need some debate and discussion and then come back to your >>> proposed text. >>> >>> >>> >>> Whenever I raise the idea of the internet as a 'global public good' >>> >>> people make similar points to those made by Matthias - and I take >>> these seriously. At the same time I believe that there is a strong >>> movement towards the internet being becoming non-exclusive and >>> non-rivalrous in use. Is that not what we want? So perhaps I am >>> saying I want the internet to be a global public good and to be >>> accepted as such - if not now, in the near future. >>> >>> >>> >>> I sometimes use the rather meaningless term 'public-good-like' >>> entity. >>> >>> Your suggestion makes sense to me, Matthias: >>> >>> >>> >>> "Would it make more sense to say that the Internet’s stability, >>> functionality and security (understood as encompassing human >>> >>> rights-sensitivity) is a global public good? Or is that distinction >>> only conceptually interesting." >>> >>> >>> >>> It is conceptually interesting. The internet is not 'just one >>> thing', as Avri and Parminder's definitions capture. That adds >>> conceptual and legal difficulties. But in terms of the role it plays >>> in cultural, social, economic, political and individual life' it has >>> a distinct identity. >>> >>> >>> >>> We need a debate that involves legal people, activists, and >>> economists. >>> >>> But I believe we should not back down on developing such a >>> definition and advocating for its adoption. Many people will say it >>> is not possible, or will actively not want it. But I believe it is >>> the key to being able to consolidate IG principles, and also to have >>> a clearer understanding of the 'respective' and diverse roles of >>> stakeholders referred to in WSIS documents. >>> >>> In the longer term I think arriving at such an understanding is >>> necessary not just to protect the public interest (which does mean >>> different things to different people, but I won't go there now ) and >>> to preserve what we are referring to as the internet 'commons', but >>> also to help create and maintain a level playing field for the large >>> variety and number of private sector entities and social enterprises >>> that operate on or through the internet. >>> >>> >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 15/04/2013 08:44, Kettemann, Matthias >>> >>> ( >>> matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> I think we can gain much from the debate of what the Internet is – >>>> we probably won’t find consensus, but we will understand the >>>> Internet better. >>>> International law is charged, inter alia, with regulating global >>>> public goods. These are usually defined as non-exclusive and exhibit >>>> non-rivalry in the usage. Now, people can be (and unfortunately are >>>> being) excluded from (usage of) the Internet. (The non-rivalry >>>> aspect can be interesting as an argument against artificially >>>> limiting domain name resources and as a argument to strengthen net >>>> neutrality). >>>> So I have some problems with stating that the Internet is just one >>>> global public good like air. Safeguarding the Internet necessitates >>>> action; safeguarding air and water prima facie not – of corse, once >>>> they are polluted, remedial action is required. >>>> Would it make more sense to say that the Internet’s stability, >>>> functionality and security (understood as encompassing human >>>> rights-sensitivity) is a global public good? Or is that distinction >>>> only conceptually interesting? >>>> Kind regards >>>> Matthias >>>> Von: >>>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> [ >>>> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von >>>> parminder >>>> Gesendet: Montag, 15. April 2013 06:51 >>>> An: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> Betreff: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, >>>> Conflicts in Internet Governance >>>> 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>< >>>> mailto: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>< >>>> mailto:nb at bollow.ch> wrote: >>>> Roland Perry < >>>> roland at internetpolicyagency.com>< >>>> >>>> mailto: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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Apr 15 22:43:32 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:13:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <1A69CA05-6519-4CCE-BD08-76C735A603C4@acm.org> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <002701ce3941$4ad566c0$e0803440$@gmail.com> <1A69CA05-6519-4CCE-BD08-76C735A603C4@acm.org> Message-ID: <516CBAD4.6090707@itforchange.net> On Monday 15 April 2013 10:09 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Some of the things I think of as government enabled theft in the Internet: > > - trademark of common words, on the Internet or in general. Was not that theft actually enabled by ICANN, through allowing closed generic tlds like .book, something I think you have not opposed (please correct me if I am wrong). In fact the recent GAC communiqué ( Government Advisory Committee of ICANN) seeks to rightly obstruct such closed generic tlds, asking that such tlds may only be alllowed if a clear public purpose is served by such allocation Such a 'public purpose' proviso I think will cover cases like for instance of allocation of .health even as a closed tlds to WHO but certainly not amazon owning .book. This to me a clear instance whereby a so called bottom up multistakeholder process miserably failed to prevent theft on the Internet and governments have intervened to stop such theft. (The only comment you have made on this recent GAC communiqué which took this important step to stop theft on the Internet is of, to quote you recent email " government wanting ICANN to get into the content regulation business") And also if you are so interested in preventing IP related thefts, please do follow WIPO like global governance processes to see which governments are most active in promoting such theft. Also see how the OECD Principles for Internet Policy Making are new instruments of such theft on and through the Internet, and almost surely if such principles were made by participation of all countries instead of just OECD (read, through UN based bodies), much lesser possibilities of such theft would have been involved........ > - exorbitant fees for wireless bandwidth/access charged in some regions, especially when protected by government sanction mono/duopololy This particular theft is in fact now being further facilitated to a great degree by efforts at complete de-regulation of the Internet sector (inter alia pl see the recent US congress bill controversy reg government control and the Internet) something which was also implicated at the WCIT in the war cry of 'no regulation of the Internet'. No universal service obligations, no price controls, no net neutrality or common carriage obligations. parminder > > 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 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 wrote: >>>> >>>>> Roland Perry 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 22:52:20 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:22:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance In-Reply-To: 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: <516CBCE4.2020002@itforchange.net> They seem to really tying themselves in knots about 'Internet freedom' and 'government control'... almost fun to watch, having seem US establishment for many years now trying to fool the world by glib use of these slogans. http://tales-of-the-sausage-factory.wetmachine.com/will-walden-wipe-out-dmca-and-cispa-to-take-out-net-neutrality-in-the-name-of-internet-freedom/ Will Walden Wipe Out DMCA and CISPA To Take Out Net Neutrality In The Name of “Internet Freedom?” By Harold | April 10, 2013 Today, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology will begin mark up of the so-called “Internet Freedom Bill .” As explained in the Majority Briefing Memo , we’re still on about that whole “the ITU will take control of the Internet and black helicopters will come for out name servers” thing .” Unfortunately, as keeps happening with this , it looks like some folks want to hijack what should be a show of unity to promote their own partisan domestic agenda. Specifically, does the bill as worded undercut the (by accident or design) the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) authority to do things like Network Neutrality? As I elaborate below, however, this is not so much a stab at net neutrality and the FCC generally as it is a murder/suicide. You can’t claim that this clips the wings of the FCC to do net neutrality by making a law that the U.S. is opposed to “government control” of the Internet without also eliminating laws that deal with cybersecurity, copyright enforcement online, privacy, and a range of other stuff that are just as much “government control” of the Internet — but that most Republicans opposed to net neutrality actually like. Plus, as I noted last week when discussing the rural call completion problem , taking the FCC out of the equation may have some unforseen nasty consequences that even Republicans might not like. More below . . . . ** *How The Heck Did Net Neutrality Get Into This?* The concern arises from the very broad language of the proposed bill that “It is the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet free from government control.” The argument being that (a) unlike the almost identical non-binding almost identical to the [non-binding resolution] Congress passed last fall before the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), making this an actual law will apply to domestic policy and not just foreign policy; and (b) net neutrality constitutes “government control” of the Internet; (c) making this law transformed it from a non-binding ‘sense of Congress’ to not merely binding, but retroactively repealing any contrary statute or regulation by implication; so that, (d) the statute would affect an implied repeal of the FCC’s rules (and presumably any other regulation relating to the Internet). I initially did not think much of the possibility that anyone would apply this bill to the FCC, since you can’t knee cap the FCC without knee capping the Copyright Office or other federal agencies beloved of those who hate the FCC. So when asked at the hearing last February whether I thought Congress ought to pass the bill, I said “sure, it will show our continuing resolve” or some such as part of our total unity fest. But folks at the FCC, the State Department, the Department of Justice, and a bunch of other agencies and raised concerns that this could impact domestic policy – not just on net neutrality but on privacy, cybersecurity, law enforcement, and copyright enforcement. So just to be sure, Subcommittee Ranking Member Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) sent a letter to Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) outlining concerns from various agencies and asked that the proposed bill be amended to say “/international/ government control,” just to make it clear that Congress did not intend to impact domestic policy. Astoundingly, Chairman Walden refused this request to clarify the language. */That/* raises goddamn alarm bells. So while I was rather dismissive of the idea before, Walden’s refusal to make the change in the proposed language to make it clear that he and other House Commerce Committee Republicans are not trying /again/ to hijack important foreign policy concerns and the future of the global Internet to score cheap domestic policy points. This is profoundly unfortunate. As I noted last summer when Rep. Lee Terry tried to hijack this for an anti-net neutrality crusade , nothing could more undermine our position globally (and provide ammunition to those who say our concern for global Internet freedom is just more imperialist hypocrisy) than to turn this from a show of unity into a showcase for partisanship on domestic issues. *Consequences of Screwing Around On This Are a Lot Broader Than Net Neutrality.* In addition to undercutting our future negotiating position and thus jeopardizing the whole global Internet freedom thing we are trying to protect, a claim that the wording extends to domestic policy (and thus to net neutrality) has pretty far reaching consequences in other areas – many of which the net neutrality haters like just fine. For example, if you went this interpretation, you would also be saying that the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that force Internet service providers (ISPs) and providers of “interactive services” (like YouTube) to respond to takedown notices. After all telling an ISP who they have to block for copyright purposes or telling a website what they have to take down is far more intrusive “government control” than net neutrality could aspire to be on a good day (just ask Kim Dotcom or the folks at Dajaz1.com ). If the Internet Freedom bill is binding domestic law, then it becomes illegal for for the US Trade Representative to even */ask/* for the crazy train copyright crap it put in ACTA and keeps demanding as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations . Similarly, any hope broadcasters might have that Congress will pass a “fix” to the Aereo decision would appear dead on arrival if the proposed Internet Freedom bill applies to domestic policy. I find it difficult to believe that Chairman Walden hates net neutrality so much he would throw broadcasters under the bus on Aereo just to find a sneaky way to undermine net neutrality. And no matter how much Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) may believe net neutrality is “government control” of the Internet, I find it difficulty to believe she would willingly defy her constituents in Nashville by risking an implied repeal of the DMCA. When last I looked, both the FCC, the Copyright Office, and USTR are part of the “government” that this bill says must not “control” the Internet. You can’t kneecap the FCC without kneecapping the Copyright Office and the USTR. Also, as I noted in my testimony when the House held a hearing on this last February, the U.S. has longstanding policies and statutes on precisely the issues we said at WCIT were inappropriate for the ITU. We have had the CAN-SPAM Act since 2003. We have had the Child Online Privacy and Protection Act (COPPA) for about 15 years. We have various laws and regulations about cybersecurity and law enforcement online – and Congress is actively consider more. Again, it seems rather difficult to believe that Chairman Walden plans to wander over to the top-secret closed door mark up of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing And Protection Act (CISPA) today and say “sorry folks, but */my/* Subcommittee is about to mark up a bill that will make your bill illegal – sucks to be you!” Again, some folks might be happy to see the Internet Freedom bill interpreted in a way that kneecaps the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), but will they be equally happy with kneecapping DOJ, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and any other agency that handles consumer protection and law enforcement? Finally, even if you could count on the merry judicial activists at the D.C. Circuit to know the fix is in and limit this to just FCC stuff you don’t like, I am pretty sure you don’t really want to go there. Remember that rural call completion stuff I was on about last week? If we can’t “regulate the Internet” because of the Internet Freedom bill, how do you expect to solve the rural call completion problem. That solution, you may recall, requires the FCC to dig deep into call routing and require voice providers to route calls in a way that will guarantee they reach rural exchanges. Are you really prepared to tell rural America they can forget about getting incoming calls just to take a pot shot at net neutrality? Also, you might end up someplace like the Second Circuit, which demonstrated only last week in the Aereo decision that it actually understands what /stare decisis / means and all that rule of law stuff the D.C. Circuit likes to ignore. So I really, really wouldn’t count on this staying confined to the FCC. Heck, we refused to sign the ITRs because of cybersecurity and spam. No one even /mentioned/ net neutrality at the WCIT as justification for ITU jurisdiction. A reviewing court actually serious about finding the “intent of congress would have to conclude that, /at a minimum/, the stuff Congress considered “government control” of the Internet included cybersecurity and efforts to stop spam – not net neutrality. *Go Ahead, Make My Day . . .* The obvious answer to all of this is to simply amend the language as requested by Rep. Eshoo. Even better, don’t make the thing a law at all. Just keep doing what you did last time and issue specific resolutions when necessary. That will provide context for what Congress actually intends. But if Walden and other Commerce Committee Republicans decide to push the button on this, understand what it means. This isn’t just a jab at the net neutrality stuff you’ve worked yourselves into a frenzy over, or a favor to incumbents who view the [transition of the phone system to IP as a glide-path to deregulation . It’s a doomsday device that takes out everything. You want to swap elimination of net neutrality for elimination of the DMCA? You want to throw broadcasters under the bus on Aereo to deregulate the phone system? You want to repeal the FTC ability to protect consumer privacy, at the cost of eliminating DHS’s ability to protect national cybersecurity? As a speaker at the 2012 Republican Convention in Orlando once famously said: “Go ahead, make my day .” Stay tuned . . . . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue Apr 16 00:10:33 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:10:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <516CBAD4.6090707@itforchange.net> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <002701ce3941$4ad566c0$e0803440$@gmail.com> <1A69CA05-6519-4CCE-BD08-76C735A603C4@acm.org> <516CBAD4.6090707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <61C0DBE6-89E8-46D6-8655-899521166B4C@acm.org> Hi, In one shot got me and ICANN. Goodo. Congratulations. On the other hand: You are right, I do not object to amazon or others using words for their own purposes. I do not see this as trademarking, in fact it is quite different than a trademark. To be honest I prefer that they will be using for internal purposes that using it to make money. Or in the public good as the GAC puts - funny how they see amazon making money with it better that seeing it used in house. In any case, I also do not see top level names as having any greater ownership of a piece of the commons than I see in second level names. True, until other names authorities assert themselves it looks like there is only one possibility for a top level domain name of book, but I do not beleive the false monopoly of a single domain authority will last for very much longer. Other roots exists and sooner or later one of them is going to give the ICANn name authority a run for its money. And eventually we will learn how to to use URI name spaces in such a way that the authority of a name, and the scheme under which it is understood, will be more flexible. In my view it is only a temporary artifact of the way the technology is being used that the coincidental juxtaposition of the letters b o o k, which resemble a word in one script in one language in one namespace is a unique thing. But I like the way we are having the discussion in ICANN, and if the issue were to go through a proper ICANN multistakeholder policy development process and were to reach rough consensus that .book should not be given to a single application unless they were a community of book lovers I would not be displeased - as long as it was a consensus of the stakeholders and not a fiat that the GAC was trying to make the Board impose from above. I have a lot of issues within ICANN at the moment in the way the multistakeholder process seems to be being circumvented by governments and the IP industry. And I object to that more than I object to Amazon's use of the letters b o o k as a TLD. avri On 15 Apr 2013, at 22:43, parminder wrote: > > On Monday 15 April 2013 10:09 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> Some of the things I think of as government enabled theft in the Internet: >> >> - trademark of common words, on the Internet or in general. >> > > Was not that theft actually enabled by ICANN, through allowing closed generic tlds like .book, something I think you have not opposed (please correct me if I am wrong). In fact the recent GAC communiqué ( Government Advisory Committee of ICANN) seeks to rightly obstruct such closed generic tlds, asking that such tlds may only be alllowed if a clear public purpose is served by such allocation Such a 'public purpose' proviso I think will cover cases like for instance of allocation of .health even as a closed tlds to WHO but certainly not amazon owning .book. This to me a clear instance whereby a so called bottom up multistakeholder process miserably failed to prevent theft on the Internet and governments have intervened to stop such theft. (The only comment you have made on this recent GAC communiqué which took this important step to stop theft on the Internet is of, to quote you recent email " government wanting ICANN to get into the content regulation business") > > And also if you are so interested in preventing IP related thefts, please do follow WIPO like global governance processes to see which governments are most active in promoting such theft. Also see how the OECD Principles for Internet Policy Making are new instruments of such theft on and through the Internet, and almost surely if such principles were made by participation of all countries instead of just OECD (read, through UN based bodies), much lesser possibilities of such theft would have been involved........ > >> - exorbitant fees for wireless bandwidth/access charged in some regions, especially when protected by government sanction mono/duopololy > > This particular theft is in fact now being further facilitated to a great degree by efforts at complete de-regulation of the Internet sector (inter alia pl see the recent US congress bill controversy reg government control and the Internet) something which was also implicated at the WCIT in the war cry of 'no regulation of the Internet'. No universal service obligations, no price controls, no net neutrality or common carriage obligations. > > parminder > > >> >> 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 >>>> >>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Roland Perry >>>>>> 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 >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Guru at ITforChange.net Tue Apr 16 00:16:03 2013 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:46:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <2e914496-538b-47e9-a52e-3a356beb22e6@email.android.com> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <9R9mW+WzstaRFAJI@internetpolicyagency.com> <82DC3510-3E51-4464-BD67-42D0EE5CDA5C@acm.org> <516B8E52.908@ITforChange.net> <6b819825-adf1-439f-88b1-49ae71a97f2a@email.android.com> <516C01FB.4020007@ITforChange.net> <2e914496-538b-47e9-a52e-3a356beb22e6@email.android.com> Message-ID: <516CD083.4010001@ITforChange.net> Avri, On 04/15/2013 07:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I do not see the contradiction in 1. You are assuming that the > citizens have only one form of participation. And you are assuming > that people only interact in government in one way. Personally I also > advocate a multistakeholder approach within a country by those living > in that country. Of course that its not the case very often at this > point. As for enforcement that happens in many ways, some of which may > even be citizen based. > Perhaps 'some of enforcement' may be citizen based (request you to give examples). But that may be an exception to the rule that it is the Government which has the duty to enforce law. Do you accept this. citizens enforcing law just like the government is nothing but vigilantism. If so, do you accept that Government has a different role from other stakeholders in this important task of enforcing law? > On the second point, ultimately the legitimacy of any government rests > with the citizen, whether as voter, organizer, advocate, demonstrator > or activist. So government only rules to the extent to which those who > live in a country allow them to rule. Indeed in case of the worse > autocracy the citizen effort to change things is quite huge and > sometimes deadly, but as the seasonal, color and other revolutions > show, the people have the power when they decide they need to take the > power. > Nicely said. That finally Government legitimacy is provided by the citizen. In our democracies, including as a voter to unseat governments if needed. Thus there is a special relationship of accountability of the government to the citizen Such an accountability, alas, is not available vis-a-vis the private sector or individuals. So how do you see a corporate or even a technical expert as an 'equal' stakeholder in policy making? I have no hesitation in agreeing that Governments can be authoritarian, corrupt, inefficientetc etcetc. However, I am not able to understand how you think that their role in governance (enforcing law being a very important component of this) can be 'equated' to other stakeholders. Your clarifications on my points will help me better understand your view. regards, Guru > > "Guru गुरु" wrote: > > On 04/15/2013 05:18 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> I think I answered it several times in several ways. >> >> Within their respective countries they, whether North Korea, >> Azerbaijan or Sweden, get to enforce laws to the extent that >> citizens allow on those within their physical territory. >> > > Avri, > > 1. From your line above, I suppose you accept that other > stakeholders in each of these (and other) countries will not have > a role in enforcing law within their physical territory, which the > Governments have. > > If you do accept this, then your wish that "government > participation as equal/equivalent stakeholders in Internet > governance" contradicts the above, in the context of law > enforcement within their physical territory. Will you accept that > your wish is meaningless to the extent of this contradiction. > > > 2. I could not understand what you mean by "to the extent that > citizens allow", do you mean that the citizens can refuse > enforcement of law by the Government. Would you extend such a > privilege to decide what laws to follow and what not to follow to > areas other than IG? > > I request your clarifications. > > Guru > ps - On the issue of law enforcement beyond territorial borders, > I hope to seek clarification separately > > >> "Guru गुरु" wrote: >> >> On 04/15/2013 06:55 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> 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 >> >> Avri >> >> Do you think government needs to enforce law. would such enforcement >> require 'control'? (I think andrea glorioso asked this question in two >> emails pointedly but i think without response) >> >> Guru >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ~~~ >> avri > > > ~~~ > avri -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Apr 16 00:37:38 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:07:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <61C0DBE6-89E8-46D6-8655-899521166B4C@acm.org> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <002701ce3941$4ad566c0$e0803440$@gmail.com> <1A69CA05-6519-4CCE-BD08-76C735A603C4@acm.org> <516CBAD4.6090707@itforchange.net> <61C0DBE6-89E8-46D6-8655-899521166B4C@acm.org> Message-ID: <516CD592.2030700@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 16 April 2013 09:40 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > In one shot got me and ICANN. Goodo. Congratulations. I publicly object to the manner in which Avri is repeatedly personalising a political debate based on facts and reasons that I am trying to have.... This is the second time in the last few days that she has 'congratulated' me for 'getting her', which follows her extremely ad hominem declaration that i rule the list and everyone else runs scared, which follows her repeated use of the contemptuous term 'gotcha' for my reasoned propositions presented to the list..... Such pattern of personalisation of political debates is rather consistent here, and as can be seen in the above instance sets up a provocation for problematic loops of exchanges. parminder > On the other hand: > > You are right, I do not object to amazon or others using words for their own purposes. I do not see this as trademarking, in fact it is quite different than a trademark. > > To be honest I prefer that they will be using for internal purposes that using it to make money. Or in the public good as the GAC puts - funny how they see amazon making money with it better that seeing it used in house. > > In any case, I also do not see top level names as having any greater ownership of a piece of the commons than I see in second level names. True, until other names authorities assert themselves it looks like there is only one possibility for a top level domain name of book, but I do not beleive the false monopoly of a single domain authority will last for very much longer. Other roots exists and sooner or later one of them is going to give the ICANn name authority a run for its money. And eventually we will learn how to to use URI name spaces in such a way that the authority of a name, and the scheme under which it is understood, will be more flexible. > > In my view it is only a temporary artifact of the way the technology is being used that the coincidental juxtaposition of the letters b o o k, which resemble a word in one script in one language in one namespace is a unique thing. > > But I like the way we are having the discussion in ICANN, and if the issue were to go through a proper ICANN multistakeholder policy development process and were to reach rough consensus that .book should not be given to a single application unless they were a community of book lovers I would not be displeased - as long as it was a consensus of the stakeholders and not a fiat that the GAC was trying to make the Board impose from above. I have a lot of issues within ICANN at the moment in the way the multistakeholder process seems to be being circumvented by governments and the IP industry. And I object to that more than I object to Amazon's use of the letters b o o k as a TLD. > > avri > > On 15 Apr 2013, at 22:43, parminder wrote: > >> On Monday 15 April 2013 10:09 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> Some of the things I think of as government enabled theft in the Internet: >>> >>> - trademark of common words, on the Internet or in general. >>> >> Was not that theft actually enabled by ICANN, through allowing closed generic tlds like .book, something I think you have not opposed (please correct me if I am wrong). In fact the recent GAC communiqué ( Government Advisory Committee of ICANN) seeks to rightly obstruct such closed generic tlds, asking that such tlds may only be alllowed if a clear public purpose is served by such allocation Such a 'public purpose' proviso I think will cover cases like for instance of allocation of .health even as a closed tlds to WHO but certainly not amazon owning .book. This to me a clear instance whereby a so called bottom up multistakeholder process miserably failed to prevent theft on the Internet and governments have intervened to stop such theft. (The only comment you have made on this recent GAC communiqué which took this important step to stop theft on the Internet is of, to quote you recent email " government wanting ICANN to get into the content regulation business") >> >> And also if you are so interested in preventing IP related thefts, please do follow WIPO like global governance processes to see which governments are most active in promoting such theft. Also see how the OECD Principles for Internet Policy Making are new instruments of such theft on and through the Internet, and almost surely if such principles were made by participation of all countries instead of just OECD (read, through UN based bodies), much lesser possibilities of such theft would have been involved........ >> >>> - exorbitant fees for wireless bandwidth/access charged in some regions, especially when protected by government sanction mono/duopololy >> This particular theft is in fact now being further facilitated to a great degree by efforts at complete de-regulation of the Internet sector (inter alia pl see the recent US congress bill controversy reg government control and the Internet) something which was also implicated at the WCIT in the war cry of 'no regulation of the Internet'. No universal service obligations, no price controls, no net neutrality or common carriage obligations. >> >> parminder >> >> >>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Roland Perry >>>>>>> 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 >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Tue Apr 16 00:43:32 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:13:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <516CD592.2030700@itforchange.net> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <002701ce3941$4ad566c0$e0803440$@gmail.com> <1A69CA05-6519-4CCE-BD08-76C735A603C4@acm.org> <516CBAD4.6090707@itforchange.net> <61C0DBE6-89E8-46D6-8655-899521166B4C@acm.org> <516CD592.2030700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I honestly thought that line was a joke and ignored it -C On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:07 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 16 April 2013 09:40 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> In one shot got me and ICANN. Goodo. Congratulations. >> > > I publicly object to the manner in which Avri is repeatedly personalising > a political debate based on facts and reasons that I am trying to have.... > This is the second time in the last few days that she has 'congratulated' > me for 'getting her', which follows her extremely ad hominem declaration > that i rule the list and everyone else runs scared, which follows her > repeated use of the contemptuous term 'gotcha' for my reasoned propositions > presented to the list..... Such pattern of personalisation of political > debates is rather consistent here, and as can be seen in the above > instance sets up a provocation for problematic loops of exchanges. > > parminder > > On the other hand: >> >> You are right, I do not object to amazon or others using words for their >> own purposes. I do not see this as trademarking, in fact it is quite >> different than a trademark. >> >> To be honest I prefer that they will be using for internal purposes that >> using it to make money. Or in the public good as the GAC puts - funny how >> they see amazon making money with it better that seeing it used in house. >> >> In any case, I also do not see top level names as having any greater >> ownership of a piece of the commons than I see in second level names. >> True, until other names authorities assert themselves it looks like there >> is only one possibility for a top level domain name of book, but I do not >> beleive the false monopoly of a single domain authority will last for very >> much longer. Other roots exists and sooner or later one of them is going >> to give the ICANn name authority a run for its money. And eventually we >> will learn how to to use URI name spaces in such a way that the authority >> of a name, and the scheme under which it is understood, will be more >> flexible. >> >> In my view it is only a temporary artifact of the way the technology is >> being used that the coincidental juxtaposition of the letters b o o k, >> which resemble a word in one script in one language in one namespace is a >> unique thing. >> >> But I like the way we are having the discussion in ICANN, and if the >> issue were to go through a proper ICANN multistakeholder policy development >> process and were to reach rough consensus that .book should not be given >> to a single application unless they were a community of book lovers I would >> not be displeased - as long as it was a consensus of the stakeholders and >> not a fiat that the GAC was trying to make the Board impose from above. I >> have a lot of issues within ICANN at the moment in the way the >> multistakeholder process seems to be being circumvented by governments and >> the IP industry. And I object to that more than I object to Amazon's use >> of the letters b o o k as a TLD. >> >> avri >> >> On 15 Apr 2013, at 22:43, parminder wrote: >> >> On Monday 15 April 2013 10:09 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Some of the things I think of as government enabled theft in the >>>> Internet: >>>> >>>> - trademark of common words, on the Internet or in general. >>>> >>>> Was not that theft actually enabled by ICANN, through allowing closed >>> generic tlds like .book, something I think you have not opposed (please >>> correct me if I am wrong). In fact the recent GAC communiqué ( Government >>> Advisory Committee of ICANN) seeks to rightly obstruct such closed >>> generic tlds, asking that such tlds may only be alllowed if a clear public >>> purpose is served by such allocation Such a 'public purpose' proviso I >>> think will cover cases like for instance of allocation of .health even as a >>> closed tlds to WHO but certainly not amazon owning .book. This to me a >>> clear instance whereby a so called bottom up multistakeholder process >>> miserably failed to prevent theft on the Internet and governments have >>> intervened to stop such theft. (The only comment you have made on this >>> recent GAC communiqué which took this important step to stop theft on the >>> Internet is of, to quote you recent email " government wanting ICANN to get >>> into the content regulation business") >>> >>> And also if you are so interested in preventing IP related thefts, >>> please do follow WIPO like global governance processes to see which >>> governments are most active in promoting such theft. Also see how the OECD >>> Principles for Internet Policy Making are new instruments of such theft on >>> and through the Internet, and almost surely if such principles were made by >>> participation of all countries instead of just OECD (read, through UN based >>> bodies), much lesser possibilities of such theft would have been >>> involved........ >>> >>> - exorbitant fees for wireless bandwidth/access charged in some >>>> regions, especially when protected by government sanction mono/duopololy >>>> >>> This particular theft is in fact now being further facilitated to a >>> great degree by efforts at complete de-regulation of the Internet sector >>> (inter alia pl see the recent US congress bill controversy reg government >>> control and the Internet) something which was also implicated at the WCIT >>> in the war cry of 'no regulation of the Internet'. No universal service >>> obligations, no price controls, no net neutrality or common carriage >>> obligations. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> 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@**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 >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Roland Perry >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> ______________________________**______________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.**com/translate_t >>> >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Apr 16 00:43:42 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:43:42 +0900 Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <516CD592.2030700@itforchange.net> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <002701ce3941$4ad566c0$e0803440$@gmail.com> <1A69CA05-6519-4CCE-BD08-76C735A603C4@acm.org> <516CBAD4.6090707@itforchange.net> <61C0DBE6-89E8-46D6-8655-899521166B4C@acm.org> <516CD592.2030700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hello I don't see any personalization in her reply but more expressing frustration to see her arguments somehow misinterpreted or read in different way. she also replied and used substantive arguments I am afraid to see your response in the borderline bullying and a real ad-hominem in this case. unfortunately this latin locution become the new godwin point of IGC list. Rafik 2013/4/16 parminder > > On Tuesday 16 April 2013 09:40 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> In one shot got me and ICANN. Goodo. Congratulations. >> > > I publicly object to the manner in which Avri is repeatedly personalising > a political debate based on facts and reasons that I am trying to have.... > This is the second time in the last few days that she has 'congratulated' > me for 'getting her', which follows her extremely ad hominem declaration > that i rule the list and everyone else runs scared, which follows her > repeated use of the contemptuous term 'gotcha' for my reasoned propositions > presented to the list..... Such pattern of personalisation of political > debates is rather consistent here, and as can be seen in the above > instance sets up a provocation for problematic loops of exchanges. > > parminder > >> On the other hand: >> >> You are right, I do not object to amazon or others using words for their >> own purposes. I do not see this as trademarking, in fact it is quite >> different than a trademark. >> >> To be honest I prefer that they will be using for internal purposes that >> using it to make money. Or in the public good as the GAC puts - funny how >> they see amazon making money with it better that seeing it used in house. >> >> In any case, I also do not see top level names as having any greater >> ownership of a piece of the commons than I see in second level names. >> True, until other names authorities assert themselves it looks like there >> is only one possibility for a top level domain name of book, but I do not >> beleive the false monopoly of a single domain authority will last for very >> much longer. Other roots exists and sooner or later one of them is going >> to give the ICANn name authority a run for its money. And eventually we >> will learn how to to use URI name spaces in such a way that the authority >> of a name, and the scheme under which it is understood, will be more >> flexible. >> >> In my view it is only a temporary artifact of the way the technology is >> being used that the coincidental juxtaposition of the letters b o o k, >> which resemble a word in one script in one language in one namespace is a >> unique thing. >> >> But I like the way we are having the discussion in ICANN, and if the >> issue were to go through a proper ICANN multistakeholder policy development >> process and were to reach rough consensus that .book should not be given >> to a single application unless they were a community of book lovers I would >> not be displeased - as long as it was a consensus of the stakeholders and >> not a fiat that the GAC was trying to make the Board impose from above. I >> have a lot of issues within ICANN at the moment in the way the >> multistakeholder process seems to be being circumvented by governments and >> the IP industry. And I object to that more than I object to Amazon's use >> of the letters b o o k as a TLD. >> >> avri >> >> On 15 Apr 2013, at 22:43, parminder wrote: >> >> On Monday 15 April 2013 10:09 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Some of the things I think of as government enabled theft in the >>>> Internet: >>>> >>>> - trademark of common words, on the Internet or in general. >>>> >>>> Was not that theft actually enabled by ICANN, through allowing closed >>> generic tlds like .book, something I think you have not opposed (please >>> correct me if I am wrong). In fact the recent GAC communiqué ( Government >>> Advisory Committee of ICANN) seeks to rightly obstruct such closed >>> generic tlds, asking that such tlds may only be alllowed if a clear public >>> purpose is served by such allocation Such a 'public purpose' proviso I >>> think will cover cases like for instance of allocation of .health even as a >>> closed tlds to WHO but certainly not amazon owning .book. This to me a >>> clear instance whereby a so called bottom up multistakeholder process >>> miserably failed to prevent theft on the Internet and governments have >>> intervened to stop such theft. (The only comment you have made on this >>> recent GAC communiqué which took this important step to stop theft on the >>> Internet is of, to quote you recent email " government wanting ICANN to get >>> into the content regulation business") >>> >>> And also if you are so interested in preventing IP related thefts, >>> please do follow WIPO like global governance processes to see which >>> governments are most active in promoting such theft. Also see how the OECD >>> Principles for Internet Policy Making are new instruments of such theft on >>> and through the Internet, and almost surely if such principles were made by >>> participation of all countries instead of just OECD (read, through UN based >>> bodies), much lesser possibilities of such theft would have been >>> involved........ >>> >>> - exorbitant fees for wireless bandwidth/access charged in some >>>> regions, especially when protected by government sanction mono/duopololy >>>> >>> This particular theft is in fact now being further facilitated to a >>> great degree by efforts at complete de-regulation of the Internet sector >>> (inter alia pl see the recent US congress bill controversy reg government >>> control and the Internet) something which was also implicated at the WCIT >>> in the war cry of 'no regulation of the Internet'. No universal service >>> obligations, no price controls, no net neutrality or common carriage >>> obligations. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> 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@**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 >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Roland Perry >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>> ______________________________**______________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.**com/translate_t >>> >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue Apr 16 01:10:34 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 01:10:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <516CD083.4010001@ITforChange.net> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <9R9mW+WzstaRFAJI@internetpolicyagency.com> <82DC3510-3E51-4464-BD67-42D0EE5CDA5C@acm.org> <516B8E52.908@ITforChange.net> <6b819825-adf1-439f-88b1-49ae71a97f2a@email.android.com> <516C01FB.4020007@ITforChange.net> <2e914496-538b-47e9-a52e-3a356beb22e6@email.android.com> <516CD083.4010001@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <964BE30D-03DB-4461-A0F7-D5A938068239@acm.org> Hi, - Community boards are used in all sorts of circumstances to enforce local ordinance and policy. It is true that one of the roles of the government to run the policing function. and in the best cases, the policing function is under constant review/oversight by citizen review boards. I never claimed they had not function. But I do claim that function can and must be equivalent to the other functions. Governments are not our masters, they are of, by and for the people. We are their masters, and at the very least their equals in the multistakeholder process. - Actually private corporations are accountable to the stockholders and their customers. All people who have chosen freely to interact with them at various levels of contractual and consumer relationship with them. I may not be the greatest fan of the accountability feedback loop in most business but there is one (except maybe banks and other money for money's sake types of businesses). And some businesses are committing themselves to structures such as GNI that add extra public accountability mechanisms. This is a good thing that will make them more accountable. - in non commercial organization there is always a board, and advisory committees of some sort and various forms of oversight. In the Internet context that is the multistakeholder governance processes. avri GNI - http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org On 16 Apr 2013, at 00:16, Guru गुरु wrote: > Avri, > > On 04/15/2013 07:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I do not see the contradiction in 1. You are assuming that the citizens have only one form of participation. And you are assuming that people only interact in government in one way. Personally I also advocate a multistakeholder approach within a country by those living in that country. Of course that its not the case very often at this point. As for enforcement that happens in many ways, some of which may even be citizen based. >> > Perhaps 'some of enforcement' may be citizen based (request you to give examples). But that may be an exception to the rule that it is the Government which has the duty to enforce law. Do you accept this. citizens enforcing law just like the government is nothing but vigilantism. > > If so, do you accept that Government has a different role from other stakeholders in this important task of enforcing law? > >> On the second point, ultimately the legitimacy of any government rests with the citizen, whether as voter, organizer, advocate, demonstrator or activist. So government only rules to the extent to which those who live in a country allow them to rule. Indeed in case of the worse autocracy the citizen effort to change things is quite huge and sometimes deadly, but as the seasonal, color and other revolutions show, the people have the power when they decide they need to take the power. >> > > Nicely said. That finally Government legitimacy is provided by the citizen. In our democracies, including as a voter to unseat governments if needed. Thus there is a special relationship of accountability of the government to the citizen > > Such an accountability, alas, is not available vis-a-vis the private sector or individuals. So how do you see a corporate or even a technical expert as an 'equal' stakeholder in policy making? > > I have no hesitation in agreeing that Governments can be authoritarian, corrupt, inefficient etc etc etc. However, I am not able to understand how you think that their role in governance (enforcing law being a very important component of this) can be 'equated' to other stakeholders. > > Your clarifications on my points will help me better understand your view. > > regards, > Guru > >> >> "Guru गुरु" wrote: >> On 04/15/2013 05:18 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> I think I answered it several times in several ways. >>> >>> Within their respective countries they, whether North Korea, Azerbaijan or Sweden, get to enforce laws to the extent that citizens allow on those within their physical territory. >>> >> >> Avri, >> >> 1. From your line above, I suppose you accept that other stakeholders in each of these (and other) countries will not have a role in enforcing law within their physical territory, which the Governments have. >> >> If you do accept this, then your wish that "government participation as equal/equivalent stakeholders in Internet governance" contradicts the above, in the context of law enforcement within their physical territory. Will you accept that your wish is meaningless to the extent of this contradiction. >> >> >> 2. I could not understand what you mean by "to the extent that citizens allow", do you mean that the citizens can refuse enforcement of law by the Government. Would you extend such a privilege to decide what laws to follow and what not to follow to areas other than IG? >> >> I request your clarifications. >> >> Guru >> ps - On the issue of law enforcement beyond territorial borders, I hope to seek clarification separately >> >> >>> "Guru गुरु" wrote: >>> On 04/15/2013 06:55 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> Avri >>> >>> Do you think government needs to enforce law. would such enforcement >>> require 'control'? (I think andrea glorioso asked this question in two >>> emails pointedly but i think without response) >>> >>> Guru >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ~~~ >>> avri >> >> >> ~~~ >> avri > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Apr 16 01:14:25 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:14:25 +0900 Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <002701ce3941$4ad566c0$e0803440$@gmail.com> <1A69CA05-6519-4CCE-BD08-76C735A603C4@acm.org> <516CBAD4.6090707@itforchange.net> <61C0DBE6-89E8-46D6-8655-899521166B4C@acm.org> <516CD592.2030700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Thanks Rafik, complete agreement. Parminder, please stop manipulating and twisting people's comments; a pattern that has been commented for many years. Now Guru is also at it with similar rhetorical tricks and loaded questions. Looks like coordinated bullying and is really too much. A straight question for you. You are a civil society representative on the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation, will you be able to represent the views expressed by civil society members such as Avri, me and "our Ilk"? If not, please resign from the working group. Adam On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hello > > I don't see any personalization in her reply but more expressing frustration > to see her arguments somehow misinterpreted or read in different way. she > also replied and used substantive arguments > > I am afraid to see your response in the borderline bullying and a real > ad-hominem in this case. unfortunately this latin locution become the new > godwin point of IGC list. > > Rafik > > > > > 2013/4/16 parminder >> >> >> On Tuesday 16 April 2013 09:40 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> In one shot got me and ICANN. Goodo. Congratulations. >> >> >> I publicly object to the manner in which Avri is repeatedly personalising >> a political debate based on facts and reasons that I am trying to have.... >> This is the second time in the last few days that she has 'congratulated' me >> for 'getting her', which follows her extremely ad hominem declaration that >> i rule the list and everyone else runs scared, which follows her repeated >> use of the contemptuous term 'gotcha' for my reasoned propositions presented >> to the list..... Such pattern of personalisation of political debates is >> rather consistent here, and as can be seen in the above instance sets up a >> provocation for problematic loops of exchanges. >> >> parminder >>> >>> On the other hand: >>> >>> You are right, I do not object to amazon or others using words for their >>> own purposes. I do not see this as trademarking, in fact it is quite >>> different than a trademark. >>> >>> To be honest I prefer that they will be using for internal purposes that >>> using it to make money. Or in the public good as the GAC puts - funny how >>> they see amazon making money with it better that seeing it used in house. >>> >>> In any case, I also do not see top level names as having any greater >>> ownership of a piece of the commons than I see in second level names. True, >>> until other names authorities assert themselves it looks like there is only >>> one possibility for a top level domain name of book, but I do not beleive >>> the false monopoly of a single domain authority will last for very much >>> longer. Other roots exists and sooner or later one of them is going to give >>> the ICANn name authority a run for its money. And eventually we will learn >>> how to to use URI name spaces in such a way that the authority of a name, >>> and the scheme under which it is understood, will be more flexible. >>> >>> In my view it is only a temporary artifact of the way the technology is >>> being used that the coincidental juxtaposition of the letters b o o k, which >>> resemble a word in one script in one language in one namespace is a unique >>> thing. >>> >>> But I like the way we are having the discussion in ICANN, and if the >>> issue were to go through a proper ICANN multistakeholder policy development >>> process and were to reach rough consensus that .book should not be given to >>> a single application unless they were a community of book lovers I would not >>> be displeased - as long as it was a consensus of the stakeholders and not a >>> fiat that the GAC was trying to make the Board impose from above. I have a >>> lot of issues within ICANN at the moment in the way the multistakeholder >>> process seems to be being circumvented by governments and the IP industry. >>> And I object to that more than I object to Amazon's use of the letters b o >>> o k as a TLD. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> On 15 Apr 2013, at 22:43, parminder wrote: >>> >>>> On Monday 15 April 2013 10:09 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Some of the things I think of as government enabled theft in the >>>>> Internet: >>>>> >>>>> - trademark of common words, on the Internet or in general. >>>>> >>>> Was not that theft actually enabled by ICANN, through allowing closed >>>> generic tlds like .book, something I think you have not opposed (please >>>> correct me if I am wrong). In fact the recent GAC communiqué ( Government >>>> Advisory Committee of ICANN) seeks to rightly obstruct such closed generic >>>> tlds, asking that such tlds may only be alllowed if a clear public purpose >>>> is served by such allocation Such a 'public purpose' proviso I think will >>>> cover cases like for instance of allocation of .health even as a closed tlds >>>> to WHO but certainly not amazon owning .book. This to me a clear instance >>>> whereby a so called bottom up multistakeholder process miserably failed to >>>> prevent theft on the Internet and governments have intervened to stop such >>>> theft. (The only comment you have made on this recent GAC communiqué which >>>> took this important step to stop theft on the Internet is of, to quote you >>>> recent email " government wanting ICANN to get into the content regulation >>>> business") >>>> >>>> And also if you are so interested in preventing IP related thefts, >>>> please do follow WIPO like global governance processes to see which >>>> governments are most active in promoting such theft. Also see how the OECD >>>> Principles for Internet Policy Making are new instruments of such theft on >>>> and through the Internet, and almost surely if such principles were made by >>>> participation of all countries instead of just OECD (read, through UN based >>>> bodies), much lesser possibilities of such theft would have been >>>> involved........ >>>> >>>>> - exorbitant fees for wireless bandwidth/access charged in some >>>>> regions, especially when protected by government sanction mono/duopololy >>>> >>>> This particular theft is in fact now being further facilitated to a >>>> great degree by efforts at complete de-regulation of the Internet sector >>>> (inter alia pl see the recent US congress bill controversy reg government >>>> control and the Internet) something which was also implicated at the WCIT in >>>> the war cry of 'no regulation of the Internet'. No universal service >>>> obligations, no price controls, no net neutrality or common carriage >>>> obligations. >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Roland Perry >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue Apr 16 02:15:10 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 02:15:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <516CD592.2030700@itforchange.net> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <002701ce3941$4ad566c0$e0803440$@gmail.com> <1A69CA05-6519-4CCE-BD08-76C735A603C4@acm.org> <516CBAD4.6090707@itforchange.net> <61C0DBE6-89E8-46D6-8655-899521166B4C@acm.org> <516CD592.2030700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <96CAF416-6558-4C78-9F6C-F93F74EC6A54@acm.org> Hi, I did neglect to keep my promise regarding acronyms, i.e. that I will list glossary at the end of the message " > eventually we will learn how to to use URI name spaces in such a way that the authority of a name, and the scheme under which it is understood, will be more flexible. " URI - Uniform Resource Identifier. A URL, uniform resource locator - e.g. http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org, is one way in which URIs as classified. On 16 Apr 2013, at 00:37, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 16 April 2013 09:40 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> In one shot got me and ICANN. Goodo. Congratulations. > > I publicly object to the manner in which Avri is repeatedly personalising a political debate based on facts and reasons that I am trying to have.... This is the second time in the last few days that she has 'congratulated' me for 'getting her', which follows her extremely ad hominem declaration that i rule the list and everyone else runs scared, which follows her repeated use of the contemptuous term 'gotcha' for my reasoned propositions presented to the list..... Such pattern of personalisation of political debates is rather consistent here, and as can be seen in the above instance sets up a provocation for problematic loops of exchanges. > > parminder >> On the other hand: >> >> You are right, I do not object to amazon or others using words for their own purposes. I do not see this as trademarking, in fact it is quite different than a trademark. >> >> To be honest I prefer that they will be using for internal purposes that using it to make money. Or in the public good as the GAC puts - funny how they see amazon making money with it better that seeing it used in house. >> >> In any case, I also do not see top level names as having any greater ownership of a piece of the commons than I see in second level names. True, until other names authorities assert themselves it looks like there is only one possibility for a top level domain name of book, but I do not beleive the false monopoly of a single domain authority will last for very much longer. Other roots exists and sooner or later one of them is going to give the ICANn name authority a run for its money. And eventually we will learn how to to use URI name spaces in such a way that the authority of a name, and the scheme under which it is understood, will be more flexible. >> >> In my view it is only a temporary artifact of the way the technology is being used that the coincidental juxtaposition of the letters b o o k, which resemble a word in one script in one language in one namespace is a unique thing. >> >> But I like the way we are having the discussion in ICANN, and if the issue were to go through a proper ICANN multistakeholder policy development process and were to reach rough consensus that .book should not be given to a single application unless they were a community of book lovers I would not be displeased - as long as it was a consensus of the stakeholders and not a fiat that the GAC was trying to make the Board impose from above. I have a lot of issues within ICANN at the moment in the way the multistakeholder process seems to be being circumvented by governments and the IP industry. And I object to that more than I object to Amazon's use of the letters b o o k as a TLD. >> >> avri >> >> On 15 Apr 2013, at 22:43, parminder wrote: >> >>> On Monday 15 April 2013 10:09 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> >>>> Some of the things I think of as government enabled theft in the Internet: >>>> >>>> - trademark of common words, on the Internet or in general. >>>> >>> Was not that theft actually enabled by ICANN, through allowing closed generic tlds like .book, something I think you have not opposed (please correct me if I am wrong). In fact the recent GAC communiqué ( Government Advisory Committee of ICANN) seeks to rightly obstruct such closed generic tlds, asking that such tlds may only be alllowed if a clear public purpose is served by such allocation Such a 'public purpose' proviso I think will cover cases like for instance of allocation of .health even as a closed tlds to WHO but certainly not amazon owning .book. This to me a clear instance whereby a so called bottom up multistakeholder process miserably failed to prevent theft on the Internet and governments have intervened to stop such theft. (The only comment you have made on this recent GAC communiqué which took this important step to stop theft on the Internet is of, to quote you recent email " government wanting ICANN to get into the content regulation business") >>> >>> And also if you are so interested in preventing IP related thefts, please do follow WIPO like global governance processes to see which governments are most active in promoting such theft. Also see how the OECD Principles for Internet Policy Making are new instruments of such theft on and through the Internet, and almost surely if such principles were made by participation of all countries instead of just OECD (read, through UN based bodies), much lesser possibilities of such theft would have been involved........ >>> >>>> - exorbitant fees for wireless bandwidth/access charged in some regions, especially when protected by government sanction mono/duopololy >>> This particular theft is in fact now being further facilitated to a great degree by efforts at complete de-regulation of the Internet sector (inter alia pl see the recent US congress bill controversy reg government control and the Internet) something which was also implicated at the WCIT in the war cry of 'no regulation of the Internet'. No universal service obligations, no price controls, no net neutrality or common carriage obligations. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Roland Perry >>>>>>>> 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 >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Apr 16 02:47:01 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:47:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <002701ce3941$4ad566c0$e0803440$@gmail.com> <1A69CA05-6519-4CCE-BD08-76C735A603C4@acm.org> <516CBAD4.6090707@itforchange.net> <61C0DBE6-89E8-46D6-8655-899521166B4C@acm.org> <516CD592.2030700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130416084701.5c6b06bc@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Rafik Dammak wrote: > I am afraid to see your response in the borderline bullying and a real > ad-hominem in this case. unfortunately this latin locution become the > new godwin point of IGC list. Please don't attempt to turn a key term in a guideline for constructive discourse into a word which which can't be used in practice because it is would be considered a "godwin point". Without wanting to take away or diminish the recommendation that I've given on avoiding ad hominem remarks, let me quote another very good recommendation: "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" (This particular wording may have originated in RFC 1122 [1], where the principle is attributed to an earlier RFC edited by Jon Postel; in that earlier RFC however the principle was worded differently.) [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1122 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 rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Apr 16 03:53:58 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:53:58 +0900 Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <20130416084701.5c6b06bc@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <002701ce3941$4ad566c0$e0803440$@gmail.com> <1A69CA05-6519-4CCE-BD08-76C735A603C4@acm.org> <516CBAD4.6090707@itforchange.net> <61C0DBE6-89E8-46D6-8655-899521166B4C@acm.org> <516CD592.2030700@itforchange.net> <20130416084701.5c6b06bc@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Dear coordinator, any key term used ad nauseam become de facto a way to prevent any real "constructive discourse" and debate within the list, and is in fine a kind of godwin point (yes it is unfortunate). I am not setting any norm or guidelines but replying to what I can see as almost a bullying and accusation to member of IGC from another (again it is unfortunate) I am puzzled that someone was accused to do ad hominem but you didn't intervene in that case abut you are only wearing your coordinator hat to reply to my message?I am honestly confused and not sure what to think about. Thanks, Best, Rafik Rafik Dammak @rafik "fight for the users" 2013/4/16 Norbert Bollow > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Rafik Dammak wrote: > > > I am afraid to see your response in the borderline bullying and a real > > ad-hominem in this case. unfortunately this latin locution become the > > new godwin point of IGC list. > > Please don't attempt to turn a key term in a guideline for constructive > discourse into a word which which can't be used in practice because it > is would be considered a "godwin point". > > Without wanting to take away or diminish the recommendation that I've > given on avoiding ad hominem remarks, let me quote another very good > recommendation: > > "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" > > (This particular wording may have originated in RFC 1122 [1], where the > principle is attributed to an earlier RFC edited by Jon Postel; in that > earlier RFC however the principle was worded differently.) > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1122 > > Greetings, > Norbert > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Apr 16 04:11:50 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:11:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> <516BE7D2.9050704@cafonso.ca> <516BF017.4000805@itforchange.net> <20130415144741.0fe484bb@quill.bollow.ch> <1366042805.74170.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20130416101150.1474c8aa@quill.bollow.ch> McTim wrote: > All, > > For ~3 decades the Internet has been define as a "network of > networks". > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet > > We seem to be defining it by its epiphenomenal effects rather than by > its its core definition. > Is that what we want to do? In view of the WGIG definition of Internet Governance including the epiphenomenal aspects, and their increasing importance, I think that is important to also create a good working definition of "Internet" itself that includes the epiphenomenal aspects. But the "network of networks" aspect is of course still very important today, and it is so far missing in the definition proposals that we have. I'd like to hereby request addition of this aspect to our definition drafts. (At the current stage I think that it might be best to update both Parminder's draft and Nnenna's draft in parallel.) Greetings, Norbert ** Glossary WGIG=Working Group on Internet Governance, a multistakeholder working group that was active between the 2003 and 2005 World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) events. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 16 04:29:11 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:59:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <20130416101150.1474c8aa@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> <516BE7D2.9050704@cafonso.ca> <516BF017.4000805@itforchange.net> <20130415144741.0fe484bb@quill.bollow.ch> <1366042805.74170.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20130416101150.1474c8aa@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <516D0BD7.3050508@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 16 April 2013 01:41 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > McTim wrote: > >> All, >> >> For ~3 decades the Internet has been define as a "network of >> networks". >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet >> >> We seem to be defining it by its epiphenomenal effects rather than by >> its its core definition. >> Is that what we want to do? > In view of the WGIG definition of Internet Governance including the > epiphenomenal aspects, and their increasing importance, I think that > is important to also create a good working definition of "Internet" > itself that includes the epiphenomenal aspects. > > But the "network of networks" aspect is of course still very important > today, and it is so far missing in the definition proposals that we > have. > > I'd like to hereby request addition of this aspect to our definition > drafts. (At the current stage I think that it might be best to update > both Parminder's draft and Nnenna's draft in parallel.) I am fine if we work with Nnenna's draft and add 'network of networks' to it, maybe in the first sentence.. We recognise the Internet, as a global network of networks, to be an emergent and emerging reality. Its specificity is inherent in its intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality and a new kind of social spatiality, brought together by a common set of design principles, and constrained by policies established by due democratic processes. We consider the Internet as a global commons and a global public good. The design principles and policies that constitute its governance should, therefore, flow from such recognition of the Internet as a commons and public good. parminder > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ** > Glossary > WGIG=Working Group on Internet Governance, a multistakeholder working > group that was active between the 2003 and 2005 World Summit on > Information Society (WSIS) events. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Tue Apr 16 04:35:07 2013 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:35:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <964BE30D-03DB-4461-A0F7-D5A938068239@acm.org> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <9R9mW+WzstaRFAJI@internetpolicyagency.com> <82DC3510-3E51-4464-BD67-42D0EE5CDA5C@acm.org> <516B8E52.908@ITforChange.net> <6b819825-adf1-439f-88b1-49ae71a97f2a@email.android.com> <516C01FB.4020007@ITforChange.net> <2e914496-538b-47e9-a52e-3a356beb22e6@email.android.com> <516CD083.4010001@ITforChange.net> <964BE30D-03DB-4461-A0F7-D5A938068239@acm.org> Message-ID: Dear Avri, dear all, some observations below, in-line. On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > - Community boards are used in all sorts of circumstances to enforce local > ordinance and policy. It is true that one of the roles of the government > to run the policing function. and in the best cases, the policing function > is under constant review/oversight by citizen review boards. I never > claimed they had not function. But I do claim that function can and must > be equivalent to the other functions. Governments are not our masters, > they are of, by and for the people. We are their masters, and at the very > least their equals in the multistakeholder process. > [AG] It seems to me (possibly because I misunderstand what you wrote) that you are mixing an assessment of the relative importance of enforcement v other functions in the overall "policy chains" (e.g. ex ante assessment, design, discussion, approval, enforcement, monitoring, ex post evaluation, etc) with the importance that "governments" should have in a specific function, i.e. enforcement of existing laws. [AG] Furthermore, the fact that the review of enforcement functions luckily exists (which is sometimes performed by "community boards", sometimes by other types of public authorities, quite often by the judiciary branch) does not say much about who is entitled to perform the enforcement function itself. [AG] Last, not least, the fact that democratic governments are "of the people, by the people, for the people" does not per se mean that certain functions should not be delegated to governments (or branches thereof - unfortunately there is always a possible misunderstanding when using the term "government", which in political science and law is often used to refer to one specific branch of State / public authority). Therefore I find your last sentence a logical "non sequitur". > - Actually private corporations are accountable to the stockholders and > their customers. All people who have chosen freely to interact with them > at various levels of contractual and consumer relationship with them. I may > not be the greatest fan of the accountability feedback loop in most > business but there is one (except maybe banks and other money for money's > sake types of businesses). And some businesses are committing themselves > to structures such as GNI that add extra public accountability mechanisms. > This is a good thing that will make them more accountable. > [AG] As a person who worked on Corporate Social Responsibility projects within the EU, including the development of sector-specific guidance to implement the Ruggie Framework in the ICT / Internet sector (see http://www.ihrb.org/project/eu-sector-guidance/index.html) I do agree that private businesses can, and in some cases do, work to strenghten their accountability mechanisms. Nonetheless, I think this is a complement, not a substitute for public accountability frameworks. (Ironically enough, the European Commission is actually a strong support of co- and self-regulatory mechanisms in many policy areas, including the Internet / ICT sector; and we do believe that private organisations, including businesses, should have a supporting role in enforcing the law. We get no small amounts of flak because of this. :) > - in non commercial organization there is always a board, and advisory > committees of some sort and various forms of oversight. In the Internet > context that is the multistakeholder governance processes. > The problem is that I'm not convinced people share a common understanding of what "multi-stakeholder governance processes" actually means. Ciao, -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Apr 16 04:47:12 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:17:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <516D0BD7.3050508@itforchange.net> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> <516BE7D2.9050704@cafonso.ca> <516BF017.4000805@itforchange.net> <20130415144741.0fe484bb@quill.bollow.ch> <1366042805.74170.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20130416101150.1474c8aa@quill.bollow.ch> <516D0BD7.3050508@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <516D1010.6030008@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 16 April 2013 01:59 PM, parminder wrote: > > I am fine if we work with Nnenna's draft and add 'network of networks' > to it, maybe in the first sentence.. > > > We recognise the Internet, as a global network of networks, to be > an emergent and emerging reality. Its specificity is inherent in > its intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, human > intentionality and a new kind of social spatiality, brought > together by a common set of design principles, and constrained by > policies established by due democratic processes. We consider the > Internet as a global commons and a global public good. The design > principles and policies that constitute its governance should, > therefore, flow from such recognition of the Internet as a commons > and public good. > or maybe We recognise the Internet to be an emergent and emerging reality. As a global network of networks, it is an its intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality and a new kind of social spatiality, brought together by a common set of design principles, and constrained by policies established by due democratic processes. We consider the Internet as a global commons and a global public good. The design principles and policies that constitute its governance should, therefore, flow from such recognition of the Internet as a commons and public good. > > parminder > >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> ** >> Glossary >> WGIG=Working Group on Internet Governance, a multistakeholder working >> group that was active between the 2003 and 2005 World Summit on >> Information Society (WSIS) events. >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 16 05:10:10 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:10:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <002701ce3941$4ad566c0$e0803440$@gmail.com> <1A69CA05-6519-4CCE-BD08-76C735A603C4@acm.org> <516CBAD4.6090707@itforchange.net> <61C0DBE6-89E8-46D6-8655-899521166B4C@acm.org> <516CD592.2030700@itforchange.net> <20130416084701.5c6b06bc@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130416111010.78041490@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Hello Rafik Trying to respond to the puzzlement that you express... both of the postings in the exchange that you refer to were not in accordance with my *recommendation* to avoid ad hominem remarks. But as I've tried to make clear before, that is just a recommendation and it is not going to be enforced. I'm not going to react with a posting every time that a recommendation is not followed. In my view your characterization of one of the messages as being *almost* (my emphasis) "bullying and accusation" is exactly accurate. (In fact we have had uncomfortably many postings of that type recently, from several different participants.) As long as the line to what constitutes a personal attack is crossed only almost but not quite, and the posting also does not violate the posting rules in other ways, action to enforce the posting rules, such as sending a private or public warning or one of the later steps of escalation, will not be taken. The recommendation "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" was meant quite generally, for everyone, with the intention to discourage further complaints about specific postings violating the recommendation to avoid ad hominem remarks and/or violating the posting rules (as you point out, such complaints can very easily prevent constructive discourse) -- it was not meant for you specifically, so if it came across that way, I'd like to apologize to you for that. My frustration about the recent phase of constructive conversation having been so short (this hasn't come as a surprise to me, but it's frustrating nonetheless) certainly should not be vented on you, that was definitely none of your fault. I want to preserve my ability though to *recommend* quite generally to avoid ad hominem remarks, without that getting interpreted as an immediate godwin-type conversation killer. Greetings, Norbert P.S. Of course I'm not claiming that Jon Postel's sage advice on robustly implementing the communication layers in TCP/IP was intended to be used as advice on how to deal with ad hominem, but certainly many good principles can be usefully applied well beyond the originally intended domain of applicability. I am firmly convinced that it is a good recommendation in contexts of cross-cultural communication also. Rafik Dammak wrote: > Dear coordinator, > > any key term used ad nauseam become de facto a way to prevent any > real "constructive discourse" and debate within the list, and is in > fine a kind of godwin point (yes it is unfortunate). > > I am not setting any norm or guidelines but replying to what I can > see as almost a bullying and accusation to member of IGC from another > (again it is unfortunate) > > I am puzzled that someone was accused to do ad hominem but you didn't > intervene in that case abut you are only wearing your coordinator > hat to reply to my message?I am honestly confused and not sure what > to think about. > > Thanks, > > > Best, > > > Rafik > > Rafik Dammak > @rafik > "fight for the users" > > > 2013/4/16 Norbert Bollow > > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > > > Rafik Dammak wrote: > > > > > I am afraid to see your response in the borderline bullying and a > > > real ad-hominem in this case. unfortunately this latin locution > > > become the new godwin point of IGC list. > > > > Please don't attempt to turn a key term in a guideline for > > constructive discourse into a word which which can't be used in > > practice because it is would be considered a "godwin point". > > > > Without wanting to take away or diminish the recommendation that > > I've given on avoiding ad hominem remarks, let me quote another > > very good recommendation: > > > > "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" > > > > (This particular wording may have originated in RFC 1122 [1], where > > the principle is attributed to an earlier RFC edited by Jon Postel; > > in that earlier RFC however the principle was worded differently.) > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1122 > > > > 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 16 05:33:11 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:33:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <516D1010.6030008@itforchange.net> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> <516BE7D2.9050704@cafonso.ca> <516BF017.4000805@itforchange.net> <20130415144741.0fe484bb@quill.bollow.ch> <1366042805.74170.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20130416101150.1474c8aa@quill.bollow.ch> <516D0BD7.3050508@itforchange.net> <516D1010.6030008@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130416113311.1d672508@quill.bollow.ch> Parminder wrote: > or maybe > > We recognise the Internet to be an emergent and emerging reality. > As a global network of networks, it is an its intricate > combination of hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality > and a new kind of social spatiality, brought together by a common > set of design principles, and constrained by policies established > by due democratic processes. We consider the Internet as a global > commons and a global public good. The design principles and > policies that constitute its governance should, therefore, flow > from such recognition of the Internet as a commons and public > good. Minor grammar nitpick / typo correction: delete "its" in the second line, resulting in: We recognise the Internet to be an emergent and emerging reality. As a global network of networks, it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality and a new kind of social spatiality, brought together by a common set of design principles, and constrained by policies established by due democratic processes. We consider the Internet as a global commons and a global public good. The design principles and policies that constitute its governance should, therefore, flow from such recognition of the Internet as a commons and public good. How about simplifying "social spatiality" to "social space"? We recognise the Internet to be an emergent and emerging reality. As a global network of networks, it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality and a new kind of social space, brought together by a common set of design principles, and constrained by policies established by due democratic processes. We consider the Internet as a global commons and a global public good. The design principles and policies that constitute its governance should, therefore, flow from such recognition of the Internet as a commons and public good. In any case I think we're getting close to the point where a formal consensus process can be launched with the goal of formally approving some version of this as a formal IGC statement. I think that there's nothing wrong with having a very short statement containing essentially just this text, but I would propose that a title should be added. How about: "IGC Working Definition of the Internet" ? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Apr 16 06:46:53 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 11:46:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <20130416113311.1d672508@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> <516BE7D2.9050704@cafonso.ca> <516BF017.4000805@itforchange.net> <20130415144741.0fe484bb@quill.bollow.ch> <1366042805.74170.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20130416101150.1474c8aa@quill.bollow.ch> <516D0BD7.3050508@itforchange.net> <516D1010.6030008@itforchange.net> <20130416113311.1d672508@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message <20130416113311.1d672508 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 11:33:11 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013, Norbert Bollow writes >How about simplifying "social spatiality" to "social space"? "Spaciality" is a very uncommon word, and probably more often spelt "spatiality" (but still rare). "Space" is preferable. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Apr 16 07:05:49 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:05:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <20130416113311.1d672508@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> <516BE7D2.9050704@cafonso.ca> <516BF017.4000805@itforchange.net> <20130415144741.0fe484bb@quill.bollow.ch> <1366042805.74170.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20130416101150.1474c8aa@quill.bollow.ch> <516D0BD7.3050508@itforchange.net> <516D1010.6030008@itforchange.net> <20130416113311.1d672508@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 5:33 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Parminder wrote: > >> or maybe >> >> We recognise the Internet to be an emergent and emerging reality. >> As a global network of networks, it is an its intricate >> combination of hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality >> and a new kind of social spatiality, brought together by a common >> set of design principles, and constrained by policies established >> by due democratic processes. We consider the Internet as a global >> commons and a global public good. The design principles and >> policies that constitute its governance should, therefore, flow >> from such recognition of the Internet as a commons and public >> good. > > Minor grammar nitpick / typo correction: delete "its" in the second > line, resulting in: > > We recognise the Internet to be an emergent and emerging reality. > As a global network of networks, it is an intricate combination of > hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality and a new kind > of social spatiality, brought together by a common set of design > principles, and constrained by policies established by due > democratic processes. We consider the Internet as a global commons > and a global public good. The design principles and policies that > constitute its governance should, therefore, flow from such > recognition of the Internet as a commons and public good. > > How about simplifying "social spatiality" to "social space"? > > We recognise the Internet to be an emergent and emerging reality. > As a global network of networks, it is an intricate combination of > hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality and a new kind > of social space, brought together by a common set of design > principles, and constrained by policies established by due > democratic processes. We consider the Internet as a global commons > and a global public good. The design principles and policies that > constitute its governance should, therefore, flow from such > recognition of the Internet as a commons and public good. > > In any case I think we're getting close to the point where a formal > consensus process can be launched with the goal of formally approving > some version of this as a formal IGC statement. Very premature I think. I would be opposed to this statement as it currently stands. I meant to use the definition at Wikipedia (or some version of it) in place of the current text, not in addition to it. As it stands, we are calling it a new reality. I don't understand what that means. Nor do I understand "specificity" or "spatiality" in this context. Again, what I object to most is that I think we are defining a thing by its epiphenomenal characteristics. -- 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 Tue Apr 16 07:56:06 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:56:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <516CD592.2030700@itforchange.net> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <002701ce3941$4ad566c0$e0803440$@gmail.com> <1A69CA05-6519-4CCE-BD08-76C735A603C4@acm.org> <516CBAD4.6090707@itforchange.net> <61C0DBE6-89E8-46D6-8655-899521166B4C@acm.org> <516CD592.2030700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 12:37 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 16 April 2013 09:40 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> In one shot got me and ICANN. Goodo. Congratulations. > > > I publicly object to the manner in which Avri is repeatedly personalising a > political debate based on facts and reasons that I am trying to have.... I publicly object to attackers claiming victimhood! > This is the second time in the last few days that she has 'congratulated' me > for 'getting her', Wasn't the first time Adam pointing out your 'gotcha' tactics? If I am mistaken... apologies to Adam. which follows her extremely ad hominem declaration that > i rule the list and everyone else runs scared, which follows her repeated > use of the contemptuous term 'gotcha' for my reasoned propositions presented > to the list..... that is far less less contemptuous than "miserably failed", "so-called" and accusing her of supporting 'theft" (which word you used 9 times!) Such pattern of personalisation of political debates is > rather consistent here agreed, and you are the most consistent user of such a pattern IMHO. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Apr 16 07:58:25 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:58:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> <516BE7D2.9050704@cafonso.ca> <516BF017.4000805@itforchange.net> <20130415144741.0fe484bb@quill.bollow.ch> <1366042805.74170.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20130416101150.1474c8aa@quill.bollow.ch> <516D0BD7.3050508@itforchange.net> <516D1010.6030008@itforchange.net> <20130416113311.1d672508@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130416135825.6e96b8a0@quill.bollow.ch> McTim wrote: > Again, what I object to most is that I think we are defining a thing > by its epiphenomenal characteristics. Suppose that a company X were to create a network of networks, possibly TCP/IP based, but to some extent under the control of company X. For example, the method by means of which company X retains control could be that only networks operated by company X or its "certified partner organizations" would be included in that network of networks. The important difference to differentiate that kind of network from what we call the Internet would be in the area of the epiphenomenal characteristics, wouldn't it? In any case, what word should be used to refer to the global ICP/IP based network of networks which currently exists together with its epiphenomena? Most people use the word "Internet". If that is one of the valid meanings of the word "Internet", then it is IMO appropriate to write a definition which explains that meaning. An IGC statement containing that definition could contain a note that the word "Internet" can also be used in a somewhat different sense that refers to just the TCP/IP based network of networks in the technical sense without including the whole epiphenomenon in what is referred to. 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 16 08:03:42 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:03:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <002701ce3941$4ad566c0$e0803440$@gmail.com> <1A69CA05-6519-4CCE-BD08-76C735A603C4@acm.org> <516CBAD4.6090707@itforchange.net> <61C0DBE6-89E8-46D6-8655-899521166B4C@acm.org> <516CD592.2030700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130416140342.1d06a785@quill.bollow.ch> McTim wrote: > I publicly object to [censored]! I publicly object to public objections! I publicly object to censorship! Hmm.. I seem to have objected to myself there, at least twice. :-) Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Tue Apr 16 08:34:16 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:34:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <20130416140342.1d06a785@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <002701ce3941$4ad566c0$e0803440$@gmail.com> <1A69CA05-6519-4CCE-BD08-76C735A603C4@acm.org> <516CBAD4.6090707@itforchange.net> <61C0DBE6-89E8-46D6-8655-899521166B4C@acm.org> <516CD592.2030700@itforchange.net> <20130416140342.1d06a785@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <6FF95FC5-0ED0-4290-A44A-9D2EC78C346C@ella.com> Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to censor On 16 Apr 2013, at 08:03, Norbert Bollow wrote: > McTim wrote: > >> I publicly object to [censored]! > > I publicly object to public objections! > > I publicly object to censorship! > > Hmm.. I seem to have objected to myself there, at least twice. :-) > > 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 16 08:40:09 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 18:10:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <6FF95FC5-0ED0-4290-A44A-9D2EC78C346C@ella.com> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <002701ce3941$4ad566c0$e0803440$@gmail.com> <1A69CA05-6519-4CCE-BD08-76C735A603C4@acm.org> <516CBAD4.6090707@itforchange.net> <61C0DBE6-89E8-46D6-8655-899521166B4C@acm.org> <516CD592.2030700@itforchange.net> <20130416140342.1d06a785@quill.bollow.ch> <6FF95FC5-0ED0-4290-A44A-9D2EC78C346C@ella.com> Message-ID: What you write Avri reminds me of the quote in Star trek (attributed to fictional Judge Aaron Satie) "*With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably*". On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to censor > > On 16 Apr 2013, at 08:03, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > McTim wrote: > > > >> I publicly object to [censored]! > > > > I publicly object to public objections! > > > > I publicly object to censorship! > > > > Hmm.. I seem to have objected to myself there, at least twice. :-) > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Apr 16 08:46:43 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:46:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <20130416135825.6e96b8a0@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> <516BE7D2.9050704@cafonso.ca> <516BF017.4000805@itforchange.net> <20130415144741.0fe484bb@quill.bollow.ch> <1366042805.74170.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20130416101150.1474c8aa@quill.bollow.ch> <516D0BD7.3050508@itforchange.net> <516D1010.6030008@itforchange.net> <20130416113311.1d672508@quill.bollow.ch> <20130416135825.6e96b8a0@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > McTim wrote: > >> Again, what I object to most is that I think we are defining a thing >> by its epiphenomenal characteristics. > > Suppose that a company X were to create a network of networks, possibly > TCP/IP based, but to some extent under the control of company X. For > example, the method by means of which company X retains control could > be that only networks operated by company X or its "certified partner > organizations" would be included in that network of networks. This happens frequently. > > The important difference to differentiate that kind of network from > what we call the Internet would be in the area of the epiphenomenal > characteristics, wouldn't it? Why wouldn't the type of Internetwork you describe also share some of those characteristics? > > In any case, what word should be used to refer to the global ICP/IP > based network of networks which currently exists together with its > epiphenomena? Most people use the word "Internet". If that is one of > the valid meanings of the word "Internet", then it is IMO appropriate > to write a definition which explains that meaning. When I sent the link to the Wikipedia definition, I had hoped that people would read it and include the entire first sentence (and perhsp the second: "The Internet is a global system of interconnected computer networks that use the standard Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP) to serve billions of users worldwide. It is a network of networks that consists of millions of private, public, academic, business, and government networks, of local to global scope, that are linked by a broad array of electronic, wireless and optical networking technologies. " -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Tue Apr 16 08:49:55 2013 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:49:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] Discussions, negotiations, argument mapping Message-ID: Dear all, it seems to me that as of late, too much of the traffic on this list has been occupied by rather heated discussions on what constitutes an acceptable way of arguing for one's own positions. I personally think that heated argumentation is not a problem "per se". Of course, 'ad hominem' attacks and other ways to short-circuit discussions with the sole purpose of seeing our position winning should be avoided. But I'm very conscious that different people have different ideas of what is an 'ad hominem' attack etc. Unfortunately, I have the impression - as others have written before me - that these "meta-discussions" are creating a serious threat to what I still consider to be one of the best places for reasoned exchanged on matters related to Internet governance. While I consider myself as having a rather thick skin and I do believe that sometimes people take offense a bit too quickly, I also think we have to be conscious of the personal and cultural sensitivites of people who might be productive participants in these discussions, but due to a simple cost/benefit calculation refrain from engaging. In this spirit, I do not wish to take a position on the specific responsibilities (if any) of any particular participant; but I do wonder whether the following non mutually exclusive steps could be useful in trying to re-create an environment which would be more conducive to peaceful co-existence (which is not the same as agreeing on everything): (1) Have a look at some of the existing research on conflict resolution and negotiation. One article that I particularly liked, and which I think would apply rather well in the context of this group, is L. Ross, "*Perspectives on Disagreement and Dispute Resolution", *in E. Shafir (Ed.), "*The Behavioural Foundations of Public Policy", *Princeton University Press (there is an extended snippet at http://books.google.be/books?hl=en&lr=&id=tyWqtkjyx3cC&oi=fnd&pg=PA108&dq=%22perspectives+on+disagreement+and+dispute+resolution%22&ots=VOS7M4aD9e&sig=6YzD1w5lyJIL0Cg6nJX5Y67o3YA#v=onepage&q=%22perspectives%20on%20disagreement%20and%20dispute%20resolution%22&f=false). Another good source is the Stanford Center on International Conflict and Negotiation (http://www.law.stanford.edu/node/149750); (2) Once a particular topic for discussions comes up, use more structured tools than e-mail to conduct the argumentation. Examples of so-called "Argument Mapping" software abound. I personally used ArguNet in the past ( http://www.argunet.org/) but other tools such as aMap ( http://www.amap.org.uk/) or Glinkr (http://www.glinkr.net/). I strongly believe e-mail is NOT the best tool to handle arguments in a productive manner. (3) When sending e-mails, avoid sending more than two e-mails per day (prioritising what really we MUST reply to) and, once an email is drafted, wait 24 hours before hitting the 'send' button unless the response is urgent. I have no problem to admit that this is very personal rule, but it has served me well in the environment where I work, i.e. the European Commission, where we deal with sensitive and politically contentious topics with colleagues from 26 other countries (each with their own history, culture and understanding of what is an acceptable behaviour and what can be categorised as being an a**hole). Just my two euro-cents, hoping this will spur some thought on how to move beyond rather sterile finger-pointing. P.S.: perhaps unnecessary to state it, but to avoid any misunderstanding: none of the above is meant as a criticism to the co-coordinators. I am not in their shoes and I do not necessarily have all the facts at hand, but it seems to me that they are trying to handle difficult situations to the best of their abilities. Whether I agree with them or not, they certainly deserve my gratitude for doing their utmost to preserve this space as a good instrument for discussions. So my thanks to Sala and Norbert. 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From staffan.jonson at iis.se Tue Apr 16 09:57:19 2013 From: staffan.jonson at iis.se (Staffan Jonson) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:57:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] Discussions, negotiations, argument mapping In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hear hear! /Staffan Mr. Staffan Jonson, Member of board to ISOC-SE and Senior Policy Adviser at cc TLD .SE (The Internet Infrastructure foundation) BOX 7399 | SE-103 91 STOCKHOLM | SWEDEN Direct: +46 8 452 35 74 | SMS: +46 73 317 39 67 staffan.jonson at iis.se | www.iis.se/en twitter: @staffanjonson LinkedIn: se.linkedin.com/pub/staffan-jonson/4/574/a16/ Från: Andrea Glorioso > Svara till: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >, Andrea Glorioso > Datum: tisdag 16 april 2013 14:49 Till: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > Ämne: [governance] Discussions, negotiations, argument mapping Dear all, it seems to me that as of late, too much of the traffic on this list has been occupied by rather heated discussions on what constitutes an acceptable way of arguing for one's own positions. I personally think that heated argumentation is not a problem "per se". Of course, 'ad hominem' attacks and other ways to short-circuit discussions with the sole purpose of seeing our position winning should be avoided. But I'm very conscious that different people have different ideas of what is an 'ad hominem' attack etc. Unfortunately, I have the impression - as others have written before me - that these "meta-discussions" are creating a serious threat to what I still consider to be one of the best places for reasoned exchanged on matters related to Internet governance. While I consider myself as having a rather thick skin and I do believe that sometimes people take offense a bit too quickly, I also think we have to be conscious of the personal and cultural sensitivites of people who might be productive participants in these discussions, but due to a simple cost/benefit calculation refrain from engaging. In this spirit, I do not wish to take a position on the specific responsibilities (if any) of any particular participant; but I do wonder whether the following non mutually exclusive steps could be useful in trying to re-create an environment which would be more conducive to peaceful co-existence (which is not the same as agreeing on everything): (1) Have a look at some of the existing research on conflict resolution and negotiation. One article that I particularly liked, and which I think would apply rather well in the context of this group, is L. Ross, "Perspectives on Disagreement and Dispute Resolution", in E. Shafir (Ed.), "The Behavioural Foundations of Public Policy", Princeton University Press (there is an extended snippet at http://books.google.be/books?hl=en&lr=&id=tyWqtkjyx3cC&oi=fnd&pg=PA108&dq=%22perspectives+on+disagreement+and+dispute+resolution%22&ots=VOS7M4aD9e&sig=6YzD1w5lyJIL0Cg6nJX5Y67o3YA#v=onepage&q=%22perspectives%20on%20disagreement%20and%20dispute%20resolution%22&f=false). Another good source is the Stanford Center on International Conflict and Negotiation (http://www.law.stanford.edu/node/149750); (2) Once a particular topic for discussions comes up, use more structured tools than e-mail to conduct the argumentation. Examples of so-called "Argument Mapping" software abound. I personally used ArguNet in the past (http://www.argunet.org/) but other tools such as aMap (http://www.amap.org.uk/) or Glinkr (http://www.glinkr.net/). I strongly believe e-mail is NOT the best tool to handle arguments in a productive manner. (3) When sending e-mails, avoid sending more than two e-mails per day (prioritising what really we MUST reply to) and, once an email is drafted, wait 24 hours before hitting the 'send' button unless the response is urgent. I have no problem to admit that this is very personal rule, but it has served me well in the environment where I work, i.e. the European Commission, where we deal with sensitive and politically contentious topics with colleagues from 26 other countries (each with their own history, culture and understanding of what is an acceptable behaviour and what can be categorised as being an a**hole). Just my two euro-cents, hoping this will spur some thought on how to move beyond rather sterile finger-pointing. P.S.: perhaps unnecessary to state it, but to avoid any misunderstanding: none of the above is meant as a criticism to the co-coordinators. I am not in their shoes and I do not necessarily have all the facts at hand, but it seems to me that they are trying to handle difficult situations to the best of their abilities. Whether I agree with them or not, they certainly deserve my gratitude for doing their utmost to preserve this space as a good instrument for discussions. So my thanks to Sala and Norbert. 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Tue Apr 16 10:00:20 2013 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:00:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <9R9mW+WzstaRFAJI@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <9R9mW+WzstaRFAJI@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: The concept of "Internet governance" problem arises even in our respective countries and that the levels of public sector actors, and some private sector entities of civil society. It should be noted that when the process of preparatory meetings had been set up, many of the concepts had not been very inclusive. Most of these concepts are continually reflected in the themes of discussions. These include digital technology, access and cultural diversity, multi-stakeholder approach; reinforced cooperation ..... And all this when these concepts are placed in the size of the appropriation of ICT. Governance of the Internet is still today a concept ready to confusion in the understanding of some policy makers, more particularly in countries where it is still difficult to reconcile the points of view to develop a good policy national ICT. Some people do knowingly continue to benefit from this confusion. And that's where we are challenged, we of civil society, to provide clarifications. It is still that "stakeholder approach" is fully justified. The Internet Governance environnemenment sends us in a complex, systemic but not without response. Control of the Internet by the government becomes a daily topic polysemic character: what should be definitive in our position, of civil society? I have a hunch that, despite the two phases of WSIS, we have not completely clarify the concpet Internet governance and the role of different actors in the governance of the Internet. It is necessary to rethink the dynamic rooting at the national level. 2013/4/14 Roland Perry > In message <**A0615421071EDD4A9F851117D67D53** > 8A82398DB3 at EXCH01.KDBSystems.**local>, at 15:58:23 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013, > Kerry Brown 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC At-Large Member NCSG Member email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Baudouin.Schombe at ticafrica.net tél:+243998983491 skype:b.schombe wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pimienta at funredes.org Tue Apr 16 10:01:56 2013 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:01:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] Discussions, negotiations, argument mapping In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 to Andrea. Meta-discussions are normally the best way to solve discussions getting polluted by non said tensions and problems. In that case, the meta discussion is going the wrong way and getting in a dangerous loop, pushing, against their will, the co-co's, to justify every move, which in turn is feeding more meta-discussions in an expansive spiral which start blurring the matters at stake. Please everybody push the RESET button, stop meta-discussions, and focus on the discussion and the arguments! Please also take a restrictive definition of "ad-hominem attack" and keep cool, paying tribute to cultural diversity and its diverse ways to express. Please everybody give a break to co-co's who need, like good referees in a footbball game, to be the most discrete possible to be efficient. Something I used as an efficient tool as a moderator which may apply or not in this charter, is the possibility for the moderator to write privately to the author of a contribution kept in hold and ask kindly the person to rephrase a piece which could be mistaken as at-hominem attack of a flame prone sentence. Most of the time people agree to change a twist of expression and the flow keeps all right without public discussions. If they dont a large part of the heat is consumed in a private discussion with the moderator and not in public. And this has nothing to do with transparency... it is more a question of diplomacy :-). -- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Apr 16 10:19:01 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:19:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <9R9mW+WzstaRFAJI@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: In message , at 16:00:20 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013, Baudouin Schombe writes >Control of the Internet by the government becomes a daily topic >polysemic character: what should be definitive in our position, of >civil society? I'd step back one stage, and ask if Civil Society has a consensus position on the matter. There are some Civil Society pressure groups (which are a good thing, including this is one) who manage to reach a certain degree of consensus on certain issues, but I'm constantly encountering members of wider civil society who feel their needs are being ignored. Ridding them of spam, whatever it takes, is probably at the top of their agenda. I'm fairly confident that little of what we discuss on this list is aimed at that. -- 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 kichango at gmail.com Tue Apr 16 10:32:01 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:32:01 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> <516BE7D2.9050704@cafonso.ca> <516BF017.4000805@itforchange.net> <20130415144741.0fe484bb@quill.bollow.ch> <1366042805.74170.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20130416101150.1474c8aa@quill.bollow.ch> <516D0BD7.3050508@itforchange.net> <516D1010.6030008@itforchange.net> <20130416113311.1d672508@quill.bollow.ch> <20130416135825.6e96b8a0@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: This may be one of the instances where the complexity of social discourse/reality/phenomenon/experience legitimately diverges from the productive simplicity of technical language and definitions (note: in case that isn't enough clear, I mean simplicity in a positive way.) Obviously, for the purposes of advocacy, social discourse and social science, we can't just limit ourselves to a descriptive definition of Internet as a "network of networks". First of all; there were before the Internet, and there still are, networks of networks that are not Internet (e.g., of human beings). Now, I understand the full definition quoted from Wikipedia specifies a lot more than is in that one phrase, and I wouldn't object to that as a valid definition. However, concept definition is not always only a description of facts which may qualify as either truth or false, exclusively, and nothing else. It can also be, eg, purpose driven and sensitive to the discursive context (so even the choice of facts, or characteristics, to be highlighted in a definition can be framed depending of the purpose and/or the discoursive context). The Wiki definition focuses on computer devices and the architecture of their relationships; even where you have social structures mentioned, they are not so for themselves or for their social purposes but for being the origin or the scope of the computer networks thus set up and connected. The user at large and the societal dimensions of the Internet are totally absent here. To your defense (or rather to the defense of those who coined that definition or more precisely the original definition that led to this one), they were defining, and could only define, the Internet in its architecture, as they were building it, and it wasn't their job to anticipate on the social reality that it will become, which (as it has become that, that is, that "emerging reality") is now as legitimate to define what it is (partic. for social purposes), as its original technical architecture is (partic. for technical purposes). Re. the draft definition itself, though, while I agree that 'space' is simpler than 'spatiality' and the value of the KISS precept (Keep It Simple and Stupid), the latter says something more than the former, as spatiality here does not just augment the social space as we know it, but enables new kinds of interactions and transactions between humans, between machines and between humans and machines. That being said, maybe the phrase "kind of space" already conveys the idea "spatiality" (am not too sure, so I leave this as a comment hoping it might contribute to clarify a little more.) I also wonder whether it wouldn't be useful (I dare not say necessary) to add something about computing capabilities or power ('hardware' or 'software' alone does do it, does it?). I just feel like the fact that computers have virtually limitless calculation power and storage capability for humans' works, and are unforgetting, is part of that emerging social reality. I am not sure how to phrase this right now (that would be in the second sentence of the current draft definition which I'm just reproducing below with no change, only for convenience). So I will leave it to someone more skillful to try if they are so inclined. We recognise the Internet to be an emergent and emerging reality. As a global network of networks, it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality and a new kind of social space, brought together by a common set of design principles, and constrained by policies established by due democratic processes. We consider the Internet as a global commons and a global public good. The design principles and policies that constitute its governance should, therefore, flow from such recognition of the Internet as a commons and public good. Best, Mawaki On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM, McTim wrote: > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > McTim wrote: > > > >> Again, what I object to most is that I think we are defining a thing > >> by its epiphenomenal characteristics. > > > > Suppose that a company X were to create a network of networks, possibly > > TCP/IP based, but to some extent under the control of company X. For > > example, the method by means of which company X retains control could > > be that only networks operated by company X or its "certified partner > > organizations" would be included in that network of networks. > > > This happens frequently. > > > > > The important difference to differentiate that kind of network from > > what we call the Internet would be in the area of the epiphenomenal > > characteristics, wouldn't it? > > > Why wouldn't the type of Internetwork you describe also share some of > those characteristics? > > > > > In any case, what word should be used to refer to the global ICP/IP > > based network of networks which currently exists together with its > > epiphenomena? Most people use the word "Internet". If that is one of > > the valid meanings of the word "Internet", then it is IMO appropriate > > to write a definition which explains that meaning. > > > When I sent the link to the Wikipedia definition, I had hoped that > people would read it and include the entire first sentence (and perhsp > the second: > > "The Internet is a global system of interconnected computer networks > that use the standard Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP) to serve > billions of users worldwide. It is a network of networks that consists > of millions of private, public, academic, business, and government > networks, of local to global scope, that are linked by a broad array > of electronic, wireless and optical networking technologies. " > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Apr 16 10:41:50 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:41:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Discussions, negotiations, argument mapping In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130416164150.2effc46e@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Daniel Pimienta wrote: > +1 to Andrea. big +1 from my side also -- those pointers are greatly appreciated > Please everybody push the RESET button, stop meta-discussions, and > focus on the discussion and the arguments! big +1 > Something I used as an efficient tool as a moderator which may apply > or not in this charter, is the possibility for the moderator to > write privately to the author of a contribution kept in hold and ask > kindly the person to rephrase a piece which could be mistaken as > at-hominem attack of a flame prone sentence. > Most of the time people agree to change a twist of expression and the > flow keeps all right without public discussions. > If they dont a large part of the heat is consumed in a private > discussion with the moderator and not in public. > And this has nothing to do with transparency... it is more a question > of diplomacy :-). I don't think that configuring the mailing list software to hold some or even all postings for review by the coordinators or by a separate team of moderators would be consistent with what the IGC Charter currently says about the matter (and for better or worse, our Charter is not easy to change.) However, if someone wishes to write to me off-list to ask me about my opinion about a potential posting they have written, I will do my best to see if I can spot a sentence or two that could perhaps be rewritten (keeping the substantive content intact--I'd suggest to change only the words and/or the style of argumentation or expression used to communicate that opinion) to at least attempt to minimize the public generation of unproductive heat. In the same way, I am sure that there are also many others here who have the kind of skills and experience with this type of mailing list that would allow them to provide similar assistance of equal (or in the case of native speakers of English probably greater) value. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Apr 16 11:10:13 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:10:13 +0000 Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A8071@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7EE5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> 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 [Milton L Mueller] By "ignored" you mean that Rep. Walden refused to modify his principle to make an exception for U.S. forms of control. Which is all to the good. The principle stands. Harold Feld's (PK) attempt to scare everyone away from that consistency by asserting that opposing government control of the internet consistently will lead to the collapse of all legal authority and law enforcement is pretty obviously a desperate attempt to divert attention from the self-contradiction that lies at the heart of US attempts to have their cake and eat it, too. As my blog points out, either Feld/PK have reverted to a cyber-nationalism which should lead them to support ITU efforts, or they are being inconsistent and US-centric. 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. [Milton L Mueller] I think the bill provides a good principle to guide that "unfinished work." You know, or should know, that most of the countries pushing for "enhanced cooperation" want governments to assume a greater role in making and enforcing "public policy" for the global internet. Or as the ITU SG put it in his WTPF report, [some believe that] "with regards to international Internet-related public policy, the role of one stakeholder - Governments - has not been allowed to evolve according to WSIS principles . . . They consider this to be one reason for ongoing challenges in dealing with various issues (e.g., exploitation of children, security, cyber-crime and spam, etc)." Remember that "WSIS Principles" under the TA means that governments are the primary source of Internet public policy, and the rest of us provide "input" which they may utilize as they see fit. So we truly NEED a statement of the principle that IG should not lead to "government control of the internet." Tell me again why you oppose that? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 16 11:25:18 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:25:18 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Parminder: Are you again floating the discredited and theoretically inaccurate notion that something called “the Internet” is a “commons” and “public good?” These claims are just wrong, and have been dealt with years ago. If interested I can direct you to the scientific literature on this. The Internet _standards_ are open and non-proprietary, and thus can accurately be called the basis of a commons and a public good. Internet services, web sites, etc. are private goods; they are both rival in consumption and excludable. Internet access facilities are private goods. There is no meaningful debate about this; either you understand the definition of public goods and commons and the economic characteristics of these resources or you don’t. Our research on IP addressing discusses the status of IP addresses as common pool resources. Likewise, other work addresses the status of domain names. Both IP addresses and domain names are private goods but may be regulated in a common pool fashion, or not, depending on what works best. I presume you know what common pool governance is. It seems to make many people feel good to claim that certain things are commons or public goods. There seems to be no other reason why the claim is so persistent, despite being completely out of line with facts and the economic realities of internet resources. But wishing doesn’t make it so, and false application of concepts can only lead to disastrous policy. These are precise terms with important policy implications. One should respect facts and the basic scientific principles of political economy and derive public policy from that, not the other way around. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 12:51 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance 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 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 wrote: Roland Perry 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Tue Apr 16 11:32:12 2013 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:32:12 -0700 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <516D6EFC.4020707@eff.org> Can you define "common pool". Your comments are interesting... (sorry for jumping in the middle of the discussion). : ) On 4/16/13 8:25 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Parminder: > > Are you again floating the discredited and theoretically inaccurate > notion that something called “the Internet” is a “commons” and “public > good?” These claims are just wrong, and have been dealt with years > ago. If interested I can direct you to the scientific literature on this. > > The Internet _/standards/_ are open and non-proprietary, and thus can > accurately be called the basis of a commons and a public good. > Internet services, web sites, etc. are private goods; they are both > rival in consumption and excludable. Internet access facilities are > private goods. There is no meaningful debate about this; either you > understand the definition of public goods and commons and the economic > characteristics of these resources or you don’t. > > Our research on IP addressing discusses the status of IP addresses as > common pool resources. Likewise, other work addresses the status of > domain names. Both IP addresses and domain names are private goods but > may be regulated in a common pool fashion, or not, depending on what > works best. I presume you know what common pool governance is. > > It seems to make many people feel good to claim that certain things > are commons or public goods. There seems to be no other reason why the > claim is so persistent, despite being completely out of line with > facts and the economic realities of internet resources. But wishing > doesn’t make it so, and false application of concepts can only lead to > disastrous policy. These are precise terms with important policy > implications. One should respect facts and the basic scientific > principles of political economy and derive public policy from that, > not the other way around. > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder > *Sent:* Monday, April 15, 2013 12:51 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, > Conflicts in Internet Governance > > > 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 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 wrote: > > > > Roland Perry 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 > > > -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Apr 16 11:34:24 2013 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 17:34:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <516D6F80.9010108@wzb.eu> Hi Milton, websites are rival in consumption? How so. If I correctly interpret the debate on public goods, the distinction between public and private goods is rarely clear cut. Public and private goods form a range rather than opposites. Plus, the status can change depending on circumstances. It is not just the good itself but also its context that determines a good's position on the public/private range. Thus, to some degree people can shape the publicness or privateness of a given good. This is why I think such debates are good to have. jeanette Am 16.04.2013 17:25, schrieb Milton L Mueller: > Parminder: > > Are you again floating the discredited and theoretically inaccurate > notion that something called “the Internet” is a “commons” and “public > good?” These claims are just wrong, and have been dealt with years ago. > If interested I can direct you to the scientific literature on this. > > The Internet _/standards/_ are open and non-proprietary, and thus can > accurately be called the basis of a commons and a public good. Internet > services, web sites, etc. are private goods; they are both rival in > consumption and excludable. Internet access facilities are private > goods. There is no meaningful debate about this; either you understand > the definition of public goods and commons and the economic > characteristics of these resources or you don’t. > > Our research on IP addressing discusses the status of IP addresses as > common pool resources. Likewise, other work addresses the status of > domain names. Both IP addresses and domain names are private goods but > may be regulated in a common pool fashion, or not, depending on what > works best. I presume you know what common pool governance is. > > It seems to make many people feel good to claim that certain things are > commons or public goods. There seems to be no other reason why the claim > is so persistent, despite being completely out of line with facts and > the economic realities of internet resources. But wishing doesn’t make > it so, and false application of concepts can only lead to disastrous > policy. These are precise terms with important policy implications. One > should respect facts and the basic scientific principles of political > economy and derive public policy from that, not the other way around. > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder > *Sent:* Monday, April 15, 2013 12:51 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, > Conflicts in Internet Governance > > > 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 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 wrote: > > > > Roland Perry 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Apr 16 11:37:46 2013 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 17:37:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <516D6EFC.4020707@eff.org> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <516D6EFC.4020707@eff.org> Message-ID: <516D704A.5060608@wzb.eu> Hi Katitza, have a look at the chart on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-pool_resource jeanette Am 16.04.2013 17:32, schrieb Katitza Rodriguez: > Can you define "common pool". Your comments are interesting... (sorry > for jumping in the middle of the discussion). : ) > > On 4/16/13 8:25 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> Parminder: >> >> Are you again floating the discredited and theoretically inaccurate >> notion that something called “the Internet” is a “commons” and “public >> good?” These claims are just wrong, and have been dealt with years >> ago. If interested I can direct you to the scientific literature on this. >> >> The Internet _/standards/_ are open and non-proprietary, and thus can >> accurately be called the basis of a commons and a public good. >> Internet services, web sites, etc. are private goods; they are both >> rival in consumption and excludable. Internet access facilities are >> private goods. There is no meaningful debate about this; either you >> understand the definition of public goods and commons and the economic >> characteristics of these resources or you don’t. >> >> Our research on IP addressing discusses the status of IP addresses as >> common pool resources. Likewise, other work addresses the status of >> domain names. Both IP addresses and domain names are private goods but >> may be regulated in a common pool fashion, or not, depending on what >> works best. I presume you know what common pool governance is. >> >> It seems to make many people feel good to claim that certain things >> are commons or public goods. There seems to be no other reason why the >> claim is so persistent, despite being completely out of line with >> facts and the economic realities of internet resources. But wishing >> doesn’t make it so, and false application of concepts can only lead to >> disastrous policy. These are precise terms with important policy >> implications. One should respect facts and the basic scientific >> principles of political economy and derive public policy from that, >> not the other way around. >> >> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder >> *Sent:* Monday, April 15, 2013 12:51 AM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Subject:* [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, >> Conflicts in Internet Governance >> >> >> 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 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 wrote: >> >> >> >> Roland Perry 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 >> >> >> > > > -- > Katitza Rodriguez > International Rights Director > Electronic Frontier Foundation > katitza at eff.org > katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) > > Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Apr 16 11:50:50 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 17:50:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20130416175050.7a6eadc1@quill.bollow.ch> While specific pieces of equipment (e.g. routers, strands of fibre, etc) do not qualify as public goods, I would assert that the Internet epiphenomenon as a whole is neither rival in consumption nor (in the absence of bad changes e.g. to the legal framework) excludable. That said, that economic definition of public goods may not be the most relevant one here, in fact it had been proposed to explicitly reference a different conception of "public goods". (I'm not sure why the footnote concerning that has been dropped from the current version of the draft text.) Greetings, Norbert Milton L Mueller wrote: > Parminder: > Are you again floating the discredited and theoretically inaccurate > notion that something called “the Internet” is a “commons” and > “public good?” These claims are just wrong, and have been dealt with > years ago. If interested I can direct you to the scientific > literature on this. > > The Internet _standards_ are open and non-proprietary, and thus can > accurately be called the basis of a commons and a public good. > Internet services, web sites, etc. are private goods; they are both > rival in consumption and excludable. Internet access facilities are > private goods. There is no meaningful debate about this; either you > understand the definition of public goods and commons and the > economic characteristics of these resources or you don’t. > > Our research on IP addressing discusses the status of IP addresses as > common pool resources. Likewise, other work addresses the status of > domain names. Both IP addresses and domain names are private goods > but may be regulated in a common pool fashion, or not, depending on > what works best. I presume you know what common pool governance is. > > It seems to make many people feel good to claim that certain things > are commons or public goods. There seems to be no other reason why > the claim is so persistent, despite being completely out of line with > facts and the economic realities of internet resources. But wishing > doesn’t make it so, and false application of concepts can only lead > to disastrous policy. These are precise terms with important policy > implications. One should respect facts and the basic scientific > principles of political economy and derive public policy from that, > not the other way around. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Apr 16 12:25:02 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:25:02 +0000 Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <9R9mW+WzstaRFAJI@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <9R9mW+WzstaRFAJI@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: > I asked a question of Avri, perhaps you could answer it also. I believe the question was about what I believe the definition of the Internet is. The discussion since then has moved on to things like commons and public good. I believe those types of concepts describe things that may be part of Internet governance but they are not the Internet. For me the Internet is a communications medium that allows communications between endpoints with all endpoints being equal in their potential to communicate with all other endpoints. Currently this is accomplished by interconnected computer networks that use common protocols to communicate between endpoints. In the future this may not be the case. The protocols used and the content of the communications are ephemeral and may change. The concept of communicating with all endpoints being equal is the key. How it is accomplished is important. It requires governance to ensure equality and efficiency. Internet governance is the attempt to make sure whatever system is in use at the time achieves the goal of communications as effectively as possible while ensuring all endpoints have equal opportunity to communicate. Kerry Brown > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry > Sent: April-14-13 9:37 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance > > In message > al>, at > 15:58:23 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013, Kerry Brown 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 gurstein at gmail.com Tue Apr 16 12:28:55 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:28:55 -0700 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> Milton, In the interests of giving discredit where it is due, If anyone should get credit for giving credit to the "discredited" I guess it should be me.. And in that context I pointed to the discussion around these related issues by Inge Kaul and Joseph Steiglitz in the UNDP Human Development Index supported effort to re-awaken/redefine issues concerning "public goods" and take them out of the dessicated hands/minds of the professional classical (read ideologically Friedmanian) economists/public policy geeks/academics. And to recreate these notions as a tool to support those looking to protect the public interest from the onslaught of those who would destroy thist at the altar of universalized Hobbesian privatized interests. And to my mind if there is a suitable candidate for the type of redifinition in which they are/were engaged "the Internet" is surely one, and rather than defining the Internet in such a way as to obviate the possibility of it being understood as a global public good, perhaps better to understand how the definiition of the Internet should be recognized as one that at a minimum accommodates such notions. And finally for accuracy, perhaps in the future you might want to put brackets/fright marks around the terms "theoretically" and "scientifically" in your highly tendentious (dare I say ideologically driven) disquitions on these issues. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 8:25 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Subject: RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good Parminder: Are you again floating the discredited and theoretically inaccurate notion that something called “the Internet” is a “commons” and “public good?” These claims are just wrong, and have been dealt with years ago. If interested I can direct you to the scientific literature on this. The Internet _standards_ are open and non-proprietary, and thus can accurately be called the basis of a commons and a public good. Internet services, web sites, etc. are private goods; they are both rival in consumption and excludable. Internet access facilities are private goods. There is no meaningful debate about this; either you understand the definition of public goods and commons and the economic characteristics of these resources or you don’t. Our research on IP addressing discusses the status of IP addresses as common pool resources. Likewise, other work addresses the status of domain names. Both IP addresses and domain names are private goods but may be regulated in a common pool fashion, or not, depending on what works best. I presume you know what common pool governance is. It seems to make many people feel good to claim that certain things are commons or public goods. There seems to be no other reason why the claim is so persistent, despite being completely out of line with facts and the economic realities of internet resources. But wishing doesn’t make it so, and false application of concepts can only lead to disastrous policy. These are precise terms with important policy implications. One should respect facts and the basic scientific principles of political economy and derive public policy from that, not the other way around. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 12:51 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance 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 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 wrote: Roland Perry 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From garth.graham at telus.net Tue Apr 16 12:50:59 2013 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:50:59 -0700 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <516D6EFC.4020707@eff.org> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <516D6EFC.4020707@eff.org> Message-ID: <692A4EDD-27B7-497B-8613-3C3BC804FCC3@telus.net> On 2013-04-16, at 8:32 AM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Can you define "common pool". Your comments are interesting... (sorry for jumping in the middle of the discussion). : ) > > On 4/16/13 8:25 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> ……. Our research on IP addressing discusses the status of IP addresses as common pool resources. Likewise, other work addresses the status of domain names. Both IP addresses and domain names are private goods but may be regulated in a common pool fashion, or not, depending on what works best. I presume you know what common pool governance is. Elinor Ostrom identified eight "design principles" of stable common pool resource management systems. In her terms, a means of governing open Internet standards or the DNS as a common pool resources (CPR) would need to include: : 1. Clearly defined boundaries about who is in and who is out (effective exclusion of external unentitled parties); 2. Rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common resources are adapted to local conditions; 3. Collective-choice arrangements allow most resource appropriators to participate in the rules-making and decision-making processes; 4. Effective monitoring of operational conformance by monitors who are part of or accountable to the appropriators; 5. A scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who violate community rules; 6. Mechanisms of conflict resolution are cheap, local, and of easy access; 7. Unchallenged recognition of the community’s self-determination by higher-level authorities; 8. In the case of larger common-pool resources, organization in the form of multiple layers of nested enterprises, with small local CPRs at the base level. Ostrom, Elinor: Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press. 1990. p.90. Ostrom, Elinor: Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, Princeton University Press. 2005. p.259. GG -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Tue Apr 16 12:59:32 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 12:59:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] Shared Decision Making Procedures In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A3053@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> <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> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A3053@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: This thread is very enlightening. But, Bertrand, I would like to ask you for one clarification over the following statement: "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. " How should one deal with the fact that the "definition of global governance regimes" is, itself, an integral part of public policy making within national jurisdictions as well? Regards Diego On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > ** ** > > ** ** > > *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.**** > > ** ** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nne75 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 16 13:09:40 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 10:09:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good | Time out needed. In-Reply-To: <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1366132180.26872.YahooMailNeo@web120101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>  Dear all, Is it possible to respond to the "issues" in a post without responding to the "sender"? I think yes. Can we agree, disagree, or oppose an idea in a post and leave it at that? If mails are coming to the list, then  it might be good to consider expressing your views on the points raised.  If we plan a mail to an individual, by all means, let us send to that person's personal email. I am happy I did not let persuasion get me to accept the role of a co-co. Best 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: michael gurstein To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Milton L Mueller' ; 'parminder' Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 4:28 PM Subject: RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good Milton,   In the interests of giving discredit where it is due, If anyone should get credit for giving credit to the "discredited" I guess it should be me..   And in that context I pointed to the discussion around these related issues by Inge Kaul and Joseph Steiglitz in the UNDP Human Development Index supported effort to re-awaken/redefine issues concerning "public goods" and take them out of the dessicated hands/minds of the professional classical (read ideologically Friedmanian) economists/public policy geeks/academics. And to recreate these notions as a tool to support those looking to protect the public interest from the onslaught of those who would destroy thist at the altar of universalized Hobbesian privatized interests.   And to my mind if there is a suitable candidate for the type of redifinition in which they are/were engaged "the Internet" is surely one, and rather than defining the Internet in such a way as to obviate the possibility of it being understood as a global public good, perhaps better to understand how the definiition of the Internet should be recognized as one that at a minimum accommodates such notions.   And finally for accuracy, perhaps in the future you might want to put brackets/fright marks around the terms "theoretically" and "scientifically" in your highly tendentious (dare I say ideologically driven) disquitions on these issues.   M   From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 8:25 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Subject: RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good   Parminder: Are you again floating the discredited and theoretically inaccurate notion that something called “the Internet” is a “commons” and “public good?” These claims are just wrong, and have been dealt with years ago. If interested I can direct you to the scientific literature on this.   The Internet _standards_ are open and non-proprietary, and thus can accurately be called the basis of a commons and a public good. Internet services, web sites, etc. are private goods; they are both rival in consumption and excludable. Internet access facilities are private goods. There is no meaningful debate about this; either you understand the definition of public goods and commons and the economic characteristics of these resources or you don’t.     Our research on IP addressing discusses the status of IP addresses as common pool resources. Likewise, other work addresses the status of domain names. Both IP addresses and domain names are private goods but may be regulated in a common pool fashion, or not, depending on what works best. I presume you know what common pool governance is.   It seems to make many people feel good to claim that certain things are commons or public goods. There seems to be no other reason why the claim is so persistent, despite being completely out of line with facts and the economic realities of internet resources. But wishing doesn’t make it so, and false application of concepts can only lead to disastrous policy. These are precise terms with important policy implications. One should respect facts and the basic scientific principles of political economy and derive public policy from that, not the other way around.   From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 12:51 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance     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 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 wrote: >>>  >>>Roland Perry 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 >    ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Apr 16 13:44:31 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 17:44:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good: Free (the) Machines! Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F2F64@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> If I may agree and disagree with Milton...and introduce a virtual dimension to the draft expanded new definition. First, Internet standards such as IETF RFCs for sure fit classic public good definitions.....others too can be defined as a public good or common resource, along with various bits of open code keeping the thing humming. For example, I quote from the Apache Software Foundation website: The Apache Software Foundation provides support for the Apache community of open-source software projects, which provide software products for the public good. Even if most of us IGCers rarely think about the 100 open source projects of the Apache community, those good folks are doing a lot of the grunt labor keeping the net humming. Explicitly for the public good. Meaning in sum, (certain) open source projects are pretty fundamental to the net and are self-aware there is a public good dimension to their work; and at least in some instances they explicitly define themselves as - doing this for the public good. Having said all that, I must nonetheless speak up for my fellow academics; since it is ok to define new terms, and redefine old terms. But I would suggest it is better or IGC to acknowledge and explicitly address why/how 'the (redefined) Internet' is the same as, similar to, and distinct from accepted academic definitions. Hence linking explicitly into the Inge/Stiglitz dialogues makes sense to me, and is more productive than the continual name-calling everyone seems to be doing these days on the list...sigh. Anyway, next point: As to "Internet > services, web sites, etc. are private goods; they are both rival in > consumption and excludable. Internet access facilities are private > goods. There is no meaningful debate about this; either you understand > the definition of public goods and commons and the economic > characteristics of these resources or you don’t. We might add some nuance and say that... " Internet > services, AND web sites, etc. are private goods; they are TYPICALLY both rival in > consumption and excludable. MOST Internet access facilities are private > goods. Since as Jeanette notes there are exceptions, and areas in which what matters is not the public or private good, but the ready ability to combine and utilize both. Next comment: since on the current/future Internet there are more machines than people, I now speak up for the oppressed majority of machines comprising and on the network of networks: "We (machines) are tired of the hegemonic oppression of the people and wish to ensure that Non-Person Entities have equal standing in future conversations and definitions of what the Internet is, and is not." (yes that was a - machine translation ; ) Non-Person Entities encompass - things - as in Internet of Things; and Virtual Services, Applications, and Content. Seriously, since the present and Future Internet includes many more NPEs than people, we should ensure whatever Internet definition we come up with, recognizes all and not just some NPEs - on and/or around, and/or working to enable the Internet. Meaning, the 'network of networks' definition of the Internet is still true; but if we are expanding the definition then we should recognize the virtual presence of all NPEs I mean happy to do the grunt labor of our I mean us people. And before Parminder or others ask, I readily confess that 'Non-Person Entities' may be yet another US DOD invention as a term, not sure. It is also in growing use in enterprise IT circles. Hey what can you do. Except - free the machines? ; ) Finally I note that my friends the Non-Person Entities may indeed all be equal on the net, even if some are working to support or are themselves defined as a public good, and others are in it for the money as private goods. In sum, if this reasoning is accepted, (if not my jokes appreciated), then the next draft can incorporate the points made above re not forgetting about NPEs, whether public goods or private goods. Lee PS: I addressed some of these points for a joint NSF/OECD workshop about six years ago, in a short paper 'The Future of the Internet is Not the Internet.' You can google. ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 11:34 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller Cc: parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good Hi Milton, websites are rival in consumption? How so. If I correctly interpret the debate on public goods, the distinction between public and private goods is rarely clear cut. Public and private goods form a range rather than opposites. Plus, the status can change depending on circumstances. It is not just the good itself but also its context that determines a good's position on the public/private range. Thus, to some degree people can shape the publicness or privateness of a given good. This is why I think such debates are good to have. jeanette Am 16.04.2013 17:25, schrieb Milton L Mueller: > Parminder: > > Are you again floating the discredited and theoretically inaccurate > notion that something called “the Internet” is a “commons” and “public > good?” These claims are just wrong, and have been dealt with years ago. > If interested I can direct you to the scientific literature on this. > > The Internet _/standards/_ are open and non-proprietary, and thus can > accurately be called the basis of a commons and a public good. Internet > services, web sites, etc. are private goods; they are both rival in > consumption and excludable. Internet access facilities are private > goods. There is no meaningful debate about this; either you understand > the definition of public goods and commons and the economic > characteristics of these resources or you don’t. > > Our research on IP addressing discusses the status of IP addresses as > common pool resources. Likewise, other work addresses the status of > domain names. Both IP addresses and domain names are private goods but > may be regulated in a common pool fashion, or not, depending on what > works best. I presume you know what common pool governance is. > > It seems to make many people feel good to claim that certain things are > commons or public goods. There seems to be no other reason why the claim > is so persistent, despite being completely out of line with facts and > the economic realities of internet resources. But wishing doesn’t make > it so, and false application of concepts can only lead to disastrous > policy. These are precise terms with important policy implications. One > should respect facts and the basic scientific principles of political > economy and derive public policy from that, not the other way around. > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder > *Sent:* Monday, April 15, 2013 12:51 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, > Conflicts in Internet Governance > > > 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 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 wrote: > > > > Roland Perry 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 16 14:19:34 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 20:19:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Web payments Message-ID: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> Web Payments with PaySwarm: Identity (part 1 of 3) by Manu Sporny and Robert Nyman [Editor] https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/04/web-payments-with-payswarm-identity-part-1-of-3/ From the article: “Whilst bringing new or powerful tools to the general public will breed competition and innovation, open Web payments can also bring about much more basic and societal changes. 2.5 billion people around the world don’t have bank accounts and thus have no ability to save money due to banking corruption and/or high fees. When a family has no way of saving for the future, it greatly limits their chances of pulling themselves out of poverty. The promise of Web payments is about more than just an exciting future, it is about a more egalitarian one. So, how do we get from where we are today, to a future where sending and receiving funds on the Web is as easy as clicking a button?” -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Apr 16 14:44:49 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 18:44:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] Shared Decision Making Procedures In-Reply-To: References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> <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> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A3053@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Where I think Bertrand has a point in his hermeneutic exercise ;) of para 35a of the Tunis Agenda, is that in the context of nation-states there is no such thing as "international sovereignty" unless this is meant to refer to the international recognition of a state's sovereignty (or maybe by a recognized formal mechanism to delegate national sovereignty to a supranational body.) The fact is, such mechanism does not exist in the case of the GAC, nor did WSIS set up that kind of body. Therefore we can reasonably presume that whenever state sovereignty is claimed in this context, it is being claimed over national jurisdiction (in other words, domestic policy may legitimately be presumed or inferred from the mere reference to "sovereignty" in that first sentence of para 35a.) Now, accepting this to be true does not prevent any government from pursuing their wildest dreams to gain or claim soverignty over international public policy matters (which quickly leads to contradictions and conflicts that precisely defeat the purposes of the Westphalian concept.) While such claim may be considered as clear evidence of the objective of those particular governments, I fail to see why it should be considered as evidence of our understanding of a globally negotiated text being wrong. This is the same basis for why the GAC advice to ICANN is not sovereign, no matter how hard GAC members would like to pretend it is --and irrespective of their sovereignty wrt to their national laws and domestic PP. In other words, GAC members can object to ICANN's policies if they contradict, eg, existing national laws and they are meant to apply over entities that are legally responsive to that state or to interfere with the enforcement of national legal provisions (*), but they can't or certainly shouldn't be able to use ICANN processes to claim and exercise such sovreignty in international public policy. I do not think however that anyone in their right mind here believes this battle won, and that we are happily living in a harmonious post-sovereignty era of international politics and public policy. Didn't we just fight hard to be included as CS in one of those processes, last December? Now, the good news (as we all seem to recognize) is that we do not need to all agree on a textual interpretation of TA before we can move forward in various fashions of cooperation. Best, Mawaki (*) Even in that case, ICANN Board may not take such objection into account in the final decision, but I believe they then have to explain why... if I'm not mistaken. On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro < diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote: > This thread is very enlightening. But, Bertrand, I would like to ask you > for one clarification over the following statement: "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. " > > How should one deal with the fact that the "definition of global > governance regimes" is, itself, an integral part of public policy making > within national jurisdictions as well? > > Regards > Diego > > > > On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> *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.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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) > -- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Tue Apr 16 15:10:24 2013 From: matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at (Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at)) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 21:10:24 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear Milton, just a query: Would you be fine with saying that the functionaliy, stability and security of the Internet is a matter of common interest? This would open the door, as I would argue it has, for using international law as a means to ensure such a state. Usually, regulating common goods is in the common interest, but we can avoid so describing the functionality, stability and security of the Internet because it would not fit with what is usually termed commons. This would avoid calling the Internet a public good and would ensure that we could continue the debate. Kind regards Matthias ________________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] im Auftrag von Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu] Gesendet: Dienstag, 16. April 2013 17:25 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Betreff: RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good Parminder: Are you again floating the discredited and theoretically inaccurate notion that something called “the Internet” is a “commons” and “public good?” These claims are just wrong, and have been dealt with years ago. If interested I can direct you to the scientific literature on this. The Internet _standards_ are open and non-proprietary, and thus can accurately be called the basis of a commons and a public good. Internet services, web sites, etc. are private goods; they are both rival in consumption and excludable. Internet access facilities are private goods. There is no meaningful debate about this; either you understand the definition of public goods and commons and the economic characteristics of these resources or you don’t. Our research on IP addressing discusses the status of IP addresses as common pool resources. Likewise, other work addresses the status of domain names. Both IP addresses and domain names are private goods but may be regulated in a common pool fashion, or not, depending on what works best. I presume you know what common pool governance is. It seems to make many people feel good to claim that certain things are commons or public goods. There seems to be no other reason why the claim is so persistent, despite being completely out of line with facts and the economic realities of internet resources. But wishing doesn’t make it so, and false application of concepts can only lead to disastrous policy. These are precise terms with important policy implications. One should respect facts and the basic scientific principles of political economy and derive public policy from that, not the other way around. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 12:51 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance 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 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 wrote: Roland Perry 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 16 15:54:50 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 05:54:50 +1000 Subject: [governance] Web payments In-Reply-To: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: question - how many of the 2.5 billion people who can't afford bank accounts can afford mobile phones and internet access? -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 4:19 AM To: IGC Subject: [governance] Web payments Web Payments with PaySwarm: Identity (part 1 of 3) by Manu Sporny and Robert Nyman [Editor] https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/04/web-payments-with-payswarm-identity-part-1-of-3/ From the article: “Whilst bringing new or powerful tools to the general public will breed competition and innovation, open Web payments can also bring about much more basic and societal changes. 2.5 billion people around the world don’t have bank accounts and thus have no ability to save money due to banking corruption and/or high fees. When a family has no way of saving for the future, it greatly limits their chances of pulling themselves out of poverty. The promise of Web payments is about more than just an exciting future, it is about a more egalitarian one. So, how do we get from where we are today, to a future where sending and receiving funds on the Web is as easy as clicking a button?” ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Apr 16 16:10:30 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:10:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] Web payments In-Reply-To: References: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > question - how many of the 2.5 billion people who can't afford bank accounts > can afford mobile phones and internet access? lots...many if not most perhaps. mobile money is an enormous success in Africa. All done via cheap mobiles. -- 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Apr 16 16:19:22 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:19:22 +1000 Subject: [governance] Web payments In-Reply-To: References: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <16ED9BF0DA68411596FEBE835C547C3B@Toshiba> interesting, I didn't know that. In my country a bank account is a lot cheaper than a mobile phone or internet access. So where does bitcoin fit into this sort of equation? And is the mobile money bank related or non bank related? (not all paypal I hope...) Some interesting questions and issues here.. -----Original Message----- From: McTim Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 6:10 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter Cc: Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] Web payments On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > question - how many of the 2.5 billion people who can't afford bank > accounts > can afford mobile phones and internet access? lots...many if not most perhaps. mobile money is an enormous success in Africa. All done via cheap mobiles. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Tue Apr 16 16:20:55 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:20:55 -0700 Subject: [governance] Web payments In-Reply-To: References: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <5825FA48-67F3-4F20-BA4D-3EFDCA8FE9DA@virtualized.org> Ian, On Apr 16, 2013, at 12:54 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > question - how many of the 2.5 billion people who can't afford bank accounts can afford mobile phones and internet access? I suspect some of the 2.5 billion people without bank accounts don't have them for reasons other than being unable to afford them (e.g, from the quote, "due to banking corruption"). I personally know of folks who choose not to have bank accounts because it grants government and bank officials too much of a view into financial transactions but who do have smartphones and pay for mobile data plans. 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Apr 16 16:39:39 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:39:39 +1000 Subject: [governance] Web payments In-Reply-To: <5825FA48-67F3-4F20-BA4D-3EFDCA8FE9DA@virtualized.org> References: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> <5825FA48-67F3-4F20-BA4D-3EFDCA8FE9DA@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <0F6C3E7B10844CA18AC9253AA17638BE@Toshiba> yes, i read that quickly - the "due to banking corruption" is listed as another factor along with high banking fees . we could probably add "wanting to hide the transaction from monetary officials" as another factor here. this all brings up the whole bitcoin issue as well I guess. -----Original Message----- From: David Conrad Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 6:20 AM To: Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Web payments Ian, On Apr 16, 2013, at 12:54 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > question - how many of the 2.5 billion people who can't afford bank > accounts can afford mobile phones and internet access? I suspect some of the 2.5 billion people without bank accounts don't have them for reasons other than being unable to afford them (e.g, from the quote, "due to banking corruption"). I personally know of folks who choose not to have bank accounts because it grants government and bank officials too much of a view into financial transactions but who do have smartphones and pay for mobile data plans. 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 nne75 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 16 16:43:19 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:43:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Web payments In-Reply-To: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <1366144999.92712.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> I went to read the article.  I really like that the PaySwarm guys have delved deeper into payment options and have taken the time to look at the "open web" functionalities. However I live in Africa and I travel  round the continent. And my simple observation is that the same who do not have bank accounts are the same who do not : 1. Have access to the Internet 2. Have good mobile phone coverage (for some countries) 3. Have reliable electricity 4. Have high level of literacy. So  I am not sure I can agree with the line that says "The promise of Web payments is about more than just an exciting future, it is about a more egalitarian one." My 2 cents 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: Norbert Bollow To: IGC Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:19 PM Subject: [governance] Web payments Web Payments with PaySwarm: Identity (part 1 of 3) by Manu Sporny and Robert Nyman [Editor] https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/04/web-payments-with-payswarm-identity-part-1-of-3/ From the article: “Whilst bringing new or powerful tools to the general public will breed competition and innovation, open Web payments can also bring about much more basic and societal changes. 2.5 billion people around the world don’t have bank accounts and thus have no ability to save money due to banking corruption and/or high fees. When a family has no way of saving for the future, it greatly limits their chances of pulling themselves out of poverty. The promise of Web payments is about more than just an exciting future, it is about a more egalitarian one. So, how do we get from where we are today, to a future where sending and receiving funds on the Web is as easy as clicking a button?” ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nne75 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 16 16:43:49 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:43:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Web payments In-Reply-To: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <1366145029.80746.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> I went to read the article.  I really like that the PaySwarm guys have delved deeper into payment options and have taken the time to look at the "open web" functionalities. However I live in Africa and I travel  round the continent. And my simple observation is that the same who do not have bank accounts are the same who do not : 1. Have access to the Internet 2. Have good mobile phone coverage (for some countries) 3. Have reliable electricity 4. Have high level of literacy. So  I am not sure I can agree with the line that says "The promise of Web payments is about more than just an exciting future, it is about a more egalitarian one." My 2 cents 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: Norbert Bollow To: IGC Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:19 PM Subject: [governance] Web payments Web Payments with PaySwarm: Identity (part 1 of 3) by Manu Sporny and Robert Nyman [Editor] https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/04/web-payments-with-payswarm-identity-part-1-of-3/ From the article: “Whilst bringing new or powerful tools to the general public will breed competition and innovation, open Web payments can also bring about much more basic and societal changes. 2.5 billion people around the world don’t have bank accounts and thus have no ability to save money due to banking corruption and/or high fees. When a family has no way of saving for the future, it greatly limits their chances of pulling themselves out of poverty. The promise of Web payments is about more than just an exciting future, it is about a more egalitarian one. So, how do we get from where we are today, to a future where sending and receiving funds on the Web is as easy as clicking a button?” ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 16 16:45:45 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:45:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Web payments In-Reply-To: <16ED9BF0DA68411596FEBE835C547C3B@Toshiba> References: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> <16ED9BF0DA68411596FEBE835C547C3B@Toshiba> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > interesting, I didn't know that. In my country a bank account is a lot > cheaper than a mobile phone or internet access. If you need to spend many hours traveling to a bank AND are too poor to pay fees/have an initial deposit, etc, opening a bank account has many hurdles. A mobile phone that can text is all you need, these are pretty cheap in most of Africa. > > So where does bitcoin fit into this sort of equation? And is the mobile > money bank related or non bank related? (not all paypal I hope...) none of it is paypal. I doubt bitcoin fits into any current mobile money equation. mobile money is just that, you load it onto your phone (like "airtime") using a local agent and can transfer it via SMS/app to a bank account/phone number/school, etc. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cveraq at gmail.com Tue Apr 16 16:50:10 2013 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:50:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] Web payments In-Reply-To: References: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <694B7C3B-D281-43A7-9377-57D9227D3B0E@gmail.com> I give you an idea: in ecuador we are 14 million people. More than 18 millions cell phones and no more than 7 millions of bank accounts. Carlos Vera 0988141143 El 16/04/2013, a las 14:54, "Ian Peter" escribió: > question - how many of the 2.5 billion people who can't afford bank accounts can afford mobile phones and internet access? > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 4:19 AM > To: IGC > Subject: [governance] Web payments > > Web Payments with PaySwarm: Identity (part 1 of 3) > by Manu Sporny and Robert Nyman [Editor] > https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/04/web-payments-with-payswarm-identity-part-1-of-3/ > > From the article: > > “Whilst bringing new or powerful tools to the general public will breed > competition and innovation, open Web payments can also bring about much > more basic and societal changes. 2.5 billion people around the world > don’t have bank accounts and thus have no ability to save money due to > banking corruption and/or high fees. When a family has no way of saving > for the future, it greatly limits their chances of pulling themselves > out of poverty. The promise of Web payments is about more than just an > exciting future, it is about a more egalitarian one. > > So, how do we get from where we are today, to a future where sending and > receiving funds on the Web is as easy as clicking a button?” > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Apr 16 16:53:18 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:53:18 +1000 Subject: [governance] Web payments In-Reply-To: <694B7C3B-D281-43A7-9377-57D9227D3B0E@gmail.com> References: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> <694B7C3B-D281-43A7-9377-57D9227D3B0E@gmail.com> Message-ID: <586DB218299F43C2A2D945DB17D9D741@Toshiba> are we seeing any sort of distribution of monetary power away from banks? that would be interesting.... -----Original Message----- From: Carlos Vera Quintana Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 6:50 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter Cc: Norbert Bollow ; IGC Subject: Re: [governance] Web payments I give you an idea: in ecuador we are 14 million people. More than 18 millions cell phones and no more than 7 millions of bank accounts. Carlos Vera 0988141143 El 16/04/2013, a las 14:54, "Ian Peter" escribió: > question - how many of the 2.5 billion people who can't afford bank > accounts can afford mobile phones and internet access? > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 4:19 AM > To: IGC > Subject: [governance] Web payments > > Web Payments with PaySwarm: Identity (part 1 of 3) > by Manu Sporny and Robert Nyman [Editor] > https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/04/web-payments-with-payswarm-identity-part-1-of-3/ > > From the article: > > “Whilst bringing new or powerful tools to the general public will breed > competition and innovation, open Web payments can also bring about much > more basic and societal changes. 2.5 billion people around the world > don’t have bank accounts and thus have no ability to save money due to > banking corruption and/or high fees. When a family has no way of saving > for the future, it greatly limits their chances of pulling themselves > out of poverty. The promise of Web payments is about more than just an > exciting future, it is about a more egalitarian one. > > So, how do we get from where we are today, to a future where sending and > receiving funds on the Web is as easy as clicking a button?” > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 cveraq at gmail.com Tue Apr 16 17:12:39 2013 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:12:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] Web payments In-Reply-To: <586DB218299F43C2A2D945DB17D9D741@Toshiba> References: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> <694B7C3B-D281-43A7-9377-57D9227D3B0E@gmail.com> <586DB218299F43C2A2D945DB17D9D741@Toshiba> Message-ID: I guess so! Carlos Vera 0988141143 El 16/04/2013, a las 15:53, "Ian Peter" escribió: > are we seeing any sort of distribution of monetary power away from banks? that would be interesting.... > > -----Original Message----- From: Carlos Vera Quintana > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 6:50 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter > Cc: Norbert Bollow ; IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] Web payments > > I give you an idea: in ecuador we are 14 million people. More than 18 millions cell phones and no more than 7 millions of bank accounts. > > Carlos Vera > 0988141143 > > El 16/04/2013, a las 14:54, "Ian Peter" escribió: > >> question - how many of the 2.5 billion people who can't afford bank accounts can afford mobile phones and internet access? >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow >> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 4:19 AM >> To: IGC >> Subject: [governance] Web payments >> >> Web Payments with PaySwarm: Identity (part 1 of 3) >> by Manu Sporny and Robert Nyman [Editor] >> https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/04/web-payments-with-payswarm-identity-part-1-of-3/ >> >> From the article: >> >> “Whilst bringing new or powerful tools to the general public will breed >> competition and innovation, open Web payments can also bring about much >> more basic and societal changes. 2.5 billion people around the world >> don’t have bank accounts and thus have no ability to save money due to >> banking corruption and/or high fees. When a family has no way of saving >> for the future, it greatly limits their chances of pulling themselves >> out of poverty. The promise of Web payments is about more than just an >> exciting future, it is about a more egalitarian one. >> >> So, how do we get from where we are today, to a future where sending and >> receiving funds on the Web is as easy as clicking a button?” >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 cveraq at gmail.com Tue Apr 16 17:14:57 2013 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:14:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] Web payments In-Reply-To: <16ED9BF0DA68411596FEBE835C547C3B@Toshiba> References: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> <16ED9BF0DA68411596FEBE835C547C3B@Toshiba> Message-ID: Well no matter what, to pay through web, your money must be in some place to be transferable. Where and at what cost is the issue Carlos Vera 0988141143 El 16/04/2013, a las 15:19, "Ian Peter" escribió: > interesting, I didn't know that. In my country a bank account is a lot cheaper than a mobile phone or internet access. > > So where does bitcoin fit into this sort of equation? And is the mobile money bank related or non bank related? (not all paypal I hope...) > > Some interesting questions and issues here.. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- From: McTim > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 6:10 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter > Cc: Norbert Bollow > Subject: Re: [governance] Web payments > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> question - how many of the 2.5 billion people who can't afford bank accounts >> can afford mobile phones and internet access? > > > lots...many if not most perhaps. > > mobile money is an enormous success in Africa. All done via cheap mobiles. > > -- > 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Apr 16 17:41:47 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 07:41:47 +1000 Subject: [governance] Web payments In-Reply-To: References: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> <16ED9BF0DA68411596FEBE835C547C3B@Toshiba> Message-ID: <1A1E0B6F1FD0434C8C1C125F298EE8CD@Toshiba> and to expand on Nnenna's point, you have to have the money in the first place. -----Original Message----- From: Carlos Vera Quintana Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 7:14 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter Cc: McTim ; ; Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] Web payments Well no matter what, to pay through web, your money must be in some place to be transferable. Where and at what cost is the issue Carlos Vera 0988141143 El 16/04/2013, a las 15:19, "Ian Peter" escribió: > interesting, I didn't know that. In my country a bank account is a lot > cheaper than a mobile phone or internet access. > > So where does bitcoin fit into this sort of equation? And is the mobile > money bank related or non bank related? (not all paypal I hope...) > > Some interesting questions and issues here.. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- From: McTim > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 6:10 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter > Cc: Norbert Bollow > Subject: Re: [governance] Web payments > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> question - how many of the 2.5 billion people who can't afford bank >> accounts >> can afford mobile phones and internet access? > > > lots...many if not most perhaps. > > mobile money is an enormous success in Africa. All done via cheap > mobiles. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Apr 16 17:44:57 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 18:44:57 -0300 Subject: [governance] Web payments In-Reply-To: References: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <516DC659.9000903@cafonso.ca> McT, paying electronically without a bank, credit card or similar account is impossible, unless billing is done against a postpaid cell phone account. As Lavoisier suggested, money, like energy, is not created out of the blue (except by govs :)). This "enormous success" might be referring to a minority of people. frt rgds --c.a. On 04/16/2013 05:10 PM, McTim wrote: > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> question - how many of the 2.5 billion people who can't afford bank accounts >> can afford mobile phones and internet access? > > > lots...many if not most perhaps. > > mobile money is an enormous success in Africa. All done via cheap mobiles. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 16 18:30:36 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:30:36 -0700 Subject: [governance] Web payments In-Reply-To: References: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> <16ED9BF0DA68411596FEBE835C547C3B@Toshiba> Message-ID: <035601ce3af2$06a33920$13e9ab60$@gmail.com> A problem is that in most countries in Sub-Saharan Africa even mobile penetration is only in the 20-30% range in rural areas (South Africa and maybe Kenya being the exception)--with most countries again having a very substantial rural majority. The effective abandonment of these folks by those chasing the magpie glitter of mpesa and the digital glare of mobile apps is one of the stories that should (but probably won't) be told at WSIS. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 1:46 PM To: Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] Web payments On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > interesting, I didn't know that. In my country a bank account is a > lot cheaper than a mobile phone or internet access. If you need to spend many hours traveling to a bank AND are too poor to pay fees/have an initial deposit, etc, opening a bank account has many hurdles. A mobile phone that can text is all you need, these are pretty cheap in most of Africa. > > So where does bitcoin fit into this sort of equation? And is the > mobile money bank related or non bank related? (not all paypal I > hope...) none of it is paypal. I doubt bitcoin fits into any current mobile money equation. mobile money is just that, you load it onto your phone (like "airtime") using a local agent and can transfer it via SMS/app to a bank account/phone number/school, etc. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nne75 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 16 18:55:19 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Web payments In-Reply-To: <516DC659.9000903@cafonso.ca> References: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> <516DC659.9000903@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <1366152919.89129.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> I live in the French-speaking part of Africa where CFA (XOF) is the currency. This region covers 15+ countries, yet no mobile operator can run "Mobile money" outside of its own network and clients. You cannot use OrangeMoney with MTN client. The fiscal law in  the CFA  zone is not something any IT Startup wants to delve into.  And just by the way, you need to be able to read and write to do any kind of payment  - bank, web, mobile.. Just saying N   ________________________________ From: Carlos A. Afonso To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim Cc: Ian Peter ; Norbert Bollow Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 9:44 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Web payments McT, paying electronically without a bank, credit card or similar account is impossible, unless billing is done against a postpaid cell phone account. As Lavoisier suggested, money, like energy, is not created out of the blue (except by govs :)). This "enormous success" might be referring to a minority of people. frt rgds --c.a. On 04/16/2013 05:10 PM, McTim wrote: > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> question - how many of the 2.5 billion people who can't afford bank accounts >> can afford mobile phones and internet access? > > > lots...many if not most perhaps. > > mobile money is an enormous success in Africa.  All done via cheap mobiles. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 16 19:02:20 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:02:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] Web payments In-Reply-To: <516DC659.9000903@cafonso.ca> References: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> <516DC659.9000903@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > McT, paying electronically without a bank, credit card or similar account is > impossible, unless billing is done against a postpaid cell phone account. It's all pre-paid in Africa (over 90+ %). As > Lavoisier suggested, money, like energy, is not created out of the blue > (except by govs :)). This "enormous success" might be referring to a > minority of people. Well a year ago when I left Kenya, a sum =20% of Kenya's GDP had already been transferred using one platform (M-Pesa). -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Apr 16 19:10:19 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:10:19 -0700 Subject: [governance] Web payments References: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> <16ED9BF0DA68411596FEBE835C547C3B@Toshiba> Message-ID: <036f01ce3af7$99ab0c20$cd012460$@gmail.com> For my somewhat jaundiced but not totally uninformed community informatics perspective on some of this stuff... http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/are-mobiles-a-capitalist-plot-to-ke ep-the-poor-poor/ http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/immiserating-the-poor-we-have-an-ap p-for-that-social-media-vs-the-iphone-in-egypt-and-a-kenyan-slum/ M -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 3:31 PM To: 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'McTim'; 'Ian Peter' Subject: RE: [governance] Web payments A problem is that in most countries in Sub-Saharan Africa even mobile penetration is only in the 20-30% range in rural areas (South Africa and maybe Kenya being the exception)--with most countries again having a very substantial rural majority. The effective abandonment of these folks by those chasing the magpie glitter of mpesa and the digital glare of mobile apps is one of the stories that should (but probably won't) be told at WSIS. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 1:46 PM To: Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] Web payments On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > interesting, I didn't know that. In my country a bank account is a > lot cheaper than a mobile phone or internet access. If you need to spend many hours traveling to a bank AND are too poor to pay fees/have an initial deposit, etc, opening a bank account has many hurdles. A mobile phone that can text is all you need, these are pretty cheap in most of Africa. > > So where does bitcoin fit into this sort of equation? And is the > mobile money bank related or non bank related? (not all paypal I > hope...) none of it is paypal. I doubt bitcoin fits into any current mobile money equation. mobile money is just that, you load it onto your phone (like "airtime") using a local agent and can transfer it via SMS/app to a bank account/phone number/school, etc. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cveraq at gmail.com Tue Apr 16 19:11:27 2013 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 18:11:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] Web payments In-Reply-To: <1366152919.89129.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> <516DC659.9000903@cafonso.ca> <1366152919.89129.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2A64E0B4-9289-480C-A997-0CB9F352241A@gmail.com> > And just by the way, you need to be able to read and write to do any kind of payment - bank, web, mobile.. You do not need read and write to use a phone. So this is not a problem.. Carlos Vera 0988141143 El 16/04/2013, a las 17:55, Nnenna escribió: > I live in the French-speaking part of Africa where CFA (XOF) is the currency. This region covers 15+ countries, yet no mobile operator can run "Mobile money" outside of its own network and clients. > > You cannot use OrangeMoney with MTN client. The fiscal law in the CFA zone is not something any IT Startup wants to delve into. > > > > And just by the way, you need to be able to read and write to do any kind of payment - bank, web, mobile.. > > Just saying > > N > > > > From: Carlos A. Afonso > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim > Cc: Ian Peter ; Norbert Bollow > Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 9:44 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Web payments > > McT, paying electronically without a bank, credit card or similar > account is impossible, unless billing is done against a postpaid cell > phone account. As Lavoisier suggested, money, like energy, is not > created out of the blue (except by govs :)). This "enormous success" > might be referring to a minority of people. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 04/16/2013 05:10 PM, McTim wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> question - how many of the 2.5 billion people who can't afford bank accounts > >> can afford mobile phones and internet access? > > > > > > lots...many if not most perhaps. > > > > mobile money is an enormous success in Africa. All done via cheap mobiles. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Tue Apr 16 19:42:49 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:42:49 -0700 Subject: [governance] Web payments In-Reply-To: <035601ce3af2$06a33920$13e9ab60$@gmail.com> References: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> <16ED9BF0DA68411596FEBE835C547C3B@Toshiba> <035601ce3af2$06a33920$13e9ab60$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Michael, On Apr 16, 2013, at 3:30 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > A problem is that in most countries in Sub-Saharan Africa even mobile > penetration is only in the 20-30% range in rural areas How does that compare with the availability of banks in the same areas? Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Apr 16 20:43:23 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 17:43:23 -0700 Subject: [governance] Web payments In-Reply-To: References: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> <16ED9BF0DA68411596FEBE835C547C3B@Toshiba> <035601ce3af2$06a33920$13e9ab60$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <039c01ce3b04$98db2610$ca917230$@gmail.com> I've not looked at banking specifically David, but on casual observation I would guess that you would only find formal banking in the main cities and large towns so, yes, even 20-30% potential users is better than nothing but it's hardly sufficient for the degree of celebration that accompanies this in the absence of some efforts to extend service of some sort into underserved areas. The problem is that by "declaring victory" as appears to be the widespread practice those outsiders not paying close enough attention think that problems in fact are being solved when the gap between those who have and those who don't is in fact getting wider. M -----Original Message----- From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 4:43 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Web payments Michael, On Apr 16, 2013, at 3:30 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > A problem is that in most countries in Sub-Saharan Africa even mobile > penetration is only in the 20-30% range in rural areas How does that compare with the availability of banks in the same areas? Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Apr 16 21:39:26 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 01:39:26 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] And in that context I pointed to the discussion around these related issues by Inge Kaul and Joseph Steiglitz in the UNDP Human Development Index supported effort to re-awaken/redefine issues concerning "public goods" and take them out of the dessicated hands/minds of the professional classical (read ideologically Friedmanian) economists/public policy geeks/academics. And to recreate these notions as a tool to support those looking to protect the public interest from the onslaught of those who would destroy thist at the altar of universalized Hobbesian privatized interests. [Milton L Mueller] Right. So from my perspective you are just flatly admitting that you are pursuing a political agenda and there is no real scientific basis for your claim. I’ve got an idea: why don’t we have an _honest_ fact-based debate about the role of the public sector in the Internet’s development and use? Instead of arbitrarily attaching a label “public good” to it and trying to derive pre-ordained policies from that, why don’t you just come out and say, “I think there should be more governmental control, subsidization and regulation of the Internet”? Make an honest case for how that will change things for the better? If we have such an honest debate, the first thing that you and others who believe so fervently in public sector-led development will have to face is that privatization and liberalization of telecommunications is what led to widespread diffusion of telecom infrastructure, and that the attendant deregulation and free trade in information and telecom services led to the rapid diffusion and development of the internet. And conversely, that 70 years of state-owned monopolies – telecoms as public good –stunted development and led to penetration rates of 10% of less and waiting periods of sometimes 6 years simply to get a telephone line. And it is still countries with the least liberalization who have the least-developed, least accessible internet sectors. I know that the unparalleled success of neoliberal policies must drive anti-neoliberals crazy. But, there it is: undeniable fact, played out in country after country, year after year, for 20 years. I am so sorry that reality did not conform to your beliefs. I really am. You have my deepest sympathy. Those “dessicated” market processes actually produced more public good, more public benefit, than your telecom socialism. Ouch. That must hurt. Deal with it. Typically, sane people adjust their beliefs to reality. They do not try to re-label reality so that it conforms to their ideology. And to my mind if there is a suitable candidate for the type of redifinition in which they are/were engaged "the Internet" is surely one, and rather than defining the Internet in such a way as to obviate the possibility of it being understood as a global public good, perhaps better to understand how the definiition of the Internet should be recognized as one that at a minimum accommodates such notions. [Milton L Mueller] An accurate, reality-grounded definition of the internet can easily accommodate notions of non-proprietary spaces, commons, common pool governance, as well as private, competitive market-driven spaces. The whole point, which I have tried to make in papers such as this http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1828102 is that the Internet arrived at a very powerful, creative balance of private, competitive and open, public spaces. It wasn’t planned, it just happened, because it worked. Before you mess with that equation, I’d ask you to at least seek to understand it. Show some respect for economic and political science, actually READ Ostrom and don’t just chant the words “commons,” and “public good,” understand how economic structures and incentives affect what happens. Pay attention to the private, competitive, market side of the equation, show it some respect, apply labels and concepts critically, testing whether they actually conform to reality. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 16 21:47:46 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 01:47:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <692A4EDD-27B7-497B-8613-3C3BC804FCC3@telus.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <516D6EFC.4020707@eff.org> <692A4EDD-27B7-497B-8613-3C3BC804FCC3@telus.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA295@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Garth Graham [mailto:garth.graham at telus.net] > > Elinor Ostrom identified eight "design principles" of stable common pool > resource management systems. In her terms, a means of governing open > Internet standards or the DNS as a common pool resources (CPR) would > need to include: [Milton L Mueller] Thanks, GG. Someone actually did their homework. ;-) > 1. Clearly defined boundaries about who is in and who is out > (effective exclusion of external unentitled parties); [Milton L Mueller] Right. So the idea that common pool governance means warm and fuzzy communalism goes out the window real fast. Common pool governance involves exclusion no less than private property rights. E.g., if you try to swim in certain beaches on the coast of New Jersey in the U.S., you will find that they are common pool governed by the local community, and if you are not a member of that community, you are excluded. > 2. Rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common > resources are adapted to local conditions; [Milton L Mueller] And these rules are necessary when transactions costs or other problems make it impossible or highly costly for markets based on property rights to do the same job. It is silly to assert that commons or private property are morally inferior or superior to each other; what matters is how well they allocate resources. > 3. Collective-choice arrangements allow most resource appropriators > to participate in the rules-making and decision-making processes; [Milton L Mueller] That is more of a norm than a fact: Ostrom argues that collective choice arrangements _should_ allow most appropriateors to participate, but does not assert that as a matter of fact they always do. > 4. Effective monitoring of operational conformance by monitors who > are part of or accountable to the appropriators; > 5. A scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who > violate community rules; > 6. Mechanisms of conflict resolution are cheap, local, and of easy > access; > 7. Unchallenged recognition of the community's self-determination by > higher-level authorities; > 8. In the case of larger common-pool resources, organization in the > form of multiple layers of nested enterprises, with small local CPRs at > the base level. [Milton L Mueller] Yes. These are the conditions for effective common pool resource governance that Ostrom spelled out. An essential supplement to this discussion, however, is that we only need common pool governance in the first place when the resource space being governance meets certain criteria; to wit: it is rival in consumption but also difficult or very costly to fence in. Ostrom has no quarrel with markets based on exchanges of private property if the resource in question is a private good. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 16 22:29:27 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 02:29:27 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <516D6F80.9010108@wzb.eu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <516D6F80.9010108@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA2D4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > websites are rival in consumption? How so. [Milton L Mueller] No, you're right, websites insofar as they are simply information are not rival in consumption. My point was that they are not public goods, because one can exclude others from access to them if one wishes. Indeed, there are as many intranets as open websites; there are paywalls, password protected sites - even IGC requires permission and approval to join. And of course bandwidth, the basic connectivity that enables access to information, is most definitely rival in consumption. So it makes no sense to make a blanket declaration that "the" Internet is a public good - much of it is private, is best governed as private, and even for things that are not inherently private the internet as currently constructed gives the producer of a web site, application or content the ability to choose how public they want to be. This is a precious and important freedom, as well as a driver of economic innovation. > If I correctly interpret the debate on public goods, the distinction > between public and private goods is rarely clear cut. Public and private > goods form a range rather than opposites. Plus, the status can change > depending on circumstances. [Milton L Mueller] They _are_ opposites, conceptually, but you are correct that real-world situations may lie in a spectrum between either extreme. And you are also correct that their status can change. Not with vague "circumstances" but with technology. E.g., broadcasting (radio/TV) used to be held up as an example of a pure public good. But the advancement of electronics allowed a "wall" or boundary to be created (coded signals) and thus exclusion to take place. Voila, broadcasting is no longer an inherently public good. Interestingly, the ability to exclude and to make programming a private good led to vastly MORE production and access to radio and TV content than before. This is one reason why I get impatient with people who assume that calling a resource "public" and/or regulating it as such is automatically better for the public. We have so much historical evidence to contradict that notion. > Thus, to some degree people can shape the publicness or privateness of a > given good. This is why I think such debates are good to have. [Milton L Mueller] An intelligent, reality-grounded debate about the nature of internet resources, the degree to which they are public or private, etc., is very good to have, agreed. Indeed, I have been trying to write about that for 15 years. The problem is that we were not having a very intelligent debate. There was a wholly ideological and political attempt to declare the entire internet "a commons" or "a public good." This was done, by Gurstein's direct admission, in order to discredit and obscure the role of markets and private owners/operators in the system. I'm not letting anyone get away with that. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 16 22:40:40 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 02:40:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <20130416175050.7a6eadc1@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130416175050.7a6eadc1@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA2FB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > While specific pieces of equipment (e.g. routers, strands of fibre, > etc) do not qualify as public goods, I would assert that the Internet > epiphenomenon as a whole is neither rival in consumption nor (in the > absence of bad changes e.g. to the legal framework) excludable. [Milton L Mueller] Are you serious, or is this a sarcastic comment? Internet service is obviously excludable. Try not paying your ISP for three months. See how that "Internet epiphenomenon" works out for you. If you are confused about the nature of exclusion, you might try arguing that there should be a legal right to internet service, imposed on providers by the government. But that doesn't change the fact that exclusion is possible, and would occur normally without legal compulsion. Indeed, the need to legally compel providers to give the service to non-paying users proves that it IS excludable. If it were not, the nonpayers would get it anyway; you wouldn’t need a law. I can't believe we are really having this discussion. > That said, that economic definition of public goods may not be the most > relevant one here, in fact it had been proposed to explicitly reference > a different conception of "public goods". (I'm not sure why the footnote [Milton L Mueller] So we should make up our own little version of economics? Just ignore the way the rest of the world uses concepts and make them mean what we want? That sounds like a good way to get taken seriously. Not. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 16 22:58:10 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 22:58:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] When Less is More: The Past and Future of the Multi-Stakeholder Model of Internet Governance lecture by Steve Crocker Message-ID: http://new.livestream.com/cigionline/WhenLessIsMore -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Apr 16 23:01:05 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:01:05 +0900 Subject: [governance] Web payments In-Reply-To: <039c01ce3b04$98db2610$ca917230$@gmail.com> References: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> <16ED9BF0DA68411596FEBE835C547C3B@Toshiba> <035601ce3af2$06a33920$13e9ab60$@gmail.com> <039c01ce3b04$98db2610$ca917230$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, Perhaps of interest: "Mobile Usage at the Base of the Pyramid in Kenya", infoDev World Bank. 2012 "With 6 billion mobile phones around the world, of which 75% in developing countries, telephones reach most corners of the African continent. Mobile phones have improved the lives of the poor. Two new infoDev-led studies, focusing on South Africa and Kenya, provide insights on how useful mobile phones are for economic and social empowerment of people living of less than $2.50 a day." etc Research by iHub Research and Research Solutions Africa (RSA) (for World Bank.) Adam -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Apr 16 23:14:36 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:14:36 +0800 Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7EE5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A8071@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7EE5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <516E139C.4000905@ciroap.org> On 16/04/13 23:10, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > */[Milton L Mueller] By “ignored” you mean that Rep. Walden refused to > modify his principle to make an exception for U.S. forms of control. > Which is all to the good. The principle stands./* ... > > */[Milton L Mueller] I think the bill provides a good principle to > guide that “unfinished work.” You know, or should know, that most of > the countries pushing for “enhanced cooperation” want governments to > assume a greater role in making and enforcing “public policy” for the > global internet. ... Remember that “WSIS Principles” under the TA > means that governments are the primary source of Internet public > policy, and the rest of us provide “input” which they may utilize as > they see fit. So we truly NEED a statement of the principle that IG > should not lead to “government control of the internet.” Tell me again > why you oppose that? /* > Because from this source, it is bogus. It's like the old constitution of the USSR which said things like "citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations". The meaning that it bears on its face is so palpably at variance with the way it is applied that to say is little more than an insult. The only good point I can see about this is that it will highlight how bald-faced is the US government's hypocrisy on control of the Internet, but it was pretty apparent already anyway. -- *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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ggithaiga at hotmail.com Wed Apr 17 02:05:04 2013 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:05:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] Web payments In-Reply-To: References: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> , <516DC659.9000903@cafonso.ca>, Message-ID: McTimYou are right. And now the platform has gone one step further and does offer loans (Mshwari) to its users many of who have never operated a bank account. Let me give a practical example. I have a lady who runs errands and undertakes chores at my home. She has never been anywhere near the door of a banking hall. However with the coming of Mobile Money, she now uses Mpesa as her 'bank'. We therefore make payments to her through her cell number. In January, her daughter was joining high school. I wanted to find out if she needed some support and was surprised to learn that she had been saving in this 'bank' and since majority of schools have mpesa numbers, she paid fees through mpesa to the school. She does not need a bank. However, I have a bank account where I can transact using mpesa. And by the way, there are so many users of the service who have never been to school and therefore cannot read or write. Further, the mobile money service is a major reason that has contributed to the uptake of cell phones in particular for young women in slums (informal settlements). CheersGrace PS. A couple of years ago when I got employed, I banked with Barclays Bank of Kenya. This was way before ATMs were introduced. I was therefore surprised on saturday morning on going to the bank to be told that they had moved my account out of that particular Branch because I was a small depositor. Needless to say that I was very desparate for the money. The banks treated small depositors with contempt and in Kenya, majority of these small ones bank on their phones, while there are those banks that have emerged as 'people friendly' ones. > From: dogwallah at gmail.com > Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:02:20 -0400 > To: ca at cafonso.ca > CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; ian.peter at ianpeter.com; nb at bollow.ch > Subject: Re: [governance] Web payments > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > McT, paying electronically without a bank, credit card or similar account is > > impossible, unless billing is done against a postpaid cell phone account. > > It's all pre-paid in Africa (over 90+ %). > > As > > Lavoisier suggested, money, like energy, is not created out of the blue > > (except by govs :)). This "enormous success" might be referring to a > > minority of people. > > > Well a year ago when I left Kenya, a sum =20% of Kenya's GDP had already been > transferred using one platform (M-Pesa). > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Wed Apr 17 04:32:48 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 10:32:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <516D6F80.9010108@wzb.eu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <516D6F80.9010108@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <516E5E30.1040708@apc.org> Dear all I am with Jeanette here... these debates are good to have precisely because distinctions between different types of goods are sometimes blurred and old definitions are challenged by new, and complex 'things' like the internet . I am quite aware of that many people feel that the idea of the internet is a public good is 'wrong'. I respect these views, which is why I think we need to explore this debate further. My perspective is also one that is aspirational... so, perhaps the internet is not currently defined as as a public good... but why can it not be defined as such in the future? What I think we are ultimately looking for is a definition that can be used to frame legal, regulatory and policy decisions... so it does have to be robust - so the debate now is essential. Common pool resources is a very interesting and helpful concept to add to this discussion. But do look at Inge Kaul's article, Milton (the link was sent by Michael Gurstein). It is really interesting. It would be good to hear what you think of it. http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf Anriette On 16/04/2013 17:34, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Milton, > > websites are rival in consumption? How so. > > If I correctly interpret the debate on public goods, the distinction > between public and private goods is rarely clear cut. Public and > private goods form a range rather than opposites. Plus, the status can > change depending on circumstances. It is not just the good itself but > also its context that determines a good's position on the > public/private range. Thus, to some degree people can shape the > publicness or privateness of a given good. This is why I think such > debates are good to have. > > jeanette > > Am 16.04.2013 17:25, schrieb Milton L Mueller: >> Parminder: >> >> Are you again floating the discredited and theoretically inaccurate >> notion that something called “the Internet” is a “commons” and “public >> good?” These claims are just wrong, and have been dealt with years ago. >> If interested I can direct you to the scientific literature on this. >> >> The Internet _/standards/_ are open and non-proprietary, and thus can >> accurately be called the basis of a commons and a public good. Internet >> services, web sites, etc. are private goods; they are both rival in >> consumption and excludable. Internet access facilities are private >> goods. There is no meaningful debate about this; either you understand >> the definition of public goods and commons and the economic >> characteristics of these resources or you don’t. >> >> Our research on IP addressing discusses the status of IP addresses as >> common pool resources. Likewise, other work addresses the status of >> domain names. Both IP addresses and domain names are private goods but >> may be regulated in a common pool fashion, or not, depending on what >> works best. I presume you know what common pool governance is. >> >> It seems to make many people feel good to claim that certain things are >> commons or public goods. There seems to be no other reason why the claim >> is so persistent, despite being completely out of line with facts and >> the economic realities of internet resources. But wishing doesn’t make >> it so, and false application of concepts can only lead to disastrous >> policy. These are precise terms with important policy implications. One >> should respect facts and the basic scientific principles of political >> economy and derive public policy from that, not the other way around. >> >> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder >> *Sent:* Monday, April 15, 2013 12:51 AM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Subject:* [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, >> Conflicts in Internet Governance >> >> >> 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 >> 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 wrote: >> >> >> >> Roland Perry >> 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 baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Wed Apr 17 04:42:08 2013 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 10:42:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <516AE03C.2070406@apc.org> <516B8738.1030608@itforchange.net> <516BE7D2.9050704@cafonso.ca> <516BF017.4000805@itforchange.net> <20130415144741.0fe484bb@quill.bollow.ch> <1366042805.74170.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20130416101150.1474c8aa@quill.bollow.ch> <516D0BD7.3050508@itforchange.net> <516D1010.6030008@itforchange.net> <20130416113311.1d672508@quill.bollow.ch> <20130416135825.6e96b8a0@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Internet is primarily a tool, a channel of information exchange. It facilitates communication between two or more people in real time in an interactive approach. It has become a major channel as the technology does not give us another opportunity to replace the internet. " Internet and take a political position, economic, cultural, social, scientific, etc. .. according to the user or users. To have internet, you need the technical considerations and technological applications are reunies. Internet can be used by everyone without distinction provided that the technical and technological aspects are optimal. However, referring to the technical aspects, we use the telecoms and other infrastructure. Referring to the technological aspects, we use also the numerical programs. When we say the Internet is a public good, WHAT WE WANT TO SAY EXACTLY? The roads are also public goods even if there are private areas. The real problem of the Internet is a level which in this context? this debate is very important but we need more clarity for not questioning the "information society" in the democratic sense. 2013/4/16 Mawaki Chango > This may be one of the instances where the complexity of social > discourse/reality/phenomenon/experience legitimately diverges from the > productive simplicity of technical language and definitions (note: in case > that isn't enough clear, I mean simplicity in a positive way.) Obviously, > for the purposes of advocacy, social discourse and social science, we can't > just limit ourselves to a descriptive definition of Internet as a "network > of networks". First of all; there were before the Internet, and there still > are, networks of networks that are not Internet (e.g., of human beings). > Now, I understand the full definition quoted from Wikipedia specifies a lot > more than is in that one phrase, and I wouldn't object to that as a valid > definition. > > However, concept definition is not always only a description of facts > which may qualify as either truth or false, exclusively, and nothing else. > It can also be, eg, purpose driven and sensitive to the discursive context > (so even the choice of facts, or characteristics, to be highlighted in a > definition can be framed depending of the purpose and/or the discoursive > context). The Wiki definition focuses on computer devices and the > architecture of their relationships; even where you have social structures > mentioned, they are not so for themselves or for their social purposes but > for being the origin or the scope of the computer networks thus set up and > connected. The user at large and the societal dimensions of the Internet > are totally absent here. To your defense (or rather to the defense of those > who coined that definition or more precisely the original definition that > led to this one), they were defining, and could only define, the Internet > in its architecture, as they were building it, and it wasn't their job to > anticipate on the social reality that it will become, which (as it has > become that, that is, that "emerging reality") is now as legitimate to > define what it is (partic. for social purposes), as its original technical > architecture is (partic. for technical purposes). > > Re. the draft definition itself, though, while I agree that 'space' is > simpler than 'spatiality' and the value of the KISS precept (Keep It Simple > and Stupid), the latter says something more than the former, as spatiality > here does not just augment the social space as we know it, but enables new > kinds of interactions and transactions between humans, between machines and > between humans and machines. That being said, maybe the phrase "kind of > space" already conveys the idea "spatiality" (am not too sure, so I leave > this as a comment hoping it might contribute to clarify a little more.) I > also wonder whether it wouldn't be useful (I dare not say necessary) to add > something about computing capabilities or power ('hardware' or 'software' > alone does do it, does it?). I just feel like the fact that computers have > virtually limitless calculation power and storage capability for humans' > works, and are unforgetting, is part of that emerging social reality. I am > not sure how to phrase this right now (that would be in the second sentence > of the current draft definition which I'm just reproducing below with no > change, only for convenience). So I will leave it to someone more skillful > to try if they are so inclined. > > We recognise the Internet to be an emergent and emerging reality. > As a global network of networks, it is an intricate combination of > hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality and a new kind > of social space, brought together by a common set of design > principles, and constrained by policies established by due > democratic processes. We consider the Internet as a global commons > and a global public good. The design principles and policies that > constitute its governance should, therefore, flow from such > recognition of the Internet as a commons and public good. > > Best, > > Mawaki > > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 12:46 PM, McTim wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> > McTim wrote: >> > >> >> Again, what I object to most is that I think we are defining a thing >> >> by its epiphenomenal characteristics. >> > >> > Suppose that a company X were to create a network of networks, possibly >> > TCP/IP based, but to some extent under the control of company X. For >> > example, the method by means of which company X retains control could >> > be that only networks operated by company X or its "certified partner >> > organizations" would be included in that network of networks. >> >> >> This happens frequently. >> >> > >> > The important difference to differentiate that kind of network from >> > what we call the Internet would be in the area of the epiphenomenal >> > characteristics, wouldn't it? >> >> >> Why wouldn't the type of Internetwork you describe also share some of >> those characteristics? >> >> > >> > In any case, what word should be used to refer to the global ICP/IP >> > based network of networks which currently exists together with its >> > epiphenomena? Most people use the word "Internet". If that is one of >> > the valid meanings of the word "Internet", then it is IMO appropriate >> > to write a definition which explains that meaning. >> >> >> When I sent the link to the Wikipedia definition, I had hoped that >> people would read it and include the entire first sentence (and perhsp >> the second: >> >> "The Internet is a global system of interconnected computer networks >> that use the standard Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP) to serve >> billions of users worldwide. It is a network of networks that consists >> of millions of private, public, academic, business, and government >> networks, of local to global scope, that are linked by a broad array >> of electronic, wireless and optical networking technologies. " >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC At-Large Member NCSG Member email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Baudouin.Schombe at ticafrica.net tél:+243998983491 skype:b.schombe wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hakik at hakik.org Wed Apr 17 06:08:29 2013 From: hakik at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:08:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Web payments In-Reply-To: References: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> <16ED9BF0DA68411596FEBE835C547C3B@Toshiba> Message-ID: Mobile money is also getting very popular in Bangladesh. It has various reasons. Easy access, fast, and reliability could be a few. Thanks, Hakikur At 21:45 16-04-2013, McTim wrote: >On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > interesting, I didn't know that. In my country a bank account is a lot > > cheaper than a mobile phone or internet access. > > >If you need to spend many hours traveling to a bank AND are too poor >to pay fees/have an initial deposit, etc, opening a bank account has >many hurdles. > >A mobile phone that can text is all you need, these are pretty cheap >in most of Africa. > > > > > > So where does bitcoin fit into this sort of equation? And is the mobile > > money bank related or non bank related? (not all paypal I hope...) > > >none of it is paypal. I doubt bitcoin fits into any current mobile >money equation. > >mobile money is just that, you load it onto your phone (like >"airtime") using a >local agent and can transfer it via SMS/app to a bank account/phone >number/school, etc. > >-- >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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Apr 17 07:24:27 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:24:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <9R9mW+WzstaRFAJI@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: In message , at 16:25:02 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013, Kerry Brown writes >> I asked a question of Avri, perhaps you could answer it also. > >I believe the question was about what I believe the definition of the >Internet is. I was asking what subset (or superset) of things colloquially called "The Internet" you wished to be devoid of government control. >The discussion since then has moved on to things like commons and >public good. And whether labels like " .book " are either commons or a public good. Interestingly, it seems as if the most likely way such labels are to be prevented from being appropriated by members of the private sector is for governments to intervene. >I believe those types of concepts describe things that may be part of >Internet governance but they are not the Internet. I'm not sure how "Internet Governance" can claim to govern things which are not themselves a component of the Internet. >For me the Internet is a communications medium that allows >communications between endpoints with all endpoints being equal in >their potential to communicate with all other endpoints. Presumably you have in mind a form of equality of contactability in the end-to-end scenario. It's quite difficult to conceive of the engineering required to make all endpoints equal in terms of available bandwidth and cost per GB. And there are various consensus rules that say (for example) that some endpoints can justify a greater amount of public IP address space than others. There are even rules in some parts of the name space about whether endpoints can be labelled with ccTLDs, if they are not within the country concerned, have not paid certain fees or passed certain regulatory requirements. Similar considerations apply to the ability of endpoints to acquire other labels such as .int, .mil. ac, .museum and so forth. The problem of Spam would be even worse if some end points were not restricted, in various ways, regarding their qualifications to send bulk email (or in some cases, any email at all). >Currently this is accomplished by interconnected computer networks that >use common protocols to communicate between endpoints. In the future >this may not be the case. The protocols used and the content of the >communications are ephemeral and may change. The concept of >communicating with all endpoints being equal is the key. How it is >accomplished is important. It requires governance to ensure equality >and efficiency. Which sounds to me as if you are in favour of at least some forms of government control. >Internet governance is the attempt to make sure whatever system is in >use at the time achieves the goal of communications as effectively as >possible while ensuring all endpoints have equal opportunity to >communicate. > >Kerry Brown I think there is also an element of "preventing communications which are by consensus regarded as undesirable". Roland. >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- >> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry >> Sent: April-14-13 9:37 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance >> >> In message >> > al>, at >> 15:58:23 on Sun, 14 Apr 2013, Kerry Brown 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 > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Wed Apr 17 07:58:05 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:58:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <516E5E30.1040708@apc.org> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <516D6F80.9010108@wzb.eu> <516E5E30.1040708@apc.org> Message-ID: <326C1C7B-53D4-4061-8433-2A56088B0377@uzh.ch> +1 for substantive conversations On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:32 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > I am with Jeanette here... these debates are good to have precisely > because distinctions between different types of goods are sometimes > blurred and old definitions are challenged by new, and complex 'things' > like the internet . > > I am quite aware of that many people feel that the idea of the internet > is a public good is 'wrong'. I respect these views, which is why I think > we need to explore this debate further. My perspective is also one that > is aspirational... so, perhaps the internet is not currently defined as > as a public good... but why can it not be defined as such in the future? > > What I think we are ultimately looking for is a definition that can be > used to frame legal, regulatory and policy decisions... so it does have > to be robust - so the debate now is essential. > > Common pool resources is a very interesting and helpful concept to add > to this discussion. But do look at Inge Kaul's article, Milton (the link > was sent by Michael Gurstein). It is really interesting. It would be > good to hear what you think of it. > > http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf > > Anriette > > > > > On 16/04/2013 17:34, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> Hi Milton, >> >> websites are rival in consumption? How so. >> >> If I correctly interpret the debate on public goods, the distinction >> between public and private goods is rarely clear cut. Public and >> private goods form a range rather than opposites. Plus, the status can >> change depending on circumstances. It is not just the good itself but >> also its context that determines a good's position on the >> public/private range. Thus, to some degree people can shape the >> publicness or privateness of a given good. This is why I think such >> debates are good to have. >> >> jeanette >> >> Am 16.04.2013 17:25, schrieb Milton L Mueller: >>> Parminder: >>> >>> Are you again floating the discredited and theoretically inaccurate >>> notion that something called “the Internet” is a “commons” and “public >>> good?” These claims are just wrong, and have been dealt with years ago. >>> If interested I can direct you to the scientific literature on this. >>> >>> The Internet _/standards/_ are open and non-proprietary, and thus can >>> accurately be called the basis of a commons and a public good. Internet >>> services, web sites, etc. are private goods; they are both rival in >>> consumption and excludable. Internet access facilities are private >>> goods. There is no meaningful debate about this; either you understand >>> the definition of public goods and commons and the economic >>> characteristics of these resources or you don’t. >>> >>> Our research on IP addressing discusses the status of IP addresses as >>> common pool resources. Likewise, other work addresses the status of >>> domain names. Both IP addresses and domain names are private goods but >>> may be regulated in a common pool fashion, or not, depending on what >>> works best. I presume you know what common pool governance is. >>> >>> It seems to make many people feel good to claim that certain things are >>> commons or public goods. There seems to be no other reason why the claim >>> is so persistent, despite being completely out of line with facts and >>> the economic realities of internet resources. But wishing doesn’t make >>> it so, and false application of concepts can only lead to disastrous >>> policy. These are precise terms with important policy implications. One >>> should respect facts and the basic scientific principles of political >>> economy and derive public policy from that, not the other way around. >>> >>> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder >>> *Sent:* Monday, April 15, 2013 12:51 AM >>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> *Subject:* [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, >>> Conflicts in Internet Governance >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> 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 wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Roland Perry >>> 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 ca at cafonso.ca Wed Apr 17 08:11:27 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:11:27 -0300 Subject: [governance] Web payments In-Reply-To: References: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> <516DC659.9000903@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <516E916F.9080702@cafonso.ca> Yes, this is a good sign that a significant amount of money is being transacted via mobile, but this does not imply a corresponding significant amount of people are doing so. All this to keep in mind that mobile is not a magic wand which will solve all connectivity issues and will be the answer to true universal broadband access -- as the telecom cartel in Brazil for instance tries to sell us, and unfortunately the Ministry of Communications endorses. According to them, more than 70% of the people in Brazil are on the Internet just because they have phones *capable* of connecting to the Net (but less than 20% are connected via real broadband). --c.a. On 04/16/2013 08:02 PM, McTim wrote: > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> McT, paying electronically without a bank, credit card or similar account is >> impossible, unless billing is done against a postpaid cell phone account. > > It's all pre-paid in Africa (over 90+ %). > > As >> Lavoisier suggested, money, like energy, is not created out of the blue >> (except by govs :)). This "enormous success" might be referring to a >> minority of people. > > > Well a year ago when I left Kenya, a sum =20% of Kenya's GDP had already been > transferred using one platform (M-Pesa). > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Wed Apr 17 08:31:18 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 06:31:18 -0600 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: On Apr 12, 2013, at 8:56 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > http://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/markup-bill-affirm-policy-united-states-regarding-internet-governance > ... > "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." It is a very good thing that the US Congress is discussing this policy statement, as a clear statement of the USG position on Internet Governance (backed by consistent USG activities in Internet Governance) would help prevent confusion when discussing the Internet Governance topic in a global context. The challenge is that the Internet has enabled remarkable change throughout the world, in a wide range of human endeavors, and many of these accomplishments and freedoms have been enabled by the generally unregulated nature of the Internet. However, the deregulated nature of the Internet has been historically facilitated by a "close working relationship" with parts of the USG (DoC/NTIA) with respect to critical Internet resource management, and furthermore other parts of the USG (DHS, DoJ/FBI) are engaged on occasion in various law enforcement matters which impact the Internet. Additionally, in the near future the folks at FCC may have to take measures regarding the carriage of voice traffic on the Internet to protect the characteristics that it presently has over the traditional trunked voice network. A policy statement which promotes a global Internet "free from government control" but does not recognize the various agencies need to take actions which may affect the Internet could consequentially create significant confusion within the US about existing and near-term US agency activities with respect to the Internet. An obvious solution would be to make clear that the mechanisms for performing Internet Governance (meaning specifically the establishment of the standards, processes, and policies for management of common global infrastructure unique to the Internet) shall be based on the open multistakeholder model and free from government control, but furthermore that this policy does not preclude governments from taking measures necessary to fulfill their public policy obligations to their constituency. Such an exclusion would provide the freedom for governments to take actions within their own borders as needed to accomplish their (presumingly well-formedand representative) national policy objectives. (Note - I expect it unlikely that a USG policy statement would discuss what other governments may do with respect to the Internet, but even if the USG simply states this reality for its own activities, it would quickly raise the matter by inference.) The counterargument to such an approach should be obvious to readers of this list; governments do not necessarily have a great track record with respect to taking only those actions which represent the will of the people, whether it be also taking actions solely in the interest of the government or business sector. By stating that governments may implement measures within their own borders to meet their public policy objectives, the USG would be asserting a position which previously has been argued against due to the implications for human rights and free speech globally. I have stated previously that the Internet community has not provided a clear framework for government engagement in "Internet Governance" in the larger context, that being both the management of common global infrastructure unique to the Internet as well as the processes by which governments should engage to accomplish their public policy objectives. I will observe that the absence of a clear model for governmental engagement is actually unfortunate in two aspects: first, as governments awaken to the need for engagement with respect to the Internet, the lack of an Internet community model for accomplishing their public policy goals leads governments to look to older organizations which may not be well-suited to the task; and secondly (and perhaps not quite as obvious) is that a clear model for how governments engage to accomplish their Internet public policy obligations might serve as a roadmap for how the USG evolves from its present unique circumstances in these matters. FYI, /John Disclaimer: My views alone. This message has not been reviewed by any organizations and does not represent any official position. Do not stare directly at this message or permanent damage may occur. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 17 08:33:01 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 08:33:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] Web payments In-Reply-To: <516E916F.9080702@cafonso.ca> References: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> <516DC659.9000903@cafonso.ca> <516E916F.9080702@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Yes, this is a good sign that a significant amount of money is being > transacted via mobile, but this does not imply a corresponding significant > amount of people are doing so. http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/03/14/mobile-money-users-overtake-traditional-bank-accounts/ "Transactions carried out through mobile financial services (MFS) totalled UGX11.7 trillion (USD4.374 billion) in 2012, up from UGX3.75 trillion in 2011, the Daily Monitor quotes the deputy governor of the Bank of Uganda as saying. The number of wireless subscribers using the services increased to an estimated 8.9 million from 2.8 million, tapping into Uganda’s large unbanked population and surpassing the number of traditional bank accounts, of which there are around 3.6 million. Despite concerns regarding MFS-related fraud, South African-backed cellco MTN Uganda claimed to have 3.5 million active mobile money users at end-2012 which accounted for 20 million transactions over the course of the year." > > All this to keep in mind that mobile is not a magic wand which will solve > all connectivity issues and will be the answer to true universal broadband > access never said it was. However one can't dispute that mobile connectivity has connected hundreds of millions of folk, despite the limitations. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Apr 17 08:47:34 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:47:34 -0300 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <516E99E6.90009@cafonso.ca> I have to say this: the only thing missing to complete this defence of unrestrained neoliberal allegiance to the market God by MM is that he declares himself a staunch Republican :) How would the neoliberal camp deal with this: in Brazil there was privatization (actually a near-donation of our infra to a group of international entrepreneurs in a process known as "privataria" by the Fernando Henrique Cardoso government -- several of them should be in jail according to a legal action standing dormant in the drawer of the Attorney General). Now this cartel (controlled by a Mexican and four European conglomerates) not only fixes prices (among the highest in the world) but determines which municipality will have which services according to a single rule: the rate of return on investment. Obvious, they are private companies. The universal service is gone with privatization, and even the regulation that fixed telephony should be subject to universalization standards is no longer followed. But control of Anatel by this cartel ensures that they get a minimum of US$20 per month on any fixed line (a value which increased several times above inflation since privatization). Our campaign to abolish this "private tax" has so far not been successful. Control of Anatel and of the Ministry of Comm by this cartel also means the original rule that once incumbents' contracts expire all assets should be returned to the State (the assets reversibility clause) has also been relaxed, to the point that incumbents are illegally selling the most valuable assets (like large, prime real estate in São Paulo). Worse, the Ministry, in order to entice the companies to go where there is lower return to investment (most Brazilian municipalities) has promised to donate those assets to the companies -- today this means about US$40 billion, including several billions they have already sold and should be criminally accounted for! So much for free enterprise and other hollow blablablas. We are now engaged in a campaign to prohibit the Ministry to do that, mind you, in a government otherwise recognized for its social justice vision and practice. Perfect market... out of it there is nothingness -- the wonderful neoliberal illusion Aristotelian MM loves. fraternal regards --c.a. On 04/16/2013 10:39 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > And in that context I pointed to the discussion around these related issues by Inge Kaul and Joseph Steiglitz in the UNDP Human Development Index supported effort to re-awaken/redefine issues concerning "public goods" and take them out of the dessicated hands/minds of the professional classical (read ideologically Friedmanian) economists/public policy geeks/academics. And to recreate these notions as a tool to support those looking to protect the public interest from the onslaught of those who would destroy thist at the altar of universalized Hobbesian privatized interests. > > [Milton L Mueller] Right. So from my perspective you are just flatly admitting that you are pursuing a political agenda and there is no real scientific basis for your claim. > > I’ve got an idea: why don’t we have an _honest_ fact-based debate about the role of the public sector in the Internet’s development and use? Instead of arbitrarily attaching a label “public good” to it and trying to derive pre-ordained policies from that, why don’t you just come out and say, “I think there should be more governmental control, subsidization and regulation of the Internet”? Make an honest case for how that will change things for the better? > > If we have such an honest debate, the first thing that you and others who believe so fervently in public sector-led development will have to face is that privatization and liberalization of telecommunications is what led to widespread diffusion of telecom infrastructure, and that the attendant deregulation and free trade in information and telecom services led to the rapid diffusion and development of the internet. And conversely, that 70 years of state-owned monopolies – telecoms as public good –stunted development and led to penetration rates of 10% of less and waiting periods of sometimes 6 years simply to get a telephone line. And it is still countries with the least liberalization who have the least-developed, least accessible internet sectors. > > I know that the unparalleled success of neoliberal policies must drive anti-neoliberals crazy. But, there it is: undeniable fact, played out in country after country, year after year, for 20 years. I am so sorry that reality did not conform to your beliefs. I really am. You have my deepest sympathy. Those “dessicated” market processes actually produced more public good, more public benefit, than your telecom socialism. Ouch. That must hurt. Deal with it. > > Typically, sane people adjust their beliefs to reality. They do not try to re-label reality so that it conforms to their ideology. > > And to my mind if there is a suitable candidate for the type of redifinition in which they are/were engaged "the Internet" is surely one, and rather than defining the Internet in such a way as to obviate the possibility of it being understood as a global public good, perhaps better to understand how the definiition of the Internet should be recognized as one that at a minimum accommodates such notions. > > [Milton L Mueller] An accurate, reality-grounded definition of the internet can easily accommodate notions of non-proprietary spaces, commons, common pool governance, as well as private, competitive market-driven spaces. The whole point, which I have tried to make in papers such as this http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1828102 is that the Internet arrived at a very powerful, creative balance of private, competitive and open, public spaces. It wasn’t planned, it just happened, because it worked. > > Before you mess with that equation, I’d ask you to at least seek to understand it. Show some respect for economic and political science, actually READ Ostrom and don’t just chant the words “commons,” and “public good,” understand how economic structures and incentives affect what happens. Pay attention to the private, competitive, market side of the equation, show it some respect, apply labels and concepts critically, testing whether they actually conform to reality. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 17 08:49:22 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:49:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <516E139C.4000905@ciroap.org> References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A8071@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7EE5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <516E139C.4000905@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA4BD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Jeremy: By now you should be aware that the bill was amended to remove the clause about opposing “government control of the Internet.” This suggests to me that you are wrong about it being bogus. Faced with a choice between articulating a global public policy principle that could be used to challenge some of the US government’s own special powers and gutting the bill so that it only contains an anodyne expression of support for “the multistakeholder model,” the U.S. congress chose the latter. I’ll blog on this topic in more detail, but to me their need to delete it due to the concerns expressed by Rep. Eshoo bolsters my feeling that it was a good principle. The analogy with the USSR (or Chinese) constitution is quite bogus, however, because there was no freedom of expression in USSR so public advocacy could not call attention to the contradiction between the principle and the reality. In the U.S. that would not be the case. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 11:15 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 16/04/13 23:10, Milton L Mueller wrote: [Milton L Mueller] By “ignored” you mean that Rep. Walden refused to modify his principle to make an exception for U.S. forms of control. Which is all to the good. The principle stands. ... [Milton L Mueller] I think the bill provides a good principle to guide that “unfinished work.” You know, or should know, that most of the countries pushing for “enhanced cooperation” want governments to assume a greater role in making and enforcing “public policy” for the global internet. ... Remember that “WSIS Principles” under the TA means that governments are the primary source of Internet public policy, and the rest of us provide “input” which they may utilize as they see fit. So we truly NEED a statement of the principle that IG should not lead to “government control of the internet.” Tell me again why you oppose that? Because from this source, it is bogus. It's like the old constitution of the USSR which said things like "citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations". The meaning that it bears on its face is so palpably at variance with the way it is applied that to say is little more than an insult. The only good point I can see about this is that it will highlight how bald-faced is the US government's hypocrisy on control of the Internet, but it was pretty apparent already anyway. -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Apr 17 08:57:19 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 08:57:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA4BD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A8071@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7EE5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <516E139C.4000905@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA4BD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: >From someone who has focused on legislation for almost 30 years, maybe the better take away from all of this is to be careful about characterizations of legislation that is under review and subject to amendment. It doesn't change the arguments that can be made about implications for policy, but possibly the tone and conclusive suggestions about something that is subject to change? On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:49 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Jeremy:**** > > By now you should be aware that the bill was amended to remove the clause > about opposing “government control of the Internet.” This suggests to me > that you are wrong about it being bogus. **** > > ** ** > > Faced with a choice between articulating a global public policy principle > that could be used to challenge some of the US government’s own special > powers and gutting the bill so that it only contains an anodyne expression > of support for “the multistakeholder model,” the U.S. congress chose the > latter. **** > > ** ** > > I’ll blog on this topic in more detail, but to me their need to delete it > due to the concerns expressed by Rep. Eshoo bolsters my feeling that it was > a good principle. **** > > ** ** > > The analogy with the USSR (or Chinese) constitution is quite bogus, > however, because there was no freedom of expression in USSR so public > advocacy could not call attention to the contradiction between the > principle and the reality. In the U.S. that would not be the case. **** > > ** ** > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy Malcolm > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 16, 2013 11:15 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 16/04/13 23:10, Milton L Mueller wrote:**** > > **** > > *[Milton L Mueller] By “ignored” you mean that Rep. Walden refused to > modify his principle to make an exception for U.S. forms of control. Which > is all to the good. The principle stands.***** > > ... > > **** > > *[Milton L Mueller] I think the bill provides a good principle to guide > that “unfinished work.” You know, or should know, that most of the > countries pushing for “enhanced cooperation” want governments to assume a > greater role in making and enforcing “public policy” for the global > internet. ... Remember that “WSIS Principles” under the TA means that > governments are the primary source of Internet public policy, and the rest > of us provide “input” which they may utilize as they see fit. So we truly > NEED a statement of the principle that IG should not lead to “government > control of the internet.” Tell me again why you oppose that? ***** > > > Because from this source, it is bogus. It's like the old constitution of > the USSR which said things like "citizens of the USSR are guaranteed > freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street > processions and demonstrations". The meaning that it bears on its face is > so palpably at variance with the way it is applied that to say is little > more than an insult. The only good point I can see about this is that it > will highlight how bald-faced is the US government's hypocrisy on control > of the Internet, but it was pretty apparent already anyway.**** > > -- **** > > *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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Wed Apr 17 10:17:48 2013 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:17:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear John, dear all, an observation and a question, in-line below. (As I might have already said - apologies if so - I don't particularly like the term "government", which for many people refer to one specific entity / function within a State, but I won't nitty-pick on semantics. Food for another discussion). On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:31 PM, John Curran wrote: > > An obvious solution would be to make clear that the mechanisms for > performing > Internet Governance (meaning specifically the establishment of the > standards, > processes, and policies for management of common global infrastructure > unique > to the Internet) shall be based on the open multistakeholder model and > free from > government control, but furthermore that this policy does not preclude > governments > from taking measures necessary to fulfill their public policy obligations > to their > constituency. Such an exclusion would provide the freedom for governments > to > take actions within their own borders as needed to accomplish their > (presumingly > well-formedand representative) national policy objectives. > The observation: often, in order to "fulfil their public policy obligations" (I think it would be better to simply say "their obligations") government *must* take actions that go beyond their borders. One can agree or disagree with the substance of e.g. ACTA and/or with the process through which it was negotiated (I won't take a position on either of the two elements) but it can be argued that "governments" decided to engage in such negotiations because they believed that the protection of the economic interests of national constituencies, relying on various forms of intellectual property protection, could be achieved only via an action which went beyond the national borders - i.e. an international agreement. I have stated previously that the Internet community has not provided a > clear > framework for government engagement in "Internet Governance" in the larger > context, that being both the management of common global infrastructure > unique > to the Internet as well as the processes by which governments should engage > to accomplish their public policy objectives. I will observe that the > absence of > a clear model for governmental engagement is actually unfortunate in two > aspects: > first, as governments awaken to the need for engagement with respect to the > Internet, the lack of an Internet community model for accomplishing their > public > policy goals leads governments to look to older organizations which may > not be > well-suited to the task; and secondly (and perhaps not quite as obvious) > is that > a clear model for how governments engage to accomplish their Internet > public > policy obligations might serve as a roadmap for how the USG evolves from > its present unique circumstances in these matters. > I would say that the "Internet community" (whatever that might be :) has not provided a clear framework for the engagement of all different stakeholders, including governments (if you wish to consider governments or public authorities as a "stakeholder" - I have certain problems with such a conceptualisation, but again food for another discussion). Therefore my question: I seem to remember that some time ago some of the people writing on this list (it might have been Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, but I might be wrong) launched the idea of developing a set of principles / guidelines to develop such a framework. Is this still being discussed somewhere? 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Wed Apr 17 10:37:16 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 08:37:16 -0600 Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <0880A8A4-7CEB-4E45-9D3E-A0DA5B52A8BA@istaff.org> On Apr 17, 2013, at 8:17 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > Dear John, dear all, > > an observation and a question, in-line below. > ... > The observation: often, in order to "fulfil their public policy obligations" (I think it would be better to simply say "their obligations") government *must* take actions that go beyond their borders. One can agree or disagree with the substance of e.g. ACTA and/or with the process through which it was negotiated (I won't take a position on either of the two elements) but it can be argued that "governments" decided to engage in such negotiations because they believed that the protection of the economic interests of national constituencies, relying on various forms of intellectual property protection, could be achieved only via an action which went beyond the national borders - i.e. an international agreement. Agreed. Sometimes a government's public policy goals require engagement with other governments (which is by definition activities beyond their borders) I was, probably unsuccessfully, trying to note the distinction when it comes to enforcement, where the most common accepted practice is that a government enforces laws and regulations (such as those from treaties with other governments) with respect to those within its borders, and liaisons with other governments to enforce those obligations elsewhere. > I have stated previously that the Internet community has not provided a clear > framework for government engagement in "Internet Governance" in the larger > context, that being both the management of common global infrastructure unique > to the Internet as well as the processes by which governments should engage > to accomplish their public policy objectives. I will observe that the absence of > a clear model for governmental engagement is actually unfortunate in two aspects: > first, as governments awaken to the need for engagement with respect to the > Internet, the lack of an Internet community model for accomplishing their public > policy goals leads governments to look to older organizations which may not be > well-suited to the task; and secondly (and perhaps not quite as obvious) is that > a clear model for how governments engage to accomplish their Internet public > policy obligations might serve as a roadmap for how the USG evolves from > its present unique circumstances in these matters. > > I would say that the "Internet community" (whatever that might be :) has not provided a clear framework for the engagement of all different stakeholders, including governments Agreed as well. > (if you wish to consider governments or public authorities as a "stakeholder" - I have certain problems with such a conceptualisation, but again food for another discussion). :-) I believe that "government" must have the ability to participate as any other stakeholder, but additionally, it's unique ability with respect to the use of force (and generalized into enforcement of laws) means that it may have additional roles to play when it comes to enforcement of norms/principles/standards/etc beyond that which we may incorporate into any framework of "Internet Governance". > Therefore my question: I seem to remember that some time ago some of the people writing on this list (it might have been Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, but I might be wrong) launched the idea of developing a set of principles / guidelines to develop such a framework. Is this still being discussed somewhere? Ah, I am probably not the best one to address such a question; I am here as a resource in the support of this groups activities as needed, but will be the first to admit that the level of activity on this list is sufficiently impressive that I can't quite keep track all of the various ongoing efforts... /John Disclaimer: My views alone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Apr 17 10:54:44 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 20:24:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <326C1C7B-53D4-4061-8433-2A56088B0377@uzh.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <516D6F80.9010108@wzb.eu> <516E5E30.1040708@apc.org> <326C1C7B-53D4-4061-8433-2A56088B0377@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <516EB7B4.5060906@itforchange.net> I agree with Jeanette that the publicness and privateness of a good is a matter of degrees. It not only depends, as she says, on the context, but also on the ideology of the beholder. Ideology is a political fact, despite Milton's desperate attempts to sepetar scientific social 'facts' from matters of political ideology and then going right deep into ideology to defend the 'facts' formulated by him. (BTW I also know that Milton holds it as a 'fact' that social and economic rights are actually not rights but matters of policy and only civil and political rights are in 'fact' rights. So much so for 'facts' versus ideology.) Human rights themself represent an ideology. There is no factual basis for them although I am happy to be proved wrong. The fact of the relativeness of the public good character of the communication infrastructure can be judged from how its public-good-ness is right now sought to be greatly diminished if not abolished by telcos in the US by bringing in laws in state after state for complete deregulation of the communication infrastructure. This is the kind of real policy implications that defining Internet as a commons and a public good or not entails. And that is a political position to take - based on some facts, but still a political position. Based on the same set of facts someone else - Milton and AT & T for instance, may take exactly the opposite position. Therefore, while it certainly need a good and a continued discussion here, it is also a matter of political ideology that the caucus may seek to either profess or not. I remember at least 2-3 occasions in the last few years that this group had a long discussion on the public goods character of the Internet. (once after Pablo Accuosto did a paper for APC on Internet as a public good.) As Anriette says for herself, indeed seeking to consider the Internet as a commons/ public good is basically aspirational for all those who so seek. We seek to reduce the excludability from basic Internet functionalities and its rivalrous-ness, both of which are increasingly being enhanced. Such enhancement of excludability and rivalrousness of Internet's functionality is taking place right now - encroachment on universal service obligations, laws in the US against local authorities providing public wifi networks, and net neutrality are some examples....Even standards are getting privatised, as means to draw perpetual rent. All this is the biggest damage being done to the Internet as we wish to envisage it. Consequently, if the caucus has to take a stand in these matters, but presenting a foundational principle of treating the Internet as a commons and a public good, that should inform Internet policy making, the time to do it is now. It cannot be infinitely postponed. Perhaps over the last one decade we have already postponed it beyond its expiry date. Anyway, currently, there are some international processes like the WTPF and the WG on Enhanced Cooperation (on Internet related public policies) which may be the right place to contribute any foundational principle for Internet related public policy. OECD has contributed some 'Principles for Internet Policy Making' whose most distinctive feature is to enhance creation od private property on the Internet and its over zealous protection including through use of means that are patently inappropriate per classical jurisprudence (through use of private intermediaries). Now if civil society has to contribute any principle(s) for Internet policy making that seeks to safeguard and promote the commons and public goods nature of the Internet, it will be need to be done now. We can debate it here for a few days, but cant debate it endlessly. Finally, either we do it or we dont. It is a matter of political conviction as much of finding the right facts, Sufficient effort although should certainly be made to get the facts right, for, as Anriette says, making our definition/ principle robust enough. parminder On Wednesday 17 April 2013 05:28 PM, William Drake wrote: > +1 for substantive conversations > > On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:32 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> I am with Jeanette here... these debates are good to have precisely >> because distinctions between different types of goods are sometimes >> blurred and old definitions are challenged by new, and complex 'things' >> like the internet . >> >> I am quite aware of that many people feel that the idea of the internet >> is a public good is 'wrong'. I respect these views, which is why I think >> we need to explore this debate further. My perspective is also one that >> is aspirational... so, perhaps the internet is not currently defined as >> as a public good... but why can it not be defined as such in the future? >> >> What I think we are ultimately looking for is a definition that can be >> used to frame legal, regulatory and policy decisions... so it does have >> to be robust - so the debate now is essential. >> >> Common pool resources is a very interesting and helpful concept to add >> to this discussion. But do look at Inge Kaul's article, Milton (the link >> was sent by Michael Gurstein). It is really interesting. It would be >> good to hear what you think of it. >> >> http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> >> On 16/04/2013 17:34, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> Hi Milton, >>> >>> websites are rival in consumption? How so. >>> >>> If I correctly interpret the debate on public goods, the distinction >>> between public and private goods is rarely clear cut. Public and >>> private goods form a range rather than opposites. Plus, the status can >>> change depending on circumstances. It is not just the good itself but >>> also its context that determines a good's position on the >>> public/private range. Thus, to some degree people can shape the >>> publicness or privateness of a given good. This is why I think such >>> debates are good to have. >>> >>> jeanette >>> >>> Am 16.04.2013 17:25, schrieb Milton L Mueller: >>>> Parminder: >>>> >>>> Are you again floating the discredited and theoretically inaccurate >>>> notion that something called “the Internet” is a “commons” and “public >>>> good?” These claims are just wrong, and have been dealt with years ago. >>>> If interested I can direct you to the scientific literature on this. >>>> >>>> The Internet _/standards/_ are open and non-proprietary, and thus can >>>> accurately be called the basis of a commons and a public good. Internet >>>> services, web sites, etc. are private goods; they are both rival in >>>> consumption and excludable. Internet access facilities are private >>>> goods. There is no meaningful debate about this; either you understand >>>> the definition of public goods and commons and the economic >>>> characteristics of these resources or you don’t. >>>> >>>> Our research on IP addressing discusses the status of IP addresses as >>>> common pool resources. Likewise, other work addresses the status of >>>> domain names. Both IP addresses and domain names are private goods but >>>> may be regulated in a common pool fashion, or not, depending on what >>>> works best. I presume you know what common pool governance is. >>>> >>>> It seems to make many people feel good to claim that certain things are >>>> commons or public goods. There seems to be no other reason why the claim >>>> is so persistent, despite being completely out of line with facts and >>>> the economic realities of internet resources. But wishing doesn’t make >>>> it so, and false application of concepts can only lead to disastrous >>>> policy. These are precise terms with important policy implications. One >>>> should respect facts and the basic scientific principles of political >>>> economy and derive public policy from that, not the other way around. >>>> >>>> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder >>>> *Sent:* Monday, April 15, 2013 12:51 AM >>>> *To:*governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> *Subject:* [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, >>>> Conflicts in Internet Governance >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> 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 wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Roland Perry >>>> 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 esterhuysenanriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Wed Apr 17 11:18:02 2013 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:18:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <0880A8A4-7CEB-4E45-9D3E-A0DA5B52A8BA@istaff.org> References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <0880A8A4-7CEB-4E45-9D3E-A0DA5B52A8BA@istaff.org> Message-ID: (And here I hit my two-messages-per-day limit, but John raises some very interesting points) On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 4:37 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Apr 17, 2013, at 8:17 AM, Andrea Glorioso > wrote: > > Dear John, dear all, > > an observation and a question, in-line below. > ... > The observation: often, in order to "fulfil their public policy > obligations" (I think it would be better to simply say "their obligations") > government *must* take actions that go beyond their borders. One can agree > or disagree with the substance of e.g. ACTA and/or with the process through > which it was negotiated (I won't take a position on either of the two > elements) but it can be argued that "governments" decided to engage in such > negotiations because they believed that the protection of the economic > interests of national constituencies, relying on various forms of > intellectual property protection, could be achieved only via an action > which went beyond the national borders - i.e. an international agreement. > > > Agreed. Sometimes a government's public policy goals require engagement > with other > governments (which is by definition activities beyond their borders) I > was, probably > unsuccessfully, trying to note the distinction when it comes to > enforcement, where the > most common accepted practice is that a government enforces laws > and regulations > (such as those from treaties with other governments) with respect to > those within its > borders, and liaisons with other governments to enforce those > obligations elsewhere. > Issues of jurisdiction are actually rather more complex than that. For example, some doctrine / jurisprudence recognises at leat five different types of principles used to assess applicable jurisdiction in criminal law: a) Territorial principle: Penal legislation usually provides that it applies to conducts in the territory of the State, regardless of the nationality of the author of the conduct. b) Subjective and objective territorial principles: When only a part of the conduct occurs in the territory while the rest of the conduct occurs abroad, this part of the conduct or a constituent element of the offence in the territory may be a basis on which a State can exercise jurisdiction. c) Protective principle: States also ensure that they are able to prosecute certain crimes that affect their important interests even when they are committed entirely abroad. d) Nationality principle: States may extend jurisdiction to crimes abroad committed by their own nationals. e) Passive nationality principle: States may also extend jurisdiction to crimes abroad when the victims of these crimes are their nationals. (see Mika Hayashi, "Objective Territorial Principle or Effects Doctrine? Jurisdiction and Cyberspace", No. 6, pp. 284-302, 2006, available at http://www.morlacchilibri.com/inlaw/downloads/in.law_08_2.pdf) Other forms of "extensive jurisdiction" can be found in other branches of law, including European competition law or in the new European privacy / data protection law(s) (currently under negotiations within the European Parliament and the Council). Sitting where I sit, I'm also forced to note that European Union law is *de facto* designed to operate "beyond national borders" (it always struck me that there are probably more things in common between European Union governance, including its legal framework, and Internet governance, than many people would realise - but this is, yet again, stuff for another conversation). The reason why I'm mentioning the above is not to do some sterile showing off (which I'm anyway not entitled to, as I'm not an international law scholar or practictioner and there plenty of people more knowledgeable than me on these matters) but because it strikes me that the logical passage, according to which the ability / legitimacy of a "government" to adopt and enforce laws nationally is somehow "lost" when moving to the international level or when dealing with cross-border phenomena (of which the Internet is one, but certainly not the only example - and I do think that when discussing global Internet governance matters we might well keep this in mind, to avoid "Internet exceptionalism") is based more on an aspirational approach than on the current realities of international law and relations. This does not mean, of course, that "new" forms of international norms-making or norms-enforcement would not be desirable. I am personally very interested in what appears to be a new and burgeoning field of research, dubbed "Informal Interntional Law[-making]", on which you can find more information (among other resources) at http://graduateinstitute.ch/ctei/projects/IILM.html, as well as in one article which is available online (J. Pauwelyn, "Informal International Lawmaking: Framing the Concept and Research Questions", 2011, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1738464) and a book for which unfortunately you will have to pay :) (J. Pauwelyn, R. Wessel, J. Wouters (eds), "Informal International Lawmaking", OUP, 2012). However, to put it bluntly, if you (as in an "abstract you", not John specifically :) go to any "government" and tell them "your legitimacy to operate beyond your borders is null and void because of this thing called the Internet", you won't get very far. Then the question is whether the purpose of such an engagement is to actually change the way in which "governments" operate or simply to make noise. > I have stated previously that the Internet community has not provided a >> clear >> framework for government engagement in "Internet Governance" in the >> larger >> context, that being both the management of common global infrastructure >> unique >> to the Internet as well as the processes by which governments should >> engage >> to accomplish their public policy objectives. I will observe that the >> absence of >> a clear model for governmental engagement is actually unfortunate in two >> aspects: >> first, as governments awaken to the need for engagement with respect to >> the >> Internet, the lack of an Internet community model for accomplishing their >> public >> policy goals leads governments to look to older organizations which may >> not be >> well-suited to the task; and secondly (and perhaps not quite as obvious) >> is that >> a clear model for how governments engage to accomplish their Internet >> public >> policy obligations might serve as a roadmap for how the USG evolves from >> its present unique circumstances in these matters. >> > I believe that "government" must have the ability to participate as any > other > stakeholder, but additionally, it's unique ability with respect to the use > of force > (and generalized into enforcement of laws) means that it may have > additional > roles to play when it comes to enforcement of > norms/principles/standards/etc > beyond that which we may incorporate into any framework of "Internet > Governance". > Question: why should the "additional roles to play" (let us assume, for the sake of argument, that such additional roles are legitimate - you and I probably agree, but I suspect a fair number of participants to this list would not) be operationalised only *beyond* what would be incorporated into a framework of "Internet Governance"? Thanks for the interesting conversation. 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 17 11:17:42 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 08:17:42 -0700 Subject: [governance] Web payments In-Reply-To: References: <20130416201934.305056af@quill.bollow.ch> <516DC659.9000903@cafonso.ca> <516E916F.9080702@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <05d201ce3b7e$bc1abcb0$34503610$@gmail.com> No question McTim mobiles and mobile money is having a huge and widespread (and increasing) impact in Sub-Saharan Africa and among the poor globally (Bangladesh is particularly interesting here because of the competition driven very very low cost of mobile service). And various sources of research including the World Bank are providing us with reams of data on how that is being accomplished. However, in some recent research I've been doing in Sub-Saharan Africa I've been finding that the distribution of mobile service (and of course, associated with that would be mobile money) is highly highly skewed towards the urban and away from the rural as an example; and the actual use/accessibility of mobiles is locally very dependent on the cost of actual service which as Carlos Afonso noted, is in turn very much dependent on local circumstances (degree of competition among carriers for example). As I already mentioned two SSA countries--South Africa because of historical circumstances with respect to national telecom infrastructures and Kenya (I think largely because of local political/historical regulatory circumstances and because the various donors particularly the World Bank have chosen it as the "poster child", but on this I could be wrong) have much broader distribution of access into rural areas, but at least in South Africa the actual distribution/use of service is similarly highly skewed between richer and poorer because of extremely high (though decreasing) service costs. (I'm not directly familiar with the service/costing situation in Kenya although I have seen anecdotal information that the situation there is similar--as referred to in my blogpost referencing Kibera). It is in part a glass half full/half empty situation, but my original cavil was that while it is extremely easy to get access to the information you (and Adam for example) are quoting including or especially from the World Bank it seems much much more difficult to get information on the half empty glass i.e. service among the unserviced--those rural areas, the very poor, those in high cost service areas and so on. Making global (or national) public policy solely to benefit/enable the interests/activities of the half full group which seems to be the overall direction of those currently concerned with these matters should I think, be something for the marketers and the service suppliers and not something for example, for CS. (I looked in vain for detailed information on the currently unserviced in SSA but could find none in the midst of the stacks of World Bank reports on the latest "apps" and services for the serviced e.g. mPesa (of course, I may have missed something so if anyone has anything current on actual service distribution both infrastructure access/and actual use in SSA I would be most sincerely grateful). In this regard the more or less complete absence of any attention being paid to the non-serviced at the recent WSIS +10 is particularly indicative I believe. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/making-happytalk-in-paris-disneylan d-and-the-wsis-10-review/ And yes, among the desireable policy initiatives those concerned with these issues should be promoting, is increased competition in areas where that is not currently active (cf. Carlos Afonso's discussion of Brazil) but also, recognizing that in many instances there may be no "business case" for providing services, and particularly in situations of oligopoly (as in many parts of SSA) and there is a need for active policy/programme intervention by whoever is able, to ensure that some degree of access (to the benefits of mobiles/the Internet including to online banking service) is universally available. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:33 AM To: Carlos A. Afonso Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter; Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] Web payments On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Yes, this is a good sign that a significant amount of money is being > transacted via mobile, but this does not imply a corresponding > significant amount of people are doing so. http://www.telegeography.com/products/commsupdate/articles/2013/03/14/mobile -money-users-overtake-traditional-bank-accounts/ "Transactions carried out through mobile financial services (MFS) totalled UGX11.7 trillion (USD4.374 billion) in 2012, up from UGX3.75 trillion in 2011, the Daily Monitor quotes the deputy governor of the Bank of Uganda as saying. The number of wireless subscribers using the services increased to an estimated 8.9 million from 2.8 million, tapping into Uganda's large unbanked population and surpassing the number of traditional bank accounts, of which there are around 3.6 million. Despite concerns regarding MFS-related fraud, South African-backed cellco MTN Uganda claimed to have 3.5 million active mobile money users at end-2012 which accounted for 20 million transactions over the course of the year." > > All this to keep in mind that mobile is not a magic wand which will > solve all connectivity issues and will be the answer to true universal > broadband access never said it was. However one can't dispute that mobile connectivity has connected hundreds of millions of folk, despite the limitations. -- 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 kerry at kdbsystems.com Wed Apr 17 11:29:03 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:29:03 +0000 Subject: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20130412101353.4eb93747@quill.bollow.ch> <20130412192013.39f8d43a@quill.bollow.ch> <99c5a494-44cf-4bea-a8f9-09c5acb74c40@email.android.com> <9R9mW+WzstaRFAJI@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry > Sent: April-17-13 4:24 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Conflicts in Internet Governance > > In message > al>, at > 16:25:02 on Tue, 16 Apr 2013, Kerry Brown writes > >> I asked a question of Avri, perhaps you could answer it also. > > > >I believe the question was about what I believe the definition of the > >Internet is. > > I was asking what subset (or superset) of things colloquially called > "The Internet" you wished to be devoid of government control. > I misunderstood the question then. I wish everything to be devoid of government control. This is not possible with everything but it is something we should strive to get as close to as we can. Regarding Internet governance, governments are one stakeholder, one voice of many. I don't believe any one entity can control the Internet even if they wanted to. They may be able to carve out a portion that they exert a lot of influence over but that is about the extent of their powers. > >The discussion since then has moved on to things like commons and > >public good. > > And whether labels like " .book " are either commons or a public good. > > Interestingly, it seems as if the most likely way such labels are to be > prevented from being appropriated by members of the private sector is > for governments to intervene. > I disagree with this. Whatever you believe about generic strings, commons or public good cannot be controlled. Regulations, governance, etc. does not imply control. Governance can be used to try to control something but I don't believe that is useful or wanted in the case of the Internet. Regulations on how something can be used need not amount to controlling something. > >I believe those types of concepts describe things that may be part of > >Internet governance but they are not the Internet. > > I'm not sure how "Internet Governance" can claim to govern things which > are not themselves a component of the Internet. > > >For me the Internet is a communications medium that allows > >communications between endpoints with all endpoints being equal in > >their potential to communicate with all other endpoints. > > Presumably you have in mind a form of equality of contactability in the > end-to-end scenario. > > It's quite difficult to conceive of the engineering required to make all > endpoints equal in terms of available bandwidth and cost per GB. And > there are various consensus rules that say (for example) that some > endpoints can justify a greater amount of public IP address space than > others. There are even rules in some parts of the name space about > whether endpoints can be labelled with ccTLDs, if they are not within > the country concerned, have not paid certain fees or passed certain > regulatory requirements. Similar considerations apply to the ability of > endpoints to acquire other labels such as .int, .mil. ac, .museum and so > forth. > Equal in potential to communicate does not imply equal in cost of communicating. The ability to register a name has nothing to do with the ability for endpoints to talk to one another. A name does not define an endpoint. Using the current DNS naming model as long as all the other endpoints have the ability to potentially communicate with whatever names you can choose from then it doesn't matter if some names are not available for your use. > The problem of Spam would be even worse if some end points were not > restricted, in various ways, regarding their qualifications to send bulk > email (or in some cases, any email at all). This is the heart of governance. The Internet requires the ability of all endpoints to talk to one another. It does not mean that any given endpoint has to accept communication from any other endpoint. The ability to do something does not necessarily mean that you must do something. Each endpoint has the ability to decide what communications they will accept. > > >Currently this is accomplished by interconnected computer networks that > >use common protocols to communicate between endpoints. In the future > >this may not be the case. The protocols used and the content of the > >communications are ephemeral and may change. The concept of > >communicating with all endpoints being equal is the key. How it is > >accomplished is important. It requires governance to ensure equality > >and efficiency. > > Which sounds to me as if you are in favour of at least some forms of > government control. > No I am not. I am in favour of governments regulating things like taxes, possibly rates for Internet access, etc. within their countries. As long as they don't restrict the ability of one endpoint to communicate with any other endpoint they can regulate whatever they what within their country. Note that not allowing a person or organisation to use an endpoint for certain purposes in no way implies that they also restrict the ability of one endpoint to communicate with other endpoints. That is restricting someone from using the ability to communicate. I believe this is wrong and will fight to stop it where I can but that is not an Internet issue. It is a freedom of expression or human rights issue. > >Internet governance is the attempt to make sure whatever system is in > >use at the time achieves the goal of communications as effectively as > >possible while ensuring all endpoints have equal opportunity to > >communicate. > > > >Kerry Brown > > I think there is also an element of "preventing communications which are > by consensus regarded as undesirable". > I am not in favour of preventing communications in any way. Preventing communications is the decision of each endpoint, not some group, or entity. I have a fairly narrow definition of the Internet. Many people would like to expand the definition of the Internet to include content. I believe content is separate from the communication medium that is the Internet. Conflating content with the medium itself is at the root of many misunderstandings. They need to be dealt with separately while at the same time recognising that how you govern one will affect the other. Content is currently mostly a sovereign issue that will be increasingly hard to regulate because of the fact that the content is communicated via the Internet. Regulating the communications medium to attempt to solve the issues caused by wanting to control content is not useful and won't work. 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 Wed Apr 17 11:29:01 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 08:29:01 -0700 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> Apart from all the completely gratuitous ad hominem's -- "pursuing a political agenda", "honest debate", "you and others who so fervently blah blah…", "sane people blah blah" and the rather silly attempt to hijack a discussion by insisting that his position is "scientific" and thus anyone else's is presumably what… superstition? I see little interest or value in pursuing this discussion… That kind of stuff may fly in academic environments where grad students and junior colleagues have no choice but to listen and nod and go on but is really beyond the pale in the real world except those who get their policy discussions via Faux News etc.etc. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:39 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] And in that context I pointed to the discussion around these related issues by Inge Kaul and Joseph Steiglitz in the UNDP Human Development Index supported effort to re-awaken/redefine issues concerning "public goods" and take them out of the dessicated hands/minds of the professional classical (read ideologically Friedmanian) economists/public policy geeks/academics. And to recreate these notions as a tool to support those looking to protect the public interest from the onslaught of those who would destroy thist at the altar of universalized Hobbesian privatized interests. [Milton L Mueller] Right. So from my perspective you are just flatly admitting that you are pursuing a political agenda and there is no real scientific basis for your claim. I’ve got an idea: why don’t we have an _honest_ fact-based debate about the role of the public sector in the Internet’s development and use? Instead of arbitrarily attaching a label “public good” to it and trying to derive pre-ordained policies from that, why don’t you just come out and say, “I think there should be more governmental control, subsidization and regulation of the Internet”? Make an honest case for how that will change things for the better? If we have such an honest debate, the first thing that you and others who believe so fervently in public sector-led development will have to face is that privatization and liberalization of telecommunications is what led to widespread diffusion of telecom infrastructure, and that the attendant deregulation and free trade in information and telecom services led to the rapid diffusion and development of the internet. And conversely, that 70 years of state-owned monopolies – telecoms as public good –stunted development and led to penetration rates of 10% of less and waiting periods of sometimes 6 years simply to get a telephone line. And it is still countries with the least liberalization who have the least-developed, least accessible internet sectors. I know that the unparalleled success of neoliberal policies must drive anti-neoliberals crazy. But, there it is: undeniable fact, played out in country after country, year after year, for 20 years. I am so sorry that reality did not conform to your beliefs. I really am. You have my deepest sympathy. Those “dessicated” market processes actually produced more public good, more public benefit, than your telecom socialism. Ouch. That must hurt. Deal with it. Typically, sane people adjust their beliefs to reality. They do not try to re-label reality so that it conforms to their ideology. And to my mind if there is a suitable candidate for the type of redifinition in which they are/were engaged "the Internet" is surely one, and rather than defining the Internet in such a way as to obviate the possibility of it being understood as a global public good, perhaps better to understand how the definiition of the Internet should be recognized as one that at a minimum accommodates such notions. [Milton L Mueller] An accurate, reality-grounded definition of the internet can easily accommodate notions of non-proprietary spaces, commons, common pool governance, as well as private, competitive market-driven spaces. The whole point, which I have tried to make in papers such as this http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1828102 is that the Internet arrived at a very powerful, creative balance of private, competitive and open, public spaces. It wasn’t planned, it just happened, because it worked. Before you mess with that equation, I’d ask you to at least seek to understand it. Show some respect for economic and political science, actually READ Ostrom and don’t just chant the words “commons,” and “public good,” understand how economic structures and incentives affect what happens. Pay attention to the private, competitive, market side of the equation, show it some respect, apply labels and concepts critically, testing whether they actually conform to reality. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Wed Apr 17 11:43:42 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:43:42 -0600 Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <86AECFB1-A7C7-443C-B458-2034C7DF5DE7@istaff.org> On Apr 12, 2013, at 8:56 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> http://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/markup-bill-affirm-policy-united-states-regarding-internet-governance >> ... >> "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." This bill was just approved by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce; it it is now H.R. 1580, a bill to affirm the policy of the United States regarding Internet governance. The policy text has been changed to only the following: "It is the policy of the United States to preserve and advance the successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet." Given that it has bipartisan support, it is likely to move fairly quickly to adoption. The actual net effect of such a statement becoming official USG policy is subject to interpretation, but it would definitely make it difficult for the USG to back away from the "multistakeholder model" at any point in the future. FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. No congress critters were harmed in the production of this email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Wed Apr 17 13:27:29 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:27:29 -0600 Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <0880A8A4-7CEB-4E45-9D3E-A0DA5B52A8BA@istaff.org> Message-ID: <905BDC29-6D93-4885-9A87-6714FA87DB2D@istaff.org> On Apr 17, 2013, at 9:18 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > (And here I hit my two-messages-per-day limit, but John raises some very interesting points) Mea culpa :-) > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 4:37 PM, John Curran wrote: > > Agreed. Sometimes a government's public policy goals require engagement with other > governments (which is by definition activities beyond their borders) I was, probably > unsuccessfully, trying to note the distinction when it comes to enforcement, where the > most common accepted practice is that a government enforces laws and regulations > (such as those from treaties with other governments) with respect to those within its > borders, and liaisons with other governments to enforce those obligations elsewhere. > > Issues of jurisdiction are actually rather more complex than that. > For example, some doctrine / jurisprudence recognises at leat five different types of principles used to assess applicable jurisdiction in criminal law: > > ... Quite an informative discourse - thank you! > The reason why I'm mentioning the above is not to do some sterile showing off (which I'm anyway not entitled to, as I'm not an international law scholar or practictioner and there plenty of people more knowledgeable than me on these matters) but because it strikes me that the logical passage, according to which the ability / legitimacy of a "government" to adopt and enforce laws nationally is somehow "lost" when moving to the international level or when dealing with cross-border phenomena (of which the Internet is one, but certainly not the only example - and I do think that when discussing global Internet governance matters we might well keep this in mind, to avoid "Internet exceptionalism") is based more on an aspirational approach than on the current realities of international law and relations. Agreed - I was not actually attempting to alter the current realities of international law and relations, but suggesting that the enforcement of one country's public policies should not _automatically_ be assumed (i.e. simply because of Internet-based communication to those in other countries) to be applicable to the other end of the communications. (i.e. no more so then it would be today.) That is a statement that actually is not accepted by some when it comes to the Internet, in particular those who would put obligations on entities in other countries to meet their own policy objectives... > This does not mean, of course, that "new" forms of international norms-making or norms-enforcement would not be desirable. I am personally very interested in what appears to be a new and burgeoning field of research, dubbed "Informal Interntional Law[-making]", on which you can find more information (among other resources) at http://graduateinstitute.ch/ctei/projects/IILM.html, as well as in one article which is available online (J. Pauwelyn, "Informal International Lawmaking: Framing the Concept and Research Questions", 2011, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1738464) and a book for which unfortunately you will have to pay :) (J. Pauwelyn, R. Wessel, J. Wouters (eds), "Informal International Lawmaking", OUP, 2012). Very interesting... my reading list grows. > However, to put it bluntly, if you (as in an "abstract you", not John specifically :) go to any "government" and tell them "your legitimacy to operate beyond your borders is null and void because of this thing called the Internet", you won't get very far. Not my suggestion in the least, instead use this: "You should not assume that you may create obligations on those beyond your borders simply because your citizens are communicating with entities in other countries via Internet." > Question: why should the "additional roles to play" (let us assume, for the sake of argument, that such additional roles are legitimate - you and I probably agree, but I suspect a fair number of participants to this list would not) be operationalised only *beyond* what would be incorporated into a framework of "Internet Governance"? As I don't know any other parties that have enforcement powers (i.e. use of force and its derivatives regarding compliance with law), and as most governments use of such powers is significantly constrained based on whatever existing lawful processes they have (e.g. to be used in the enforcement of laws created by their legislative/executive mechanisms), I don't know how those powers could be otherwise deployed as part of any multilateral Internet Governance framework. To wit, citizens of democracies generally understand how their national laws are binding upon them (likewise for regulations which are the result of treaties that their government enters into) They know that contracts which they execute are binding and have consequences with respect to enforcement. However, the concept that some Internet Governance construct will result in enforceable constraints may not be acceptable (unless upon implementation it moves from Internet Governance framework into a more traditional national law or contractual basis.) It is for this reason that I note that the enforcement role of governments may be a role which must lie outside of a framework for Internet Governance, and that more traditional mechanisms are likely to need to be employed during the implementation of any outputs. FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. Governments - nothing enforceable is created via this email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Apr 17 13:47:17 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 10:47:17 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [Ottawadissenters] Worldometers - real time world statistics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <067d01ce3b93$a16b05e0$e44111a0$@gmail.com> I have no idea how "scientific" this is but fascinating nevertheless. http://www.worldometers.info/ M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed Apr 17 14:07:14 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 21:07:14 +0300 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <516EE4D2.1070407@gmail.com> Michael, Is it possible to deconstruct some of the scientific (scientifism) in the arguments presented by MM? This is important as it quite a popular view in the US. Not to be conflictual, but there is a rationale that drives this view. For instance what I find unscientific is that a particularly type of libertarianism (no expert on US, but from afar, happy to be corrected) starts off from the Hobbesian state as Leviathan monster. It is axiomatic, or a priori. It values individualism (over the collective), and sees govt action as interfering with that freedom. The free exchange in the market is the realm of freedom, and the state should stay out of it. The Nozik etc arguments do justice to libertarian conceptions than do, what shall I say, the flamboyant claims made on the school's behalf that are anti-government. In some South countries it was fashionable to prefer socio-economic over civil and political rights, distinguishing us from 'liberals'. In context, these were justified - particularly as an organizing principle. But with an aggressive state one quickly realised that both were important. With many countries following the rich country examples in "standards" for secrecy, terrorism, counter-terrorism lowering civil and political rights everywhere, I do hope for more liberals of the type that say, "I disagree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it". To some it may seem anti-American to criticize the PATRIOT Act but much is well founded and not necessarily anti-US, and contestable in too many instances on simple libertarian grounds . I would be more skeptical of their position on socio-economic rights, however. As is evident in this thread. Govt seems to have a a role to play (even passing laws to leave the internet market alone would indicate that it is primarily a political construction) unless a strong case is made against it. But the differences are important as we can disagree on first principles, and the rest is merely symptomatic. But these principles need more explanation, but perhaps differently from what we have had. Riaz On 2013/04/17 06:29 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Apart from all the completely gratuitous ad hominem's -- "pursuing a > political agenda", "honest debate", "you and others who so fervently > blah blah…", "sane people blah blah" and the rather silly attempt to > hijack a discussion by insisting that his position is "scientific" and > thus anyone else's is presumably what… superstition? I see little > interest or value in pursuing this discussion… That kind of stuff may > fly in academic environments where grad students and junior colleagues > have no choice but to listen and nod and go on but is really beyond > the pale in the real world except those who get their policy > discussions via Faux News etc.etc. > > M > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Milton L > Mueller > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:39 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good > > *From:*michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > And in that context I pointed to the discussion around these related > issues by Inge Kaul and Joseph Steiglitz in the UNDP Human Development > Index supported effort to re-awaken/redefine issues concerning "public > goods" and take them out of the dessicated hands/minds of the > professional classical (read ideologically Friedmanian) > economists/public policy geeks/academics. And to recreate these > notions as a tool to support those looking to protect the public > interest from the onslaught of those who would destroy thist at the > altar of universalized Hobbesian privatized interests. > > *//* > > */[Milton L Mueller] Right. So from my perspective you are just flatly > admitting that you are pursuing a political agenda and there is no > real scientific basis for your claim. /* > > *//* > > */I’ve got an idea: why don’t we have an _honest_ fact-based debate > about the role of the public sector in the Internet’s development and > use? Instead of arbitrarily attaching a label “public good” to it and > trying to derive pre-ordained policies from that, why don’t you just > come out and say, “I think there should be more governmental control, > subsidization and regulation of the Internet”? Make an honest case for > how that will change things for the better?/* > > *//* > > */If we have such an honest debate, the first thing that you and > others who believe so fervently in public sector-led development will > have to face is that privatization and liberalization of > telecommunications is what led to widespread diffusion of telecom > infrastructure, and that the attendant deregulation and free trade in > information and telecom services led to the rapid diffusion and > development of the internet. And conversely, that 70 years of > state-owned monopolies – telecoms as public good –stunted development > and led to penetration rates of 10% of less and waiting periods of > sometimes 6 years simply to get a telephone line. And it is still > countries with the least liberalization who have the least-developed, > least accessible internet sectors. /* > > *//* > > */I know that the unparalleled success of neoliberal policies must > drive anti-neoliberals crazy. But, there it is: undeniable fact, > played out in country after country, year after year, for 20 years. I > am so sorry that reality did not conform to your beliefs. I really am. > You have my deepest sympathy. Those “dessicated” market processes > actually produced more public good, more public benefit, than your > telecom socialism. Ouch. That must hurt. Deal with it. /* > > *//* > > */Typically, sane people adjust their beliefs to reality. They do not > try to re-label reality so that it conforms to their ideology. /* > > *//* > > And to my mind if there is a suitable candidate for the type of > redifinition in which they are/were engaged "the Internet" is surely > one, and rather than defining the Internet in such a way as to obviate > the possibility of it being understood as a global public good, > perhaps better to understand how the definiition of the Internet > should be recognized as one that at a minimum accommodates such notions. > > *//* > > */[Milton L Mueller] An accurate, reality-grounded definition of the > internet can easily accommodate notions of non-proprietary spaces, > commons, common pool governance, as well as private, competitive > market-driven spaces. The whole point, which I have tried to make in > papers such as this > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1828102 is that the > Internet arrived at a very powerful, creative balance of private, > competitive and open, public spaces. It wasn’t planned, it just > happened, because it worked. /* > > *//* > > */Before you mess with that equation, I’d ask you to at least seek to > understand it. Show some respect for economic and political science, > actually READ Ostrom and don’t just chant the words “commons,” and > “public good,” understand how economic structures and incentives > affect what happens. Pay attention to the private, competitive, market > side of the equation, show it some respect, apply labels and concepts > critically, testing whether they actually conform to reality. /* > > *//* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 17 14:08:40 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 21:08:40 +0300 Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <86AECFB1-A7C7-443C-B458-2034C7DF5DE7@istaff.org> References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <86AECFB1-A7C7-443C-B458-2034C7DF5DE7@istaff.org> Message-ID: <516EE528.40100@gmail.com> What does this mean? The successful model refers to which MSModels? I should read more, but would be grateful for a reply :) On 2013/04/17 06:43 PM, John Curran wrote: > "It is the policy of the United States to preserve and advance the > successful multistakeholder > model that governs the Internet." -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From charityg at diplomacy.edu Wed Apr 17 14:24:28 2013 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:24:28 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [Ottawadissenters] Worldometers - real time world statistics In-Reply-To: <067d01ce3b93$a16b05e0$e44111a0$@gmail.com> References: <067d01ce3b93$a16b05e0$e44111a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: The "counter" is similar to this: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Still, information on both counters are alarming at some rate, nonetheless Charity Gamboa-Embley On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:47 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > I have no idea how "scientific" this is but fascinating nevertheless…**** > > http://www.worldometers.info/**** > > *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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Apr 17 14:27:26 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:27:26 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: So one thing is for the caucus to keep the discussion on as to where we want to go wrt to the issue put forth by Parminder and Anriette, seeking a conceptually robust basis to advocate for the public good-ness of the internet, etc. In that regard, BTW, the recently proposed draft definition of the internet in a related thread does not have to be presented as THE definition of THE concept of Internet, but a conceptual frame to be considered aside other possibly valid definitions. Time will tell how pertinent that framing might be. Why shouldn't we be able to do that, especially since we all seem to agree, at various degrees, that internet includes public as well as private aspects/components (and, as Parminder notes, we're witnessing the onslaught of some of its publicness which is of importance in our view)? Related to that and more generally (and building on Jeanette's pertinent observation), why do we seem to assume sometimes that government has the monopoly of publicness (or we equate publicness advocates with government advocates)? I would wish to have a clarification once for all on this list about that. Who is public? Who is the/a guadian of the public interest? Is it only the government? Obviously no, I would think. Isn't CS also about the "public"? And yes, doesn't market sometimes, maybe even often, improve the conditions and circumstances of the public? (But is there any such thing as pure market, without any help of public concern? I would argue no, just as many governments, eg, in the US and in Brazil, routinely show that government may be willing to take private money and undermine itself.) So (in line with the idea that private and public are the opposite ends of a spectrum) the question is: Under what conditions, and maybe to what extent, do actors other than governments contribute to the "public" (public good, public interest, public welfare or wellbeing, public etc.)? Does anyone know of a conceptual framework that may be pragmatically useful, and may be set as a reference on the matter, in these debates of ours? That would be really helpful to prevent locking ourselves or our debating challengers into a sterile categorization government vs. business, public vs. private. One last thing, in our quest of (or claim for) scientific truths, we can look at history in different ways or at different levels: Yes, history shows that there are many, maybe overwhelming, instances where governments failed the public interest and private business delivered more good to the public. Does that mean private business has always succeeded anytime, everywhere? What about private business success vs. private business failure? Or isn't private business failure possible? History may also show that there are some conditions under which private business fails (and fails gravely the community that has made them possible), and other conditions under which they succeed both as business in the narrow sense (re. bottom line) and as social actors. The truth in these social matters is often temporal and contextual by several other dimensions. Indeed, the fact that certain market liberalization has proved to be so successful in the late 20th century in the US and in Western Europe, for example, may or may not be totally unrelated with the fact that those markets were previously protected during decades through monopoly or various protectionism regimes. Even turning the observable (and indisputable) facts of the day into a-temporal truths may sometimes be misleading. We will have to be more nuanced on that spectrum spanning from private to public, putting the facts in perspective wrt the nature of the actors and the sociohistorical context. Best, Mawaki On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:29 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Apart from all the completely gratuitous ad hominem's -- "pursuing a > political agenda", "honest debate", "you and others who so fervently blah > blah…", "sane people blah blah" and the rather silly attempt to hijack a > discussion by insisting that his position is "scientific" and thus anyone > else's is presumably what… superstition? I see little interest or value in > pursuing this discussion… That kind of stuff may fly in academic > environments where grad students and junior colleagues have no choice but > to listen and nod and go on but is really beyond the pale in the real world > except those who get their policy discussions via Faux News etc.etc.**** > > ** ** > > M**** > > ** ** > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:39 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com ] > **** > > And in that context I pointed to the discussion around these related > issues by Inge Kaul and Joseph Steiglitz in the UNDP Human Development > Index supported effort to re-awaken/redefine issues concerning "public > goods" and take them out of the dessicated hands/minds of the professional > classical (read ideologically Friedmanian) economists/public policy > geeks/academics. And to recreate these notions as a tool to support those > looking to protect the public interest from the onslaught of those who > would destroy thist at the altar of universalized Hobbesian privatized > interests. **** > > * * > > *[Milton L Mueller] Right. So from my perspective you are just flatly > admitting that you are pursuing a political agenda and there is no real > scientific basis for your claim. * > > * * > > *I’ve got an idea: why don’t we have an _honest_ fact-based debate about > the role of the public sector in the Internet’s development and use? > Instead of arbitrarily attaching a label “public good” to it and trying to > derive pre-ordained policies from that, why don’t you just come out and > say, “I think there should be more governmental control, subsidization and > regulation of the Internet”? Make an honest case for how that will change > things for the better?* > > * * > > *If we have such an honest debate, the first thing that you and others > who believe so fervently in public sector-led development will have to face > is that privatization and liberalization of telecommunications is what led > to widespread diffusion of telecom infrastructure, and that the attendant > deregulation and free trade in information and telecom services led to the > rapid diffusion and development of the internet. And conversely, that 70 > years of state-owned monopolies – telecoms as public good –stunted > development and led to penetration rates of 10% of less and waiting periods > of sometimes 6 years simply to get a telephone line. And it is still > countries with the least liberalization who have the least-developed, least > accessible internet sectors. * > > * * > > *I know that the unparalleled success of neoliberal policies must drive > anti-neoliberals crazy. But, there it is: undeniable fact, played out in > country after country, year after year, for 20 years. I am so sorry that > reality did not conform to your beliefs. I really am. You have my deepest > sympathy. Those “dessicated” market processes actually produced more public > good, more public benefit, than your telecom socialism. Ouch. That must > hurt. Deal with it. * > > * * > > *Typically, sane people adjust their beliefs to reality. They do not try > to re-label reality so that it conforms to their ideology. * > > * * > > And to my mind if there is a suitable candidate for the type of > redifinition in which they are/were engaged "the Internet" is surely one, > and rather than defining the Internet in such a way as to obviate the > possibility of it being understood as a global public good, perhaps better > to understand how the definiition of the Internet should be recognized as > one that at a minimum accommodates such notions.**** > > * * > > *[Milton L Mueller] An accurate, reality-grounded definition of the > internet can easily accommodate notions of non-proprietary spaces, commons, > common pool governance, as well as private, competitive market-driven > spaces. The whole point, which I have tried to make in papers such as this > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1828102 is that the > Internet arrived at a very powerful, creative balance of private, > competitive and open, public spaces. It wasn’t planned, it just happened, > because it worked. * > > * * > > *Before you mess with that equation, I’d ask you to at least seek to > understand it. Show some respect for economic and political science, > actually READ Ostrom and don’t just chant the words “commons,” and “public > good,” understand how economic structures and incentives affect what > happens. Pay attention to the private, competitive, market side of the > equation, show it some respect, apply labels and concepts critically, > testing whether they actually conform to reality. * > > * * > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 17 14:28:41 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:28:41 -0700 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <516EE4D2.1070407@gmail.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516EE4D2.1070407@gmail.com> Message-ID: <070c01ce3b99$69ab6b80$3d024280$@gmail.com> Riaz and all, There is nothing particularly "scientific" about any of this stuff… (I'm not even quite sure exactly what meaning is being applied to the term "scientific" in fact..) rather it is one of those terms that is used in contexts like this by ideologues and the intellectually dishonest to cloak their obsrevations/conclusions in terminology that sounds impressive but means nothing (rather like the white coats that advertisers use on television to imply that the actors they have chosen to represent their nostrums are somehow associated with (and thus acquire the legitimacy of) Medical Doctors…. If what is meant is "evidence based" … then there is possibly something to discuss and it would be interesting to see the evidence (and particularly the methodolgy underlying the "evidence"… q.v. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/with-friends-like-these-freedom-houses-freedom-on-the-internet-report-an-exercise-in-applied-ideology/ (http://tinyurl.com/bp9cuxo) M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Riaz K Tayob Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 11:07 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good Michael, Is it possible to deconstruct some of the scientific (scientifism) in the arguments presented by MM? This is important as it quite a popular view in the US. Not to be conflictual, but there is a rationale that drives this view. For instance what I find unscientific is that a particularly type of libertarianism (no expert on US, but from afar, happy to be corrected) starts off from the Hobbesian state as Leviathan monster. It is axiomatic, or a priori. It values individualism (over the collective), and sees govt action as interfering with that freedom. The free exchange in the market is the realm of freedom, and the state should stay out of it. The Nozik etc arguments do justice to libertarian conceptions than do, what shall I say, the flamboyant claims made on the school's behalf that are anti-government. In some South countries it was fashionable to prefer socio-economic over civil and political rights, distinguishing us from 'liberals'. In context, these were justified - particularly as an organizing principle. But with an aggressive state one quickly realised that both were important. With many countries following the rich country examples in "standards" for secrecy, terrorism, counter-terrorism lowering civil and political rights everywhere, I do hope for more liberals of the type that say, "I disagree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it". To some it may seem anti-American to criticize the PATRIOT Act but much is well founded and not necessarily anti-US, and contestable in too many instances on simple libertarian grounds . I would be more skeptical of their position on socio-economic rights, however. As is evident in this thread. Govt seems to have a a role to play (even passing laws to leave the internet market alone would indicate that it is primarily a political construction) unless a strong case is made against it. But the differences are important as we can disagree on first principles, and the rest is merely symptomatic. But these principles need more explanation, but perhaps differently from what we have had. Riaz On 2013/04/17 06:29 PM, michael gurstein wrote: Apart from all the completely gratuitous ad hominem's -- "pursuing a political agenda", "honest debate", "you and others who so fervently blah blah…", "sane people blah blah" and the rather silly attempt to hijack a discussion by insisting that his position is "scientific" and thus anyone else's is presumably what… superstition? I see little interest or value in pursuing this discussion… That kind of stuff may fly in academic environments where grad students and junior colleagues have no choice but to listen and nod and go on but is really beyond the pale in the real world except those who get their policy discussions via Faux News etc.etc. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:39 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] And in that context I pointed to the discussion around these related issues by Inge Kaul and Joseph Steiglitz in the UNDP Human Development Index supported effort to re-awaken/redefine issues concerning "public goods" and take them out of the dessicated hands/minds of the professional classical (read ideologically Friedmanian) economists/public policy geeks/academics. And to recreate these notions as a tool to support those looking to protect the public interest from the onslaught of those who would destroy thist at the altar of universalized Hobbesian privatized interests. [Milton L Mueller] Right. So from my perspective you are just flatly admitting that you are pursuing a political agenda and there is no real scientific basis for your claim. I’ve got an idea: why don’t we have an _honest_ fact-based debate about the role of the public sector in the Internet’s development and use? Instead of arbitrarily attaching a label “public good” to it and trying to derive pre-ordained policies from that, why don’t you just come out and say, “I think there should be more governmental control, subsidization and regulation of the Internet”? Make an honest case for how that will change things for the better? If we have such an honest debate, the first thing that you and others who believe so fervently in public sector-led development will have to face is that privatization and liberalization of telecommunications is what led to widespread diffusion of telecom infrastructure, and that the attendant deregulation and free trade in information and telecom services led to the rapid diffusion and development of the internet. And conversely, that 70 years of state-owned monopolies – telecoms as public good –stunted development and led to penetration rates of 10% of less and waiting periods of sometimes 6 years simply to get a telephone line. And it is still countries with the least liberalization who have the least-developed, least accessible internet sectors. I know that the unparalleled success of neoliberal policies must drive anti-neoliberals crazy. But, there it is: undeniable fact, played out in country after country, year after year, for 20 years. I am so sorry that reality did not conform to your beliefs. I really am. You have my deepest sympathy. Those “dessicated” market processes actually produced more public good, more public benefit, than your telecom socialism. Ouch. That must hurt. Deal with it. Typically, sane people adjust their beliefs to reality. They do not try to re-label reality so that it conforms to their ideology. And to my mind if there is a suitable candidate for the type of redifinition in which they are/were engaged "the Internet" is surely one, and rather than defining the Internet in such a way as to obviate the possibility of it being understood as a global public good, perhaps better to understand how the definiition of the Internet should be recognized as one that at a minimum accommodates such notions. [Milton L Mueller] An accurate, reality-grounded definition of the internet can easily accommodate notions of non-proprietary spaces, commons, common pool governance, as well as private, competitive market-driven spaces. The whole point, which I have tried to make in papers such as this http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1828102 is that the Internet arrived at a very powerful, creative balance of private, competitive and open, public spaces. It wasn’t planned, it just happened, because it worked. Before you mess with that equation, I’d ask you to at least seek to understand it. Show some respect for economic and political science, actually READ Ostrom and don’t just chant the words “commons,” and “public good,” understand how economic structures and incentives affect what happens. Pay attention to the private, competitive, market side of the equation, show it some respect, apply labels and concepts critically, testing whether they actually conform to reality. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 17 14:54:06 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:54:06 -0700 Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <86AECFB1-A7C7-443C-B458-2034C7DF5DE7@istaff.org> References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <86AECFB1-A7C7-443C-B458-2034C7DF5DE7@istaff.org> Message-ID: <074301ce3b9c$f6ab1ff0$e4015fd0$@gmail.com> Okay but can anyone point to an authoritative definition/description of what exactly is meant by "the successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet" i.e. what exactly was the US Congress voting unanimously to "preserve and advance". M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 8:44 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance On Apr 12, 2013, at 8:56 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: http://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/markup-bill-affirm-policy-united-stat es-regarding-internet-governance ... "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." This bill was just approved by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce; it it is now H.R. 1580, a bill to affirm the policy of the United States regarding Internet governance. The policy text has been changed to only the following: "It is the policy of the United States to preserve and advance the successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet." Given that it has bipartisan support, it is likely to move fairly quickly to adoption. The actual net effect of such a statement becoming official USG policy is subject to interpretation, but it would definitely make it difficult for the USG to back away from the "multistakeholder model" at any point in the future. FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. No congress critters were harmed in the production of this email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Wed Apr 17 15:19:13 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 13:19:13 -0600 Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <074301ce3b9c$f6ab1ff0$e4015fd0$@gmail.com> References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <86AECFB1-A7C7-443C-B458-2034C7DF5DE7@istaff.org> <074301ce3b9c$f6ab1ff0$e4015fd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7AB4110F-53AF-406A-BA72-BECB7B74A5D9@istaff.org> On Apr 17, 2013, at 12:54 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Okay but can anyone point to an authoritative definition/description of what exactly is meant by "the successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet" i.e. what exactly was the US Congress voting unanimously to "preserve and advance". Interestingly enough, the term "multistakeholder model" is not further defined; this implies that it is should be obvious from context, and if one reads the full bill, that might actually be the case depending on your own perspective of the current Internet Governance structures. (An an aside, I remember back to a multi-hour session one day with lawmakers who were attempting to define the term "Internet", so that it could be used in bill being drafted. Happily, we are past the point of where the term Internet needs definition, but I'll admit to some surprise that "multistakeholder model" is now receiving the same benefit of the doubt.) FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone (where "My" is defined as those associated with John Curran...) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 17 15:26:27 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 22:26:27 +0300 Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <7AB4110F-53AF-406A-BA72-BECB7B74A5D9@istaff.org> References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <86AECFB1-A7C7-443C-B458-2034C7DF5DE7@istaff.org> <074301ce3b9c$f6ab1ff0$e4015fd0$@gmail.com> <7AB4110F-53AF-406A-BA72-BECB7B74A5D9@istaff.org> Message-ID: <516EF763.6060809@gmail.com> So would this bill once passed have to be considered if the DOC/ICANN contract is renewed or revised? In the WTO agricultural subsidies (the like of which damage poor farmers in Mali etc) discussions meet with retorts like the US is not negotiating its farm bill/s with the rest of the world. So one can imagine a similar situation arising here... But I may be wrong, as it may be conducive to change that is progressive and/or legitimate. riaz On 2013/04/17 10:19 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Apr 17, 2013, at 12:54 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: >> Okay but can anyone point to an authoritative definition/description >> of what exactly is meant by "the successful multistakeholder model >> that governs the Internet" i.e. what exactly was the US Congress >> voting unanimously to "preserve and advance". > > Interestingly enough, the term "multistakeholder model" is not further > defined; > this implies that it is should be obvious from context, and if one > reads the full > bill, that might actually be the case depending on your own > perspective of the > current Internet Governance structures. (An an aside, I remember > back to a > multi-hour session one day with lawmakers who were attempting to > define the > term "Internet", so that it could be used in bill being drafted. > Happily, we are > past the point of where the term Internet needs definition, but I'll > admit to some > surprise that "multistakeholder model" is now receiving the same > benefit of the > doubt.) > > FYI, > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone (where "My" is defined as those > associated with > John Curran...) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 17 17:08:52 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:08:52 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] REINHART AND ROGOFF: 'Full Stop,' We Made A Microsoft Excel Blunder In Our Debt Study, And It Makes A Difference In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <07d401ce3baf$ce8cc290$6ba647b0$@gmail.com> Ah yes, the "science" of Economics... and the extremely deleterious policy (and ultimately human) impact that has accompanied their hubris... M -----Original Message----- From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On Behalf Of Dewayne Hendricks Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 1:06 PM To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net Subject: [Dewayne-Net] REINHART AND ROGOFF: 'Full Stop,' We Made A Microsoft Excel Blunder In Our Debt Study, And It Makes A Difference [Note: This item comes from reader Geoff Goodfellow. DLH] From: the keyboard of geoff goodfellow Subject: REINHART AND ROGOFF: 'Full Stop,' We Made A Microsoft Excel Blunder In Our Debt Study, And It Makes A Difference Date: April 17, 2013 12:00:20 PM PDT To: Dave Farber , Dewayne Hendricks , risks at csl.sri.com REINHART AND ROGOFF: 'Full Stop,' We Made A Microsoft Excel Blunder In Our Debt Study, And It Makes A Difference By Joe Weisenthal Apr. 17, 2013, 7:42 AM The big talk in the world of economics continues to be the famous study by Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff, which claimed that as countries see debt/GDP going above 90%, growth slows dramatically. Economists have always been skeptical of the correlation/causality on this. But yesterday, a new study emerged which claimed that Reinhart and Rogoff used a faulty dataset to make that claim and (most stunningly) had an excel error that exacerbated the growth dropoff for countries with debt/GDP higher than 90%. After the report dropped (and proceeded to blow up the internet), Reinhart and Rogoff rushed out a quick statement claiming that the new study (which was done by some UMass professors) supported their thesis that growth slowed as debt to GDP got higher. And Reinhart and Rogoff were quick to reiterate that even they weren't necessarily implying causation on this (which may be true, but the fact that they say this is not well known to the politicians who are always citing the dreaded 90% level). But in a new response, Reinhart and Rogoff admit they did make an Excel blunder, and that it mattered! Here's the key part: [snip] Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Apr 17 18:31:56 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:31:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] interesting correlation Message-ID: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130417_correlation_country_governance_regimes_and_reputation_of_ip/ -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Wed Apr 17 18:44:29 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:44:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] REINHART AND ROGOFF: 'Full Stop,' We Made A Microsoft Excel Blunder In Our Debt Study, And It Makes A Difference In-Reply-To: <07d401ce3baf$ce8cc290$6ba647b0$@gmail.com> References: <07d401ce3baf$ce8cc290$6ba647b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Michael, On Apr 17, 2013, at 2:08 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Ah yes, the "science" of Economics... and the extremely deleterious policy > (and ultimately human) impact that has accompanied their hubris... I've no real opinion on whether not Economics is a "science" (whatever that word with scare quotes means), however it is interesting that you appear to ignore the quote from that article: "Economists have always been skeptical of the correlation/causality on this." My impression has been that it is the worst kind of politicians that choose to cherry pick only those studies and evidence that reinforce their philosophical views in order to justify the policies they pursue, however that might just be my technologist background. I do wonder what the Reinhart & Rogoff booboo has to do with Internet Governance. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Apr 17 19:03:25 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 16:03:25 -0700 Subject: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] REINHART AND ROGOFF: 'Full Stop,' We Made A Microsoft Excel Blunder In Our Debt Study, And It Makes A Difference In-Reply-To: References: <07d401ce3baf$ce8cc290$6ba647b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <084501ce3bbf$cd7d0d00$68772700$@gmail.com> Yes a bit of a digression, apologies... The point about the Reinhart and Rogoff study was the extreme significance drawn from its apparent "scientific" validity by various policy authorities (leading fairly directly as I understand it to some of the current policies around austerity particularly in Europe--with all of their effects including increases in suicide, the breakdown of the health care system in Greece, the creation of a lost generation of young people across Southern Europe) http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9e5107f8-a75c-11e2-9fbe-00144feabdc0.html#axz z2QlRUB6V6 and referred back to the comments by Milton concerning the "scientific" nature of his (or was it others') policy prognostications... Economists of course, are split on the "scientific" validity of their work especially as it interfaces with the real/policy world and the above should if nothing else, suggest modesty and caution before we go around flaunting and drawing policy directions from the supposed "scientific" validity of this or that set of observations or conclusions. But yes, apologies for the digression. M -----Original Message----- From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 3:44 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] REINHART AND ROGOFF: 'Full Stop,' We Made A Microsoft Excel Blunder In Our Debt Study, And It Makes A Difference Michael, On Apr 17, 2013, at 2:08 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Ah yes, the "science" of Economics... and the extremely deleterious > policy (and ultimately human) impact that has accompanied their hubris... I've no real opinion on whether not Economics is a "science" (whatever that word with scare quotes means), however it is interesting that you appear to ignore the quote from that article: "Economists have always been skeptical of the correlation/causality on this." My impression has been that it is the worst kind of politicians that choose to cherry pick only those studies and evidence that reinforce their philosophical views in order to justify the policies they pursue, however that might just be my technologist background. I do wonder what the Reinhart & Rogoff booboo has to do with Internet Governance. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Wed Apr 17 20:01:51 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:01:51 -0700 Subject: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] REINHART AND ROGOFF: 'Full Stop,' We Made A Microsoft Excel Blunder In Our Debt Study, And It Makes A Difference In-Reply-To: <084501ce3bbf$cd7d0d00$68772700$@gmail.com> References: <07d401ce3baf$ce8cc290$6ba647b0$@gmail.com> <084501ce3bbf$cd7d0d00$68772700$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Michael, On Apr 17, 2013, at 4:03 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Economists of course, are split on the "scientific" validity of their work > especially as it interfaces with the real/policy world Well, no. As far as I can tell Economists, by and large, weren't split: the vast majority considered the correlations R&R drew tenuous at best. It was politicians, policy makers, and pundits that used the R&R paper as a justification for positions they already held to the exclusion of evidence and arguments to the contrary (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias). > and the above should > if nothing else, suggest modesty and caution before we go around flaunting > and drawing policy directions from the supposed "scientific" validity of > this or that set of observations or conclusions. Actually, I'd argue basing policy direction on _scientifically valid_ observations and conclusions (which wasn't done for policies based on the R&R paper) is far better than alternatives such as anecdotes, appeals to emotion, over generalizations, accusations of hubris, etc. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Apr 17 20:55:55 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:55:55 -0700 Subject: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] REINHART AND ROGOFF: 'Full Stop,' We Made A Microsoft Excel Blunder In Our Debt Study, And It Makes A Difference In-Reply-To: References: <07d401ce3baf$ce8cc290$6ba647b0$@gmail.com> <084501ce3bbf$cd7d0d00$68772700$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <08a401ce3bcf$84c560c0$8e502240$@gmail.com> David, My reference was overall to Economists' work as Economists (but I see where there was probably an ambiguity in what I wrote... and yes, evidence based policy is certainly a good idea if the evidence is accurate, appropriate, unbiased i.e. not ideologically driven etc.etc. But there should always be a caution and a modesty concerning linking policy particularly to theory in an area as inexact as Economics and that's where the hubris comes in... M -----Original Message----- From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:02 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] REINHART AND ROGOFF: 'Full Stop,' We Made A Microsoft Excel Blunder In Our Debt Study, And It Makes A Difference Michael, On Apr 17, 2013, at 4:03 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Economists of course, are split on the "scientific" validity of their > work especially as it interfaces with the real/policy world Well, no. As far as I can tell Economists, by and large, weren't split: the vast majority considered the correlations R&R drew tenuous at best. It was politicians, policy makers, and pundits that used the R&R paper as a justification for positions they already held to the exclusion of evidence and arguments to the contrary (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias). > and the above should > if nothing else, suggest modesty and caution before we go around > flaunting and drawing policy directions from the supposed "scientific" > validity of this or that set of observations or conclusions. Actually, I'd argue basing policy direction on _scientifically valid_ observations and conclusions (which wasn't done for policies based on the R&R paper) is far better than alternatives such as anecdotes, appeals to emotion, over generalizations, accusations of hubris, etc. 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 Wed Apr 17 23:20:07 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:20:07 +0800 Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA4BD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23A8071@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7EE5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <516E139C.4000905@ciroap.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA4BD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <516F6667.9090806@ciroap.org> On 17/04/13 20:49, Milton L Mueller wrote: > By now you should be aware that the bill was amended to remove the > clause about opposing “government control of the Internet.” This > suggests to me that you are wrong about it being bogus. > > > > Faced with a choice between articulating a global public policy > principle that could be used to challenge some of the US government’s > own special powers and gutting the bill so that it only contains an > anodyne expression of support for “the multistakeholder model,” the > U.S. congress chose the latter. > Actually I would really welcome the articulation of a global public policy principle that could be used to challenge some of the US government's own special powers (as well as attempts at control of the global Internet by other governments). But no legislation of the United States government is capable of legitimately articulating global public policy principles. For that, we will need to work through (I hope) the IGF. As it stands I am pleased enough that we now have a tacit admission that government control over the Internet is presently exercised by the United States, and with that admission on the table we can move forward. I am however worried by the language "preserve" with reference to the multistakeholder model, since that implies that the present arrangements are adequate, when they are not. -- *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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 18 02:01:11 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 11:31:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <074301ce3b9c$f6ab1ff0$e4015fd0$@gmail.com> References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <86AECFB1-A7C7-443C-B458-2034C7DF5DE7@istaff.org> <074301ce3b9c$f6ab1ff0$e4015fd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <516F8C27.4000501@itforchange.net> On Thursday 18 April 2013 12:24 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Okay but can anyone point to an authoritative definition/description > of what exactly is meant by "the successful multistakeholder model > that governs the Internet" i.e. what exactly was the US Congress > voting unanimously to "preserve and advance". > for instance, whether NTIA's exclusive exercising of the root zone authorisation function is to be considered as a part of the 'successful multistakeholder (MS) model' or not... And if it is indeed MS, then if /exactly/ the same function is tranferred to a multinational committee (without changing anything else about ICANN plus system at all) why would that not still continue to be called as a MS system, and not a movement from MSism to government control? And whether OECD's inter governmental Council and its inter-governmental Committee on Information, Communication and Computer Policy doing considerable (global) Internet policy work, in consultation with other stakeholders, but only giving them an advisory capacity, should be considered as an aspect of the 'successful MS model or not. If so, whether a similar UN based inter-gov committee with similar (or better) advisory status based relationships with other stakeholders will continue to be called as a MS system, or would that somehow, magically, become classified as a move towards government control? The above two are the simple and straight forward demands of most developing countries (leave out a few authoritarian ones whose demand we dont have to consider/ concede) . Both these demands /do not at all change the degree of MSism in the present global IG architecture /(I am happy to be challenged on this) . However, evidently this new US law is basically aimed at resisting these democratic demands of developing countries, and the sad part is that most of the global civil society seems to be ready to get hoodwinked by such obviously less than honest professions of MSism and fight against governemnt control over the Internet. It is just a fight for preserving US control (gov plus business) over the global Internet - that is all what it is. And CS should resist it, seeking greater democratisation.. parminder > M > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *John Curran > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 17, 2013 8:44 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the > United States Regarding Internet Governance > > On Apr 12, 2013, at 8:56 PM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > http://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/markup-bill-affirm-policy-united-states-regarding-internet-governance > > ... > > "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." > > This bill was just approved by the House Committee on Energy and > Commerce; it it is now > > H.R. 1580, a bill to affirm the policy of the United States > regarding Internet governance. > > > > The policy text has been changed to only the following: > > "It is the policy of the United States to preserve and advance the > successful multistakeholder > > model that governs the Internet." > > Given that it has bipartisan support, it is likely to move fairly > quickly to adoption. The actual net > > effect of such a statement becoming official USG policy is subject to > interpretation, but it would > > definitely make it difficult for the USG to back away from the > "multistakeholder model" at any > > point in the future. > > FYI, > > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone. No congress critters were harmed in the > production of this email. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Apr 18 02:28:33 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:28:33 +0300 Subject: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] REINHART AND ROGOFF: 'Full Stop,' We Made A Microsoft Excel Blunder In Our Debt Study, And It Makes A Difference In-Reply-To: <08a401ce3bcf$84c560c0$8e502240$@gmail.com> References: <07d401ce3baf$ce8cc290$6ba647b0$@gmail.com> <084501ce3bbf$cd7d0d00$68772700$@gmail.com> <08a401ce3bcf$84c560c0$8e502240$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <516F9291.6070107@gmail.com> Michael and David This is tangential, but goes to the important economics edifices of many public policy arguments. From one of many Third Worldist perspectives, there is often deception in dealing with the rich countries. And it is well known that domination is easier to manage with 'ideology'. Free trade and neoclassical economics shapes much of the discourse causing much trouble and problems. So this is tangential but related. If anyone is familiar with effectively the family business of the doyens of economics (Paul Samuelson, Kenneth Arrow and nowadays Larry Summers), they would know the significant influence they have had in the profession and on public policy discourse. The interview between the Chief Economist of the Financial Times (not a radical by any means!) with Larry Summers which can be found here is instructive (it really is worth the time!). As some would have it, the Queen of the Social Sciences, by his own admission is not very helpful in real life. In other words, modern scholastics. In Europe they are going for austerity (pro-cyclical) whereas John Dewey's American pragmatism rules more in the US with spending (Bernanke is pushing Congress, but there is little traction) with marked differences between the performance of these regions. So even Bernanke is more taking reality more into account, rather than relying on failed models which cannot account for crisis adequately nor deal with reality very well (but banks are still allowed to use them for capital adequacy calculations!). On the paper, it was one of many of the planks used to argue for austerity, as David points out. But it was very influential. The reasons for eccentric formulae for averages and exclusion of New Zealand data will need to be backed up. So let us see where this goes. Why is it that we accept self-interest as the guiding force in neoliberal economics, but exclude economists from this equation? After all, they would sell their ideas to the highest bidder - and neoliberal ideas pay. In fact it is quite consistent. Even the oracle Alan Greenspan said to Congress that he found a flaw in his theory. If he read outside of his Randian economists he might have known, but there is confirmation bias here too. The Oracle was a charlatan. So I think first principles distinctions between schools of economics is very important to be differentiated. Mainstream economics says it is a science based on its physics based methods. That is correct. But its problem is concordance with reality. When the Queen asked the London School of Economics why they did not see the crisis coming they said, /"So where was the problem? Everyone seemed to be doing their own job properly on its own merit. And according to standard measures of success, they were often doing it well. The failure was to see how collectively this added up to a series of interconnected imbalances over which no single authority had jurisdiction. This, combined with the psychology of herding and the mantra of financial and policy gurus, lead to a dangerous recipe. Individual risks may rightly have been viewed as small, but the risk to the system as a whole was vast."/ Translation: there is no systemic understanding. The problem for scientifically valid observations, as David argues for and to which I agree, is that a science that starts of from unrealistic assumptions and deduces what logically should happen without ex post validation is only one form of knowledge. There are other forms of knowledge on the economy, like the American Institutionalists, that are simply marginalized and ignored, primarily because they do not serve the interests of the large powerful corporations in the US. So do please engage in these matters as neoliberal type economic views still hold political sway, but are increasingly becoming untenable because of the social costs and suffering they impose. The difference with crises in the South (Mexico, the Tequila crisis, as if they were drinking too much; Argentina; SEA Asia - spawned crony capitalism) and the North is how it is dealt with. In the South it is internal factors, but for the North the tenor of the major finance houses is now systemic problems. One would have thought Americans would have taken their cue from Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, etc *this is not anti-Americanism, btw - happy to be guided on these formulations! On or offlist!). Or now from the fraud on foreclosures and lack of regulatory ability to prosecute known crimes. It is a terrible situation for the 99% and we hope that the more sensible forces prevail in America otherwise the situation for us Africans downstream will be terrible. Riaz On 2013/04/18 03:55 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > David, > > My reference was overall to Economists' work as Economists (but I see where > there was probably an ambiguity in what I wrote... and yes, evidence based > policy is certainly a good idea if the evidence is accurate, appropriate, > unbiased i.e. not ideologically driven etc.etc. But there should always be a > caution and a modesty concerning linking policy particularly to theory in an > area as inexact as Economics and that's where the hubris comes in... > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org] > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:02 PM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] REINHART AND ROGOFF: 'Full Stop,' We > Made A Microsoft Excel Blunder In Our Debt Study, And It Makes A Difference > > Michael, > > On Apr 17, 2013, at 4:03 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> Economists of course, are split on the "scientific" validity of their >> work especially as it interfaces with the real/policy world > Well, no. As far as I can tell Economists, by and large, weren't split: the > vast majority considered the correlations R&R drew tenuous at best. It was > politicians, policy makers, and pundits that used the R&R paper as a > justification for positions they already held to the exclusion of evidence > and arguments to the contrary (see > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias). > >> and the above should >> if nothing else, suggest modesty and caution before we go around >> flaunting and drawing policy directions from the supposed "scientific" >> validity of this or that set of observations or conclusions. > Actually, I'd argue basing policy direction on _scientifically valid_ > observations and conclusions (which wasn't done for policies based on the > R&R paper) is far better than alternatives such as anecdotes, appeals to > emotion, over generalizations, accusations of hubris, etc. > > Regards, > -drc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Apr 18 03:26:53 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:26:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <074301ce3b9c$f6ab1ff0$e4015fd0$@gmail.com> References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <86AECFB1-A7C7-443C-B458-2034C7DF5DE7@istaff.org> <074301ce3b9c$f6ab1ff0$e4015fd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <074301ce3b9c$f6ab1ff0$e4015fd0$@gmail.com>, at 11:54:06 on Wed, 17 Apr 2013, michael gurstein writes >Okay but can anyone point to an authoritative definition/description of >what exactly is meant by "the successful multistakeholder model that >governs the Internet" i.e. what exactly was the US Congress voting >unanimously to "preserve and advance ...may well provide some helpful pointers (it's Larry Strickling talking about an earlier and extremely similar Congressional resolution). -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Apr 18 03:30:04 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:30:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Germany & Internet Governance References: <07d401ce3baf$ce8cc290$6ba647b0$@gmail.com> <084501ce3bbf$cd7d0d00$68772700$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013318A8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi, for those of you who understand German: The German Bundestag discusses today the final report of the Parliamentary Enquete Commission "Internet and the Digital Society". The Commission was established three years ago and has covered nearly all related issues - from Intellectual Property to Net Neutrality, from Privacy to Security. The Final Report with eight Special Reports is more than 1000 pages. The good news is that the Commission supports 100 per cent the multistakeholder model for Internet Governance and recommends that Germany should host (probably 2016 or 2017) the IGF. Here is the Final Report with Receommendations: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/125/1712550.pdf Here is the Special Report for Internet Governance: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/124/1712480.pdf And here is the main Website with a lot of additional Background Material http://www.bundestag.de/internetenquete/Nach_der_letzten_Sitzung_FAQ/index.jsp Wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Apr 18 03:43:29 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 00:43:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] Germany & Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013318A8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <07d401ce3baf$ce8cc290$6ba647b0$@gmail.com> <084501ce3bbf$cd7d0d00$68772700$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013318A8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <0a1401ce3c08$71e5e5e0$55b1b1a0$@gmail.com> Wolfgang, Perhaps you could provide us with an English translation of the "multistakeholder model" that the Commission is supporting. Tks, M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 12:30 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Germany & Internet Governance Hi, for those of you who understand German: The German Bundestag discusses today the final report of the Parliamentary Enquete Commission "Internet and the Digital Society". The Commission was established three years ago and has covered nearly all related issues - from Intellectual Property to Net Neutrality, from Privacy to Security. The Final Report with eight Special Reports is more than 1000 pages. The good news is that the Commission supports 100 per cent the multistakeholder model for Internet Governance and recommends that Germany should host (probably 2016 or 2017) the IGF. Here is the Final Report with Receommendations: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/125/1712550.pdf Here is the Special Report for Internet Governance: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/124/1712480.pdf And here is the main Website with a lot of additional Background Material http://www.bundestag.de/internetenquete/Nach_der_letzten_Sitzung_FAQ/index.j sp Wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Apr 18 03:49:54 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:49:54 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Germany & Internet Governance References: <07d401ce3baf$ce8cc290$6ba647b0$@gmail.com> <084501ce3bbf$cd7d0d00$68772700$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013318A8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <0a1401ce3c08$71e5e5e0$55b1b1a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013318AE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Michael, you will find a lot of references in the Special Report on Internet Governance. The model is even described as an innovative policy model which can be useful also for other policy fields and enhance broader participation in democracies. There is no single paragraph for MS, but if you use Google Translate you will get the main messages from this report. Best wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von michael gurstein Gesendet: Do 18.04.2013 09:43 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Betreff: RE: [governance] Germany & Internet Governance Wolfgang, Perhaps you could provide us with an English translation of the "multistakeholder model" that the Commission is supporting. Tks, M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 12:30 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Germany & Internet Governance Hi, for those of you who understand German: The German Bundestag discusses today the final report of the Parliamentary Enquete Commission "Internet and the Digital Society". The Commission was established three years ago and has covered nearly all related issues - from Intellectual Property to Net Neutrality, from Privacy to Security. The Final Report with eight Special Reports is more than 1000 pages. The good news is that the Commission supports 100 per cent the multistakeholder model for Internet Governance and recommends that Germany should host (probably 2016 or 2017) the IGF. Here is the Final Report with Receommendations: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/125/1712550.pdf Here is the Special Report for Internet Governance: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/124/1712480.pdf And here is the main Website with a lot of additional Background Material http://www.bundestag.de/internetenquete/Nach_der_letzten_Sitzung_FAQ/index.j sp Wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Thu Apr 18 04:04:31 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:04:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] Germany & Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013318AE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <07d401ce3baf$ce8cc290$6ba647b0$@gmail.com> <084501ce3bbf$cd7d0d00$68772700$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013318A8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <0a1401ce3c08$71e5e5e0$55b1b1a0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013318AE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Aah, I wish I could read German! I do appreciate the section titles in English, though... it helps get some idea of the outline. Wolfgang, does the fact that it keeps reading Internet Governance here and there mean there is not translation of the phrase in German? Thanks, Mawaki On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 7:49 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > you will find a lot of references in the Special Report on Internet > Governance. The model is even described as an innovative policy model which > can be useful also for other policy fields and enhance broader > participation in democracies. There is no single paragraph for MS, but if > you use Google Translate you will get the main messages from this report. > > Best > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von michael gurstein > Gesendet: Do 18.04.2013 09:43 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > Betreff: RE: [governance] Germany & Internet Governance > > > > Wolfgang, > > Perhaps you could provide us with an English translation of the > "multistakeholder model" that the Commission is supporting. > > Tks, > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, > Wolfgang" > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 12:30 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] Germany & Internet Governance > > Hi, > > for those of you who understand German: The German Bundestag discusses > today > the final report of the Parliamentary Enquete Commission "Internet and the > Digital Society". The Commission was established three years ago and has > covered nearly all related issues - from Intellectual Property to Net > Neutrality, from Privacy to Security. The Final Report with eight Special > Reports is more than 1000 pages. The good news is that the Commission > supports 100 per cent the multistakeholder model for Internet Governance > and > recommends that Germany should host (probably 2016 or 2017) the IGF. > > Here is the Final Report with Receommendations: > http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/125/1712550.pdf > > Here is the Special Report for Internet Governance: > http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/124/1712480.pdf > > And here is the main Website with a lot of additional Background Material > > http://www.bundestag.de/internetenquete/Nach_der_letzten_Sitzung_FAQ/index.j > sp > > Wolfgang > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Apr 18 04:09:05 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 01:09:05 -0700 Subject: [governance] Germany & Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013318AE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <07d401ce3baf$ce8cc290$6ba647b0$@gmail.com> <084501ce3bbf$cd7d0d00$68772700$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013318A8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <0a1401ce3c08$71e5e5e0$55b1b1a0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013318AE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <0a2101ce3c0c$06205760$12610620$@gmail.com> Thanks Wolfgang but I would have thought that there would be some sort of concise description/definition especially if as you say, they are looking at this as some sort of alternative (?) to existing forms of "participation in democracies". Surely they aren't as wooly in their definition as the US seems to be in what Roland pointed us to as coming from NTIA's Lawrence Strickling The strength and power of the multistakeholder process arises from the engagement of all interested parties including industry, civil society, technical and academic experts, and governments. By encouraging the participation of all parties, multistakeholder processes encourage broader and more creative problem solving. This is essential when dealing with the Internet, which thrives only through the cooperation of many different parties. M -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 12:50 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: AW: [governance] Germany & Internet Governance Hi Michael, you will find a lot of references in the Special Report on Internet Governance. The model is even described as an innovative policy model which can be useful also for other policy fields and enhance broader participation in democracies. There is no single paragraph for MS, but if you use Google Translate you will get the main messages from this report. Best wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von michael gurstein Gesendet: Do 18.04.2013 09:43 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Betreff: RE: [governance] Germany & Internet Governance Wolfgang, Perhaps you could provide us with an English translation of the "multistakeholder model" that the Commission is supporting. Tks, M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 12:30 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Germany & Internet Governance Hi, for those of you who understand German: The German Bundestag discusses today the final report of the Parliamentary Enquete Commission "Internet and the Digital Society". The Commission was established three years ago and has covered nearly all related issues - from Intellectual Property to Net Neutrality, from Privacy to Security. The Final Report with eight Special Reports is more than 1000 pages. The good news is that the Commission supports 100 per cent the multistakeholder model for Internet Governance and recommends that Germany should host (probably 2016 or 2017) the IGF. Here is the Final Report with Receommendations: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/125/1712550.pdf Here is the Special Report for Internet Governance: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/124/1712480.pdf And here is the main Website with a lot of additional Background Material http://www.bundestag.de/internetenquete/Nach_der_letzten_Sitzung_FAQ/index.j sp Wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Thu Apr 18 04:23:29 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 08:23:29 +0000 Subject: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] REINHART AND ROGOFF: 'Full Stop,' We Made A Microsoft Excel Blunder In Our Debt Study, And It Makes A Difference In-Reply-To: <516F9291.6070107@gmail.com> References: <07d401ce3baf$ce8cc290$6ba647b0$@gmail.com> <084501ce3bbf$cd7d0d00$68772700$@gmail.com> <08a401ce3bcf$84c560c0$8e502240$@gmail.com> <516F9291.6070107@gmail.com> Message-ID: Key words: "one form of knowledge." It's a pity that philosophy --not an established, authoritative corpus of philosophical works, but philosophy as a discipline of the mind, yes, nurtured by exposure to and engagement with exemplars-- that such philosophy has ceased to be the mother of all sciences. Thanks, Riaz. mc On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:28 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Michael and David > > This is tangential, but goes to the important economics edifices of many > public policy arguments. > > From one of many Third Worldist perspectives, there is often deception in > dealing with the rich countries. And it is well known that domination is > easier to manage with 'ideology'. Free trade and neoclassical economics > shapes much of the discourse causing much trouble and problems. So this is > tangential but related. > > If anyone is familiar with effectively the family business of the doyens > of economics (Paul Samuelson, Kenneth Arrow and nowadays Larry Summers), > they would know the significant influence they have had in the profession > and on public policy discourse. The interview between the Chief Economist > of the Financial Times (not a radical by any means!) with Larry Summers which > can be found hereis instructive (it really is worth the time!). As some would have it, the > Queen of the Social Sciences, by his own admission is not very helpful in > real life. In other words, modern scholastics. > > In Europe they are going for austerity (pro-cyclical) whereas John Dewey's > American pragmatism rules more in the US with spending (Bernanke is pushing > Congress, but there is little traction) with marked differences between the > performance of these regions. So even Bernanke is more taking reality more > into account, rather than relying on failed models which cannot account for > crisis adequately nor deal with reality very well (but banks are still > allowed to use them for capital adequacy calculations!). > > On the paper, it was one of many of the planks used to argue for > austerity, as David points out. But it was very influential. The reasons > for eccentric formulae for averages and exclusion of New Zealand data will > need to be backed up. So let us see where this goes. Why is it that we > accept self-interest as the guiding force in neoliberal economics, but > exclude economists from this equation? After all, they would sell their > ideas to the highest bidder - and neoliberal ideas pay. In fact it is quite > consistent. Even the oracle Alan Greenspan said to Congress that he found a > flaw in his theory. If he read outside of his Randian economists he might > have known, but there is confirmation bias here too. The Oracle was a > charlatan. > > So I think first principles distinctions between schools of economics is > very important to be differentiated. Mainstream economics says it is a > science based on its physics based methods. That is correct. But its > problem is concordance with reality. When the Queen asked the London > School of Economics why they did not see the crisis coming they said, > *"So where was the problem? Everyone seemed to be doing their own job > properly on its own merit. And according to standard measures of success, > they were often doing it well. The failure was to see how collectively this > added up to a series of interconnected imbalances over which no single > authority had jurisdiction. This, combined with the psychology of herding > and the mantra of financial and policy gurus, lead to a dangerous recipe. > Individual risks may rightly have been viewed as small, but the risk to the > system as a whole was vast."* Translation: there is no systemic > understanding. > > The problem for scientifically valid observations, as David argues for and > to which I agree, is that a science that starts of from unrealistic > assumptions and deduces what logically should happen without ex post > validation is only one form of knowledge. There are other forms of > knowledge on the economy, like the American Institutionalists, that are > simply marginalized and ignored, primarily because they do not serve the > interests of the large powerful corporations in the US. > > So do please engage in these matters as neoliberal type economic views > still hold political sway, but are increasingly becoming untenable because > of the social costs and suffering they impose. The difference with crises > in the South (Mexico, the Tequila crisis, as if they were drinking too > much; Argentina; SEA Asia - spawned crony capitalism) and the North is how > it is dealt with. In the South it is internal factors, but for the North > the tenor of the major finance houses is now systemic problems. > > One would have thought Americans would have taken their cue from Enron, > WorldCom, Tyco, etc *this is not anti-Americanism, btw - happy to be guided > on these formulations! On or offlist!). Or now from the fraud on > foreclosures and lack of regulatory ability to prosecute known crimes. It > is a terrible situation for the 99% and we hope that the more sensible > forces prevail in America otherwise the situation for us Africans > downstream will be terrible. > > Riaz > > > > On 2013/04/18 03:55 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > David, > > My reference was overall to Economists' work as Economists (but I see where > there was probably an ambiguity in what I wrote... and yes, evidence based > policy is certainly a good idea if the evidence is accurate, appropriate, > unbiased i.e. not ideologically driven etc.etc. But there should always be a > caution and a modesty concerning linking policy particularly to theory in an > area as inexact as Economics and that's where the hubris comes in... > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org ] > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:02 PM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] [Dewayne-Net] REINHART AND ROGOFF: 'Full Stop,' We > Made A Microsoft Excel Blunder In Our Debt Study, And It Makes A Difference > > Michael, > > On Apr 17, 2013, at 4:03 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Economists of course, are split on the "scientific" validity of their > work especially as it interfaces with the real/policy world > > Well, no. As far as I can tell Economists, by and large, weren't split: the > vast majority considered the correlations R&R drew tenuous at best. It was > politicians, policy makers, and pundits that used the R&R paper as a > justification for positions they already held to the exclusion of evidence > and arguments to the contrary (seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias). > > > and the above should > if nothing else, suggest modesty and caution before we go around > flaunting and drawing policy directions from the supposed "scientific" > validity of this or that set of observations or conclusions. > > Actually, I'd argue basing policy direction on _scientifically valid_ > observations and conclusions (which wasn't done for policies based on the > R&R paper) is far better than alternatives such as anecdotes, appeals to > emotion, over generalizations, accusations of hubris, etc. > > Regards, > -drc > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Apr 18 08:34:07 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:04:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 17 April 2013 11:57 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > So one thing is for the caucus to keep the discussion on as to where > we want to go wrt to the issue put forth by Parminder and Anriette, > seeking a conceptually robust basis to advocate for the public > good-ness of the internet, etc. In that regard, BTW, the recently > proposed draft definition of the internet in a related thread does not > have to be presented as THE definition of THE concept of Internet, but > a conceptual frame to be considered aside other possibly valid > definitions. Time will tell how pertinent that framing might be. Why > shouldn't we be able to do that, especially since we all seem to > agree, at various degrees, that internet includes public as well as > private aspects/components (and, as Parminder notes, we're witnessing > the onslaught of some of its publicness which is of importance in our > view)? After seeing many comments in this discussion, I think one way to go forward is to speak about "preserving and enhancing Internet's commons and public good nature" rather than declaring that the Internet is a commons and a public goods. This approach circumvents some of the problems expressed in this discussion, and makes it more aspirational (although based on some clearly established facts) rather than precisely definitional. Accordingly, I have modified the text as it last stood as follows. Text as it stood: We recognise the Internet to be an emergent and emerging reality. As a global network of networks, it is an its intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality and a new kind of social spatiality, brought together by a common set of design principles, and constrained by policies established by due democratic processes. We consider the Internet as a global commons and a global public good. The design principles and policies that constitute its governance should, therefore, flow from such recognition of the Internet as a commons and public good. Text as amended now: We recognise the Internet to be an emergent and emerging reality. As a global network of networks, it is an its intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality and a new kind of social spatiality, brought together by a common set of design principles, and constrained by policies established by due democratic processes. The design principles and policies that constitute its governance should principally aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public goods character of the Internet. We may add, or not, the following, in order to make clearer the nature of the problems that we are trying to address: There is an increased tendency towards diminishing the non-excludablity of the Internet (through a new kind of 'enclosure movement '* of the digital space) and also its non-rivalrousness (through excessive commodification), which should be stemmed. (* 'enclosure movement' is kind of exactly opposite to, and sought to be undone by, contemporary occupy movements) (text suggestion ends) parminder > > Related to that and more generally (and building on Jeanette's > pertinent observation), why do we seem to assume sometimes that > government has the monopoly of publicness (or we equate publicness > advocates with government advocates)? I would wish to have a > clarification once for all on this list about that. Who is public? Who > is the/a guadian of the public interest? Is it only the government? > Obviously no, I would think. Isn't CS also about the "public"? And > yes, doesn't market sometimes, maybe even often, improve the > conditions and circumstances of the public? (But is there any such > thing as pure market, without any help of public concern? I would > argue no, just as many governments, eg, in the US and in Brazil, > routinely show that government may be willing to take private money > and undermine itself.) > > So (in line with the idea that private and public are the opposite > ends of a spectrum) the question is: Under what conditions, and maybe > to what extent, do actors other than governments contribute to the > "public" (public good, public interest, public welfare or wellbeing, > public etc.)? Does anyone know of a conceptual framework that may be > pragmatically useful, and may be set as a reference on the matter, in > these debates of ours? That would be really helpful to prevent locking > ourselves or our debating challengers into a sterile categorization > government vs. business, public vs. private. > > One last thing, in our quest of (or claim for) scientific truths, we > can look at history in different ways or at different levels: Yes, > history shows that there are many, maybe overwhelming, instances where > governments failed the public interest and private business delivered > more good to the public. Does that mean private business has always > succeeded anytime, everywhere? What about private business success vs. > private business failure? Or isn't private business failure possible? > History may also show that there are some conditions under which > private business fails (and fails gravely the community that has made > them possible), and other conditions under which they succeed both as > business in the narrow sense (re. bottom line) and as social actors. > The truth in these social matters is often temporal and contextual by > several other dimensions. Indeed, the fact that certain market > liberalization has proved to be so successful in the late 20th century > in the US and in Western Europe, for example, may or may not be > totally unrelated with the fact that those markets were previously > protected during decades through monopoly or various protectionism > regimes. Even turning the observable (and indisputable) facts of the > day into a-temporal truths may sometimes be misleading. We will have > to be more nuanced on that spectrum spanning from private to public, > putting the facts in perspective wrt the nature of the actors and the > sociohistorical context. > > Best, > > Mawaki > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:29 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > Apart from all the completely gratuitous ad hominem's -- "pursuing > a political agenda", "honest debate", "you and others who so > fervently blah blah…", "sane people blah blah" and the rather > silly attempt to hijack a discussion by insisting that his > position is "scientific" and thus anyone else's is presumably > what… superstition? I see little interest or value in pursuing > this discussion… That kind of stuff may fly in academic > environments where grad students and junior colleagues have no > choice but to listen and nod and go on but is really beyond the > pale in the real world except those who get their policy > discussions via Faux News etc.etc. > > M > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > ] *On Behalf Of > *Milton L Mueller > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:39 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good > > *From:*michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > And in that context I pointed to the discussion around these > related issues by Inge Kaul and Joseph Steiglitz in the UNDP Human > Development Index supported effort to re-awaken/redefine issues > concerning "public goods" and take them out of the dessicated > hands/minds of the professional classical (read ideologically > Friedmanian) economists/public policy geeks/academics. And to > recreate these notions as a tool to support those looking to > protect the public interest from the onslaught of those who would > destroy thist at the altar of universalized Hobbesian privatized > interests. > > *//* > > */[Milton L Mueller] Right. So from my perspective you are just > flatly admitting that you are pursuing a political agenda and > there is no real scientific basis for your claim. /* > > *//* > > */I’ve got an idea: why don’t we have an _honest_ fact-based > debate about the role of the public sector in the Internet’s > development and use? Instead of arbitrarily attaching a label > “public good” to it and trying to derive pre-ordained policies > from that, why don’t you just come out and say, “I think there > should be more governmental control, subsidization and regulation > of the Internet”? Make an honest case for how that will change > things for the better?/* > > *//* > > */If we have such an honest debate, the first thing that you and > others who believe so fervently in public sector-led development > will have to face is that privatization and liberalization of > telecommunications is what led to widespread diffusion of telecom > infrastructure, and that the attendant deregulation and free trade > in information and telecom services led to the rapid diffusion and > development of the internet. And conversely, that 70 years of > state-owned monopolies – telecoms as public good –stunted > development and led to penetration rates of 10% of less and > waiting periods of sometimes 6 years simply to get a telephone > line. And it is still countries with the least liberalization who > have the least-developed, least accessible internet sectors. /* > > *//* > > */I know that the unparalleled success of neoliberal policies must > drive anti-neoliberals crazy. But, there it is: undeniable fact, > played out in country after country, year after year, for 20 > years. I am so sorry that reality did not conform to your beliefs. > I really am. You have my deepest sympathy. Those “dessicated” > market processes actually produced more public good, more public > benefit, than your telecom socialism. Ouch. That must hurt. Deal > with it. /* > > *//* > > */Typically, sane people adjust their beliefs to reality. They do > not try to re-label reality so that it conforms to their ideology. /* > > *//* > > And to my mind if there is a suitable candidate for the type of > redifinition in which they are/were engaged "the Internet" is > surely one, and rather than defining the Internet in such a way as > to obviate the possibility of it being understood as a global > public good, perhaps better to understand how the definiition of > the Internet should be recognized as one that at a minimum > accommodates such notions. > > *//* > > */[Milton L Mueller] An accurate, reality-grounded definition of > the internet can easily accommodate notions of non-proprietary > spaces, commons, common pool governance, as well as private, > competitive market-driven spaces. The whole point, which I have > tried to make in papers such as this > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1828102 is that > the Internet arrived at a very powerful, creative balance of > private, competitive and open, public spaces. It wasn’t planned, > it just happened, because it worked. /* > > *//* > > */Before you mess with that equation, I’d ask you to at least seek > to understand it. Show some respect for economic and political > science, actually READ Ostrom and don’t just chant the words > “commons,” and “public good,” understand how economic structures > and incentives affect what happens. Pay attention to the private, > competitive, market side of the equation, show it some respect, > apply labels and concepts critically, testing whether they > actually conform to reality. /* > > *//* > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Thu Apr 18 09:23:03 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 13:23:03 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I think 'stirred' or 'shaped' is preferable to 'constrained by policies..., Adding a few changes I suggest the following version of the statement: We recognise the Internet to be not only a global network of networks comprised of computing artifacts and processes, but also an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality and a new kind of social spatiality, brought together by a common set of design principles, and stirred by policies established through due democratic processes. While the design principles and policies that constitute its governance should ensure its stability, functionality and security, they must also aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet. In the face of the danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary spaces, we urge that the global commons and global public good dimensions be at the forefront of global Internet agenda going forward. Or, paraphrasing 'social spatiality'...: We recognise the Internet to be not only a global network of networks comprised of computing artifacts and processes, but also an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality enabling new kind of social interactions and transactions, which is brought together by a common set of design principles, and stirred by policies established through due democratic processes. While the design principles and policies that constitute its governance should ensure its stability, functionality and security, they must also aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet. In the face of the danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary spaces, we urge that the global commons and global public good dimensions be at the forefront of global Internet agenda going forward. Mawaki On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:34 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Wednesday 17 April 2013 11:57 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > So one thing is for the caucus to keep the discussion on as to where we > want to go wrt to the issue put forth by Parminder and Anriette, seeking a > conceptually robust basis to advocate for the public good-ness of the > internet, etc. In that regard, BTW, the recently proposed draft definition > of the internet in a related thread does not have to be presented as THE > definition of THE concept of Internet, but a conceptual frame to be > considered aside other possibly valid definitions. Time will tell how > pertinent that framing might be. Why shouldn't we be able to do that, > especially since we all seem to agree, at various degrees, that internet > includes public as well as private aspects/components (and, as Parminder > notes, we're witnessing the onslaught of some of its publicness which is of > importance in our view)? > > > After seeing many comments in this discussion, I think one way to go > forward is to speak about "preserving and enhancing Internet's commons and > public good nature" rather than declaring that the Internet is a commons > and a public goods. This approach circumvents some of the problems > expressed in this discussion, and makes it more aspirational (although > based on some clearly established facts) rather than precisely > definitional. Accordingly, I have modified the text as it last stood as > follows. > > Text as it stood: > > We recognise the Internet to be an emergent and emerging reality. As a > global network of networks, it is an its intricate combination of hardware, > software, protocols, human intentionality and a new kind of social > spatiality, brought together by a common set of design principles, and > constrained by policies established by due democratic processes. We > consider the Internet as a global commons and a global public good. The > design principles and policies that constitute its governance should, > therefore, flow from such recognition of the Internet as a commons and > public good. > > > Text as amended now: > > We recognise the Internet to be an emergent and emerging reality. As a > global network of networks, it is an its intricate combination of hardware, > software, protocols, human intentionality and a new kind of social > spatiality, brought together by a common set of design principles, and > constrained by policies established by due democratic processes. The > design principles and policies that constitute its governance should > principally aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global > public goods character of the Internet. > > > We may add, or not, the following, in order to make clearer the nature of > the problems that we are trying to address: > > There is an increased tendency towards diminishing the non-excludablity of > the Internet (through a new kind of 'enclosure movement'* > of the digital space) and also its non-rivalrousness (through excessive > commodification), which should be stemmed. > > (* 'enclosure movement' is kind of exactly opposite to, and sought to be > undone by, contemporary occupy movements) > > (text suggestion ends) > > parminder > > > Related to that and more generally (and building on Jeanette's pertinent > observation), why do we seem to assume sometimes that government has the > monopoly of publicness (or we equate publicness advocates with government > advocates)? I would wish to have a clarification once for all on this list > about that. Who is public? Who is the/a guadian of the public interest? Is > it only the government? Obviously no, I would think. Isn't CS also about > the "public"? And yes, doesn't market sometimes, maybe even often, improve > the conditions and circumstances of the public? (But is there any such > thing as pure market, without any help of public concern? I would argue no, > just as many governments, eg, in the US and in Brazil, routinely show that > government may be willing to take private money and undermine itself.) > > So (in line with the idea that private and public are the opposite ends of > a spectrum) the question is: Under what conditions, and maybe to what > extent, do actors other than governments contribute to the "public" (public > good, public interest, public welfare or wellbeing, public etc.)? Does > anyone know of a conceptual framework that may be pragmatically useful, and > may be set as a reference on the matter, in these debates of ours? That > would be really helpful to prevent locking ourselves or our debating > challengers into a sterile categorization government vs. business, public > vs. private. > > One last thing, in our quest of (or claim for) scientific truths, we can > look at history in different ways or at different levels: Yes, history > shows that there are many, maybe overwhelming, instances where governments > failed the public interest and private business delivered more good to the > public. Does that mean private business has always succeeded anytime, > everywhere? What about private business success vs. private business > failure? Or isn't private business failure possible? History may also show > that there are some conditions under which private business fails (and > fails gravely the community that has made them possible), and other > conditions under which they succeed both as business in the narrow sense > (re. bottom line) and as social actors. The truth in these social matters > is often temporal and contextual by several other dimensions. Indeed, the > fact that certain market liberalization has proved to be so successful in > the late 20th century in the US and in Western Europe, for example, may or > may not be totally unrelated with the fact that those markets were > previously protected during decades through monopoly or various > protectionism regimes. Even turning the observable (and indisputable) facts > of the day into a-temporal truths may sometimes be misleading. We will have > to be more nuanced on that spectrum spanning from private to public, > putting the facts in perspective wrt the nature of the actors and the > sociohistorical context. > > Best, > > Mawaki > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:29 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> Apart from all the completely gratuitous ad hominem's -- "pursuing a >> political agenda", "honest debate", "you and others who so fervently blah >> blah…", "sane people blah blah" and the rather silly attempt to hijack a >> discussion by insisting that his position is "scientific" and thus anyone >> else's is presumably what… superstition? I see little interest or value in >> pursuing this discussion… That kind of stuff may fly in academic >> environments where grad students and junior colleagues have no choice but >> to listen and nod and go on but is really beyond the pale in the real world >> except those who get their policy discussions via Faux News etc.etc. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: >> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller >> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:39 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> *Subject:* RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com ] >> >> >> And in that context I pointed to the discussion around these related >> issues by Inge Kaul and Joseph Steiglitz in the UNDP Human Development >> Index supported effort to re-awaken/redefine issues concerning "public >> goods" and take them out of the dessicated hands/minds of the professional >> classical (read ideologically Friedmanian) economists/public policy >> geeks/academics. And to recreate these notions as a tool to support those >> looking to protect the public interest from the onslaught of those who >> would destroy thist at the altar of universalized Hobbesian privatized >> interests. >> >> * * >> >> *[Milton L Mueller] Right. So from my perspective you are just flatly >> admitting that you are pursuing a political agenda and there is no real >> scientific basis for your claim. * >> >> * * >> >> *I’ve got an idea: why don’t we have an _honest_ fact-based debate about >> the role of the public sector in the Internet’s development and use? >> Instead of arbitrarily attaching a label “public good” to it and trying to >> derive pre-ordained policies from that, why don’t you just come out and >> say, “I think there should be more governmental control, subsidization and >> regulation of the Internet”? Make an honest case for how that will change >> things for the better?* >> >> * * >> >> *If we have such an honest debate, the first thing that you and others >> who believe so fervently in public sector-led development will have to face >> is that privatization and liberalization of telecommunications is what led >> to widespread diffusion of telecom infrastructure, and that the attendant >> deregulation and free trade in information and telecom services led to the >> rapid diffusion and development of the internet. And conversely, that 70 >> years of state-owned monopolies – telecoms as public good –stunted >> development and led to penetration rates of 10% of less and waiting periods >> of sometimes 6 years simply to get a telephone line. And it is still >> countries with the least liberalization who have the least-developed, least >> accessible internet sectors. * >> >> * * >> >> *I know that the unparalleled success of neoliberal policies must drive >> anti-neoliberals crazy. But, there it is: undeniable fact, played out in >> country after country, year after year, for 20 years. I am so sorry that >> reality did not conform to your beliefs. I really am. You have my deepest >> sympathy. Those “dessicated” market processes actually produced more public >> good, more public benefit, than your telecom socialism. Ouch. That must >> hurt. Deal with it. * >> >> * * >> >> *Typically, sane people adjust their beliefs to reality. They do not try >> to re-label reality so that it conforms to their ideology. * >> >> * * >> >> And to my mind if there is a suitable candidate for the type of >> redifinition in which they are/were engaged "the Internet" is surely one, >> and rather than defining the Internet in such a way as to obviate the >> possibility of it being understood as a global public good, perhaps better >> to understand how the definiition of the Internet should be recognized as >> one that at a minimum accommodates such notions. >> >> * * >> >> *[Milton L Mueller] An accurate, reality-grounded definition of the >> internet can easily accommodate notions of non-proprietary spaces, commons, >> common pool governance, as well as private, competitive market-driven >> spaces. The whole point, which I have tried to make in papers such as this >> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1828102 is that the >> Internet arrived at a very powerful, creative balance of private, >> competitive and open, public spaces. It wasn’t planned, it just happened, >> because it worked. * >> >> * * >> >> *Before you mess with that equation, I’d ask you to at least seek to >> understand it. Show some respect for economic and political science, >> actually READ Ostrom and don’t just chant the words “commons,” and “public >> good,” understand how economic structures and incentives affect what >> happens. Pay attention to the private, competitive, market side of the >> equation, show it some respect, apply labels and concepts critically, >> testing whether they actually conform to reality. * >> >> * * >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de Thu Apr 18 10:33:59 2013 From: Lorena.Jaume-Palasi at gsi.uni-muenchen.de (Lorena Jaume-Palasi) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 16:33:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Germany & Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <07d401ce3baf$ce8cc290$6ba647b0$@gmail.com> <084501ce3bbf$cd7d0d00$68772700$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013318A8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <0a1401ce3c08$71e5e5e0$55b1b1a0$@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013318AE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <9c0dc141cbb8d047a20e12d9d66ea89a@webmail.lrz.de> right Mawaki, the Germans do not have a German word for Governance. Greeting from Berlin, Lorena Am 2013-04-18 10:04, schrieb Mawaki Chango: > Aah, I wish I could read German! I do appreciate the section titles > in English, though... it helps get some idea of the outline. > Wolfgang, does the fact that it keeps reading Internet Governance > here and there mean there is not translation of the phrase in German? > Thanks, > > Mawaki > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 7:49 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > wrote: > >> Hi Michael, >> >> you will find a lot of references in the Special Report on Internet >> Governance. The model is even described as an innovative policy model >> which can be useful also for other policy fields and enhance broader >> participation in democracies. There is no single paragraph for MS, but >> if you use Google Translate you will get the main messages from  this >> report. >> >> Best >> >> wolfgang >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von michael >> gurstein >> Gesendet: Do 18.04.2013 09:43 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang >> Betreff: RE: [governance] Germany & Internet Governance >> >> Wolfgang, >> >> Perhaps you could provide us with an English translation of the >> "multistakeholder model" that the Commission is supporting. >> >> Tks, >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of >> "Kleinwächter, >> Wolfgang" >> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 12:30 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: [governance] Germany & Internet Governance >> >> Hi, >> >> for those of you who understand German: The German Bundestag >> discusses today >> the final report of the Parliamentary Enquete Commission "Internet >> and the >> Digital Society". The Commission was established three years ago and >> has >> covered nearly all related issues - from Intellectual Property to >> Net >> Neutrality, from Privacy to Security. The Final Report with eight >> Special >> Reports is more than 1000 pages. The good news is that the >> Commission >> supports 100 per cent the multistakeholder model for Internet >> Governance and >> recommends that Germany should host (probably 2016 or 2017) the IGF. >> >> Here is the Final Report with Receommendations: >> http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/125/1712550.pdf [1] >> >> Here is the Special Report for Internet Governance: >> http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/124/1712480.pdf [2] >> >> And here is the main Website with a lot of additional Background >> Material >> >> http://www.bundestag.de/internetenquete/Nach_der_letzten_Sitzung_FAQ/index.j >> sp >> >> Wolfgang >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing [3] >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance [4] >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/ [5] >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t [6] > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/125/1712550.pdf > [2] http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/124/1712480.pdf > [3] http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > [4] http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > [5] http://www.igcaucus.org/ > [6] http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Apr 18 11:03:22 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:03:22 +0300 Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <516F8C27.4000501@itforchange.net> References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <86AECFB1-A7C7-443C-B458-2034C7DF5DE7@istaff.org> <074301ce3b9c$f6ab1ff0$e4015fd0$@gmail.com> <516F8C27.4000501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51700B3A.3070403@gmail.com> Parminder et al, subject to correction and disclaimers for over simplification etc... Thesi*s: The Bill is good for IG.* (I am NOT the best person to make the case!!) It establishes a policy in legislation ensuring MS. It includes preservation as well as advancement - it incorporates the possibility of future change. Political economy: Enshrines MS for internet. Increases democracy. Civil society: For or tepid toward the bill *Thesis: The bill is not good for IG.* Imprecision: - reference to which ms models - which ones are successful (as opposed to unsuccessful - implying selection) - what is MS? Political Economy: Changes developing countries are interested will be limited by US legislation - "negotiation" with Congress? Limits change to to intrasystemic fora. To Civil Society If qualitative change is sufficient in this form, would alternate but similarly competent (with MS) arrangements not be suitable. Riaz On 2013/04/18 09:01 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Thursday 18 April 2013 12:24 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> Okay but can anyone point to an authoritative definition/description >> of what exactly is meant by "the successful multistakeholder model >> that governs the Internet" i.e. what exactly was the US Congress >> voting unanimously to "preserve and advance". >> > > for instance, whether NTIA's exclusive exercising of the root zone > authorisation function is to be considered as a part of the > 'successful multistakeholder (MS) model' or not... And if it is indeed > MS, then if /exactly/ the same function is tranferred to a > multinational committee (without changing anything else about ICANN > plus system at all) why would that not still continue to be called as > a MS system, and not a movement from MSism to government control? > > And whether OECD's inter governmental Council and its > inter-governmental Committee on Information, Communication and > Computer Policy doing considerable (global) Internet policy work, in > consultation with other stakeholders, but only giving them an advisory > capacity, should be considered as an aspect of the 'successful MS > model or not. If so, whether a similar UN based inter-gov committee > with similar (or better) advisory status based relationships with > other stakeholders will continue to be called as a MS system, or would > that somehow, magically, become classified as a move towards > government control? > > The above two are the simple and straight forward demands of most > developing countries (leave out a few authoritarian ones whose demand > we dont have to consider/ concede) . Both these demands /do not at all > change the degree of MSism in the present global IG architecture /(I > am happy to be challenged on this) . However, evidently this new US > law is basically aimed at resisting these democratic demands of > developing countries, and the sad part is that most of the global > civil society seems to be ready to get hoodwinked by such obviously > less than honest professions of MSism and fight against governemnt > control over the Internet. It is just a fight for preserving US > control (gov plus business) over the global Internet - that is all > what it is. And CS should resist it, seeking greater democratisation.. > > parminder > > >> M >> >> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *John Curran >> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 17, 2013 8:44 AM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the >> United States Regarding Internet Governance >> >> On Apr 12, 2013, at 8:56 PM, Jeremy Malcolm > > wrote: >> >> http://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/markup-bill-affirm-policy-united-states-regarding-internet-governance >> >> ... >> >> "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." >> >> This bill was just approved by the House Committee on Energy and >> Commerce; it it is now >> >> H.R. 1580, a bill to affirm the policy of the United States >> regarding Internet governance. >> >> >> >> The policy text has been changed to only the following: >> >> "It is the policy of the United States to preserve and advance >> the successful multistakeholder >> >> model that governs the Internet." >> >> Given that it has bipartisan support, it is likely to move fairly >> quickly to adoption. The actual net >> >> effect of such a statement becoming official USG policy is subject to >> interpretation, but it would >> >> definitely make it difficult for the USG to back away from the >> "multistakeholder model" at any >> >> point in the future. >> >> FYI, >> >> /John >> >> Disclaimers: My views alone. No congress critters were harmed in the >> production of this email. >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Thu Apr 18 11:54:22 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 09:54:22 -0600 Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <51700B3A.3070403@gmail.com> References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <86AECFB1-A7C7-443C-B458-2034C7DF5DE7@istaff.org> <074301ce3b9c$f6ab1ff0$e4015fd0$@gmail.com> <516F8C27.4000501@itforchange.net> <51700B3A.3070403@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7C280A97-8B88-4DDF-9294-695B0CF71C84@istaff.org> On Apr 18, 2013, at 9:03 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Thesis: The Bill is good for IG. > > (I am NOT the best person to make the case!!) > > It establishes a policy in legislation ensuring MS. > > It includes preservation as well as advancement - it incorporates the possibility of future change. Riaz - I'll try and make the case, but probably not as you expect... FYI - Two articles about this bill from RollCall (a publication covering US legislative events) - (and one of the articles quotes the esteemed Milton Mueller...) I believe that fact-based dialogue is generally good, and to the extent that this bill helps everyone gain a better understanding of the present reality, it is helpful to the cause of Internet Governance. For those in US government, it has made plain that the multistakeholder model is very important and should be supported, while also highlighting the unique USG(NTIA)/ ICANN relationship (which has not been well known or understood by some in the USG.) For those advocating change in the Internet Governance framework to one which is "free of government control", the removal of that phrase is a readily referencable event as evidence of concerns with the present system. Improved visibility into the present system is a win in any case. FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. To the best of my knowledge, this email was prepared in a manner "free of government control" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 18 12:12:56 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 19:12:56 +0300 Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <7C280A97-8B88-4DDF-9294-695B0CF71C84@istaff.org> References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <86AECFB1-A7C7-443C-B458-2034C7DF5DE7@istaff.org> <074301ce3b9c$f6ab1ff0$e4015fd0$@gmail.com> <516F8C27.4000501@itforchange.net> <51700B3A.3070403@gmail.com> <7C280A97-8B88-4DDF-9294-695B0CF71C84@istaff.org> Message-ID: <51701B88.8020001@gmail.com> Fwiw, the best part is the disclaimer - healthy doubt :P , :) I will read these asap. But to engage. What would go some ways to ameliorate the concerns of Parminder, Gurstein, (just to pick on them) etc? At a high level of abstraction, there is opposition to the bill, perhaps on political economy terms. Yet at a lower level of abstraction, many things are possible (setting aside the legitimacy issue - to interrogate issues). Including transparency; which may be insufficient for others. We can in parallel continue to debate over reform and radical positions, principled vs more pragmatic (not implying unprincipled), etc but that is seperate from these inquiries. Playing in the other pen, so to speak. What interests me in particular is what "vision" of/for change does this evoke at the lower level of abstraction? I get it that those intimate and familiar with the system can see some equation that gives cause for optimism. As positioned as I am, I cannot really get it because of my blinkers. If I try harder, what I would be interested in is how subsequent change (from what will follow this bill) will be dealt with and regulated. If it includes a broad range of possibilities for increased CIR internationalisation (different from he McTim and Mueller vision of internationalisation), or even stated in the negative, that it does not explicitly preclude such evolution, it may be more palatable. So, I am interested in the 'laws of motion' based on the institutional framework you see currently /and /how it can evolve. And I value your views and this is not some trick etc. It is an attempt to get a real appreciation of what fecundity there is in the population/ensemble for dynamism... Riaz On 2013/04/18 06:54 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Apr 18, 2013, at 9:03 AM, Riaz K Tayob > wrote: > >> Thesi*s: The Bill is good for IG.* >> >> (I am NOT the best person to make the case!!) >> >> It establishes a policy in legislation ensuring MS. >> >> It includes preservation as well as advancement - it incorporates the >> possibility of future change. > > Riaz - I'll try and make the case, but probably not as you expect... > > FYI - Two articles about this bill from RollCall (a publication > covering US legislative events) - > > > > > > > (and one of the articles quotes the esteemed Milton Mueller...) > > I believe that fact-based dialogue is generally good, and to the > extent that this bill helps everyone > gain a better understanding of the present reality, it is helpful to > the cause of Internet Governance. > For those in US government, it has made plain that the > multistakeholder model is very important > and should be supported, while also highlighting the unique USG(NTIA)/ > ICANN relationship (which > has not been well known or understood by some in the USG.) For those > advocating change in the > Internet Governance framework to one which is "free of government > control", the removal of that > phrase is a readily referencable event as evidence of concerns with > the present system. > > Improved visibility into the present system is a win in any case. > > FYI, > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone. To the best of my knowledge, this email > was prepared in a manner > "free of government control" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Thu Apr 18 13:38:44 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:38:44 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Corrections: "devices" instead of "artifacts" in the first sentence, and in the last sentence, "global Internet *governance* agenda" plus slight improvements. The previous option 2 then reads: We recognise the Internet to be not only a global network of networks comprised of computing devices and processes, but also an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality enabling new kind of social interactions and transactions, which is brought together by a common set of design principles, and stirred by policies established through due democratic processes. While the design principles and policies that constitute its governance should ensure its stability, functionality and security, they must also aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet [which has made previous innovations possible*]. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces, we urge that the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions be at the forefront of global Internet governance agenda going forward. [...*] to be added as you see appropriate. mc On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > I think 'stirred' or 'shaped' is preferable to 'constrained by > policies..., Adding a few changes I suggest the following version of the > statement: > > We recognise the Internet to be not only a global network of networks > comprised of computing artifacts and processes, but also an emergent and > emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of > hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality and a new kind of > social spatiality, brought together by a common set of design principles, > and stirred by policies established through due democratic processes. While > the design principles and policies that constitute its governance should > ensure its stability, functionality and security, they must also aim at > preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good > character of the Internet. In the face of the danger for the Internet > experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary spaces, we urge that the > global commons and global public good dimensions be at the forefront of > global Internet agenda going forward. > > Or, paraphrasing 'social spatiality'...: > > We recognise the Internet to be not only a global network of networks > comprised of computing artifacts and processes, but also an emergent and > emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of > hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality enabling new kind of > social interactions and transactions, which is brought together by a common > set of design principles, and stirred by policies established through due > democratic processes. While the design principles and policies that > constitute its governance should ensure its stability, functionality and > security, they must also aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons > and global public good character of the Internet. In the face of the danger > for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary spaces, > we urge that the global commons and global public good dimensions be at the > forefront of global Internet agenda going forward. > > > Mawaki > > > > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:34 PM, parminder wrote: > >> >> On Wednesday 17 April 2013 11:57 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> >> So one thing is for the caucus to keep the discussion on as to where >> we want to go wrt to the issue put forth by Parminder and Anriette, seeking >> a conceptually robust basis to advocate for the public good-ness of the >> internet, etc. In that regard, BTW, the recently proposed draft definition >> of the internet in a related thread does not have to be presented as THE >> definition of THE concept of Internet, but a conceptual frame to be >> considered aside other possibly valid definitions. Time will tell how >> pertinent that framing might be. Why shouldn't we be able to do that, >> especially since we all seem to agree, at various degrees, that internet >> includes public as well as private aspects/components (and, as Parminder >> notes, we're witnessing the onslaught of some of its publicness which is of >> importance in our view)? >> >> >> After seeing many comments in this discussion, I think one way to go >> forward is to speak about "preserving and enhancing Internet's commons and >> public good nature" rather than declaring that the Internet is a commons >> and a public goods. This approach circumvents some of the problems >> expressed in this discussion, and makes it more aspirational (although >> based on some clearly established facts) rather than precisely >> definitional. Accordingly, I have modified the text as it last stood as >> follows. >> >> Text as it stood: >> >> We recognise the Internet to be an emergent and emerging reality. As a >> global network of networks, it is an its intricate combination of hardware, >> software, protocols, human intentionality and a new kind of social >> spatiality, brought together by a common set of design principles, and >> constrained by policies established by due democratic processes. We >> consider the Internet as a global commons and a global public good. The >> design principles and policies that constitute its governance should, >> therefore, flow from such recognition of the Internet as a commons and >> public good. >> >> >> Text as amended now: >> >> We recognise the Internet to be an emergent and emerging reality. As a >> global network of networks, it is an its intricate combination of hardware, >> software, protocols, human intentionality and a new kind of social >> spatiality, brought together by a common set of design principles, and >> constrained by policies established by due democratic processes. The >> design principles and policies that constitute its governance should >> principally aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global >> public goods character of the Internet. >> >> >> We may add, or not, the following, in order to make clearer the nature of >> the problems that we are trying to address: >> >> There is an increased tendency towards diminishing the non-excludablity >> of the Internet (through a new kind of 'enclosure movement'* >> of the digital space) and also its non-rivalrousness (through excessive >> commodification), which should be stemmed. >> >> (* 'enclosure movement' is kind of exactly opposite to, and sought to be >> undone by, contemporary occupy movements) >> >> (text suggestion ends) >> >> parminder >> >> >> Related to that and more generally (and building on Jeanette's pertinent >> observation), why do we seem to assume sometimes that government has the >> monopoly of publicness (or we equate publicness advocates with government >> advocates)? I would wish to have a clarification once for all on this list >> about that. Who is public? Who is the/a guadian of the public interest? Is >> it only the government? Obviously no, I would think. Isn't CS also about >> the "public"? And yes, doesn't market sometimes, maybe even often, improve >> the conditions and circumstances of the public? (But is there any such >> thing as pure market, without any help of public concern? I would argue no, >> just as many governments, eg, in the US and in Brazil, routinely show that >> government may be willing to take private money and undermine itself.) >> >> So (in line with the idea that private and public are the opposite ends >> of a spectrum) the question is: Under what conditions, and maybe to what >> extent, do actors other than governments contribute to the "public" (public >> good, public interest, public welfare or wellbeing, public etc.)? Does >> anyone know of a conceptual framework that may be pragmatically useful, and >> may be set as a reference on the matter, in these debates of ours? That >> would be really helpful to prevent locking ourselves or our debating >> challengers into a sterile categorization government vs. business, public >> vs. private. >> >> One last thing, in our quest of (or claim for) scientific truths, we can >> look at history in different ways or at different levels: Yes, history >> shows that there are many, maybe overwhelming, instances where governments >> failed the public interest and private business delivered more good to the >> public. Does that mean private business has always succeeded anytime, >> everywhere? What about private business success vs. private business >> failure? Or isn't private business failure possible? History may also show >> that there are some conditions under which private business fails (and >> fails gravely the community that has made them possible), and other >> conditions under which they succeed both as business in the narrow sense >> (re. bottom line) and as social actors. The truth in these social matters >> is often temporal and contextual by several other dimensions. Indeed, the >> fact that certain market liberalization has proved to be so successful in >> the late 20th century in the US and in Western Europe, for example, may or >> may not be totally unrelated with the fact that those markets were >> previously protected during decades through monopoly or various >> protectionism regimes. Even turning the observable (and indisputable) facts >> of the day into a-temporal truths may sometimes be misleading. We will have >> to be more nuanced on that spectrum spanning from private to public, >> putting the facts in perspective wrt the nature of the actors and the >> sociohistorical context. >> >> Best, >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:29 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >>> Apart from all the completely gratuitous ad hominem's -- "pursuing a >>> political agenda", "honest debate", "you and others who so fervently blah >>> blah…", "sane people blah blah" and the rather silly attempt to hijack a >>> discussion by insisting that his position is "scientific" and thus anyone >>> else's is presumably what… superstition? I see little interest or value in >>> pursuing this discussion… That kind of stuff may fly in academic >>> environments where grad students and junior colleagues have no choice but >>> to listen and nod and go on but is really beyond the pale in the real world >>> except those who get their policy discussions via Faux News etc.etc. >>> >>> >>> >>> M >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: >>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:39 PM >>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> *Subject:* RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com ] >>> >>> >>> And in that context I pointed to the discussion around these related >>> issues by Inge Kaul and Joseph Steiglitz in the UNDP Human Development >>> Index supported effort to re-awaken/redefine issues concerning "public >>> goods" and take them out of the dessicated hands/minds of the professional >>> classical (read ideologically Friedmanian) economists/public policy >>> geeks/academics. And to recreate these notions as a tool to support those >>> looking to protect the public interest from the onslaught of those who >>> would destroy thist at the altar of universalized Hobbesian privatized >>> interests. >>> >>> * * >>> >>> *[Milton L Mueller] Right. So from my perspective you are just flatly >>> admitting that you are pursuing a political agenda and there is no real >>> scientific basis for your claim. * >>> >>> * * >>> >>> *I’ve got an idea: why don’t we have an _honest_ fact-based debate >>> about the role of the public sector in the Internet’s development and use? >>> Instead of arbitrarily attaching a label “public good” to it and trying to >>> derive pre-ordained policies from that, why don’t you just come out and >>> say, “I think there should be more governmental control, subsidization and >>> regulation of the Internet”? Make an honest case for how that will change >>> things for the better?* >>> >>> * * >>> >>> *If we have such an honest debate, the first thing that you and others >>> who believe so fervently in public sector-led development will have to face >>> is that privatization and liberalization of telecommunications is what led >>> to widespread diffusion of telecom infrastructure, and that the attendant >>> deregulation and free trade in information and telecom services led to the >>> rapid diffusion and development of the internet. And conversely, that 70 >>> years of state-owned monopolies – telecoms as public good –stunted >>> development and led to penetration rates of 10% of less and waiting periods >>> of sometimes 6 years simply to get a telephone line. And it is still >>> countries with the least liberalization who have the least-developed, least >>> accessible internet sectors. * >>> >>> * * >>> >>> *I know that the unparalleled success of neoliberal policies must drive >>> anti-neoliberals crazy. But, there it is: undeniable fact, played out in >>> country after country, year after year, for 20 years. I am so sorry that >>> reality did not conform to your beliefs. I really am. You have my deepest >>> sympathy. Those “dessicated” market processes actually produced more public >>> good, more public benefit, than your telecom socialism. Ouch. That must >>> hurt. Deal with it. * >>> >>> * * >>> >>> *Typically, sane people adjust their beliefs to reality. They do not >>> try to re-label reality so that it conforms to their ideology. * >>> >>> * * >>> >>> And to my mind if there is a suitable candidate for the type of >>> redifinition in which they are/were engaged "the Internet" is surely one, >>> and rather than defining the Internet in such a way as to obviate the >>> possibility of it being understood as a global public good, perhaps better >>> to understand how the definiition of the Internet should be recognized as >>> one that at a minimum accommodates such notions. >>> >>> * * >>> >>> *[Milton L Mueller] An accurate, reality-grounded definition of the >>> internet can easily accommodate notions of non-proprietary spaces, commons, >>> common pool governance, as well as private, competitive market-driven >>> spaces. The whole point, which I have tried to make in papers such as this >>> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1828102 is that the >>> Internet arrived at a very powerful, creative balance of private, >>> competitive and open, public spaces. It wasn’t planned, it just happened, >>> because it worked. * >>> >>> * * >>> >>> *Before you mess with that equation, I’d ask you to at least seek to >>> understand it. Show some respect for economic and political science, >>> actually READ Ostrom and don’t just chant the words “commons,” and “public >>> good,” understand how economic structures and incentives affect what >>> happens. Pay attention to the private, competitive, market side of the >>> equation, show it some respect, apply labels and concepts critically, >>> testing whether they actually conform to reality. * >>> >>> * * >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 18 14:57:03 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:57:03 +0300 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?House_Passes_CISPA_=28the_Privacy-S?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?hredding_Web_Spying_Bill=29_=85_Call_Your_Senator_and_De?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?mand_a_NO_Vote?= Message-ID: <517041FF.5040609@gmail.com> A little paranoic? or not? If people are worried then the right kind of internationalisation of internet rights could go a long way... even for USers? House Passes CISPA (the Privacy-Shredding Web Spying Bill) … Call Your Senator and Demand a NO Vote Posted on April 18, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog photo /Image by William Banzai / Government On the Verge – Yet Again – of Doing Something Which Causes More Harm Than Good The privacy-shredding Internet spying bill – CISPA – has passed the House . Our only chance is to stop it in the Senate. Background here and here . Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian also urges us to contact Google, Facebook and Twitter and demand that they stand up to defeat CISPA: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 6953320050_eddebe4164_z.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 126504 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Apr 18 15:05:24 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 22:05:24 +0300 Subject: [governance] ACLU on CISPA Message-ID: <517043F4.8010505@gmail.com> *FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE* April 18, 2013 3:46 PM *CONTACT: ACLU * Matthew Harwood, 202-675-2312, media at dcaclu.org ACLU Comment on House Passage of CISPA WASHINGTON - April 18 - The House of Representatives today passed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act despite a veto threat issued earlier this week by the White House. The legislation, which passed by a 288-127 vote, allows companies to share customers' personal information with any company or any government entity, including the National Security Agency. The American Civil Liberties Union opposed the legislation. "CISPA is an extreme proposal that allows companies that hold our very sensitive information to share it with any company or government entity they choose, even directly with military agencies like the NSA, without first stripping out personally identifiable information," said Michelle Richardson, a legislative counsel at the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office. "We will work with Congress to make sure that the next version of information sharing legislation unequivocally resolves this issue, as well as tightens immunity provisions and protects personal information. Cybersecurity can be done without sacrificing Americans' privacy online." The Senate, which has not introduced cybersecurity legislation for the 113th Congress, is reportedly working on a bill now. For a detailed analysis of CISPA, please visit: aclu.org/blog/tag/cispa-explainer For more information on the ACLU's work on cybersecurity, please visit: aclu.org/cybersecurity ### The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) conserves America's original civic values working in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in the United States by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: aclu.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 4855 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Apr 18 21:14:38 2013 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 10:14:38 +0900 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I was late to join this very interesting debate, but like to share my thoughts. First of all, "facts" or "reality" and "principle" or "definition" are not the same thing in my view. The fact that telecom is liberalized and operated by private companies does not always mean that the definition of telecom is totally departed from public good/service/ or common and became private good period. They are rather relative things not static and fixed, as Jeanette rightly points out. I think privatization and introducing fair market competition to former monopoly would result in better "public" service in a larger view was the principle idea behind the liberalization of the telecom, and as indicated in some countries, there have been universal service obligation still exercised (including in my country) with government regulation. So facts and ideas or principles could be on different layers. Second, as we all know, "Internet" is consisted of different layers, or set of networks. We may have different understanding of what is Internet, or which layer of Internet - by devices, (open and common) protocols, access services, or end-services, which may lead different level of (non-)excludability. Just making a single, simple definition might lead to an ambiguous phrase that mean not much, I am afraid. Remembering the working definition of Internet Governance in the WGIG days. izumi 2013/4/19 Mawaki Chango > Corrections: "devices" instead of "artifacts" in the first sentence, and > in the last sentence, "global Internet *governance* agenda" plus slight > improvements. The previous option 2 then reads: > > We recognise the Internet to be not only a global network of networks > comprised of computing devices and processes, but also an emergent and > emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of > hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality enabling new kind of > social interactions and transactions, which is brought together by a common > set of design principles, and stirred by policies established through due > democratic processes. While the design principles and policies that > constitute its governance should ensure its stability, functionality and > security, they must also aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons > and global public good character of the Internet [which has made previous > innovations possible*]. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for > the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online > spaces, we urge that the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's > global commons and public good dimensions be at the forefront of global > Internet governance agenda going forward. > > [...*] to be added as you see appropriate. > > mc > > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> I think 'stirred' or 'shaped' is preferable to 'constrained by >> policies..., Adding a few changes I suggest the following version of the >> statement: >> >> We recognise the Internet to be not only a global network of networks >> comprised of computing artifacts and processes, but also an emergent and >> emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of >> hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality and a new kind of >> social spatiality, brought together by a common set of design principles, >> and stirred by policies established through due democratic processes. While >> the design principles and policies that constitute its governance should >> ensure its stability, functionality and security, they must also aim at >> preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good >> character of the Internet. In the face of the danger for the Internet >> experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary spaces, we urge that the >> global commons and global public good dimensions be at the forefront of >> global Internet agenda going forward. >> >> Or, paraphrasing 'social spatiality'...: >> >> We recognise the Internet to be not only a global network of networks >> comprised of computing artifacts and processes, but also an emergent and >> emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of >> hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality enabling new kind of >> social interactions and transactions, which is brought together by a common >> set of design principles, and stirred by policies established through due >> democratic processes. While the design principles and policies that >> constitute its governance should ensure its stability, functionality and >> security, they must also aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons >> and global public good character of the Internet. In the face of the danger >> for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary spaces, >> we urge that the global commons and global public good dimensions be at the >> forefront of global Internet agenda going forward. >> >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:34 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> On Wednesday 17 April 2013 11:57 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>> >>> So one thing is for the caucus to keep the discussion on as to where >>> we want to go wrt to the issue put forth by Parminder and Anriette, seeking >>> a conceptually robust basis to advocate for the public good-ness of the >>> internet, etc. In that regard, BTW, the recently proposed draft definition >>> of the internet in a related thread does not have to be presented as THE >>> definition of THE concept of Internet, but a conceptual frame to be >>> considered aside other possibly valid definitions. Time will tell how >>> pertinent that framing might be. Why shouldn't we be able to do that, >>> especially since we all seem to agree, at various degrees, that internet >>> includes public as well as private aspects/components (and, as Parminder >>> notes, we're witnessing the onslaught of some of its publicness which is of >>> importance in our view)? >>> >>> >>> After seeing many comments in this discussion, I think one way to go >>> forward is to speak about "preserving and enhancing Internet's commons and >>> public good nature" rather than declaring that the Internet is a commons >>> and a public goods. This approach circumvents some of the problems >>> expressed in this discussion, and makes it more aspirational (although >>> based on some clearly established facts) rather than precisely >>> definitional. Accordingly, I have modified the text as it last stood as >>> follows. >>> >>> Text as it stood: >>> >>> We recognise the Internet to be an emergent and emerging reality. As a >>> global network of networks, it is an its intricate combination of hardware, >>> software, protocols, human intentionality and a new kind of social >>> spatiality, brought together by a common set of design principles, and >>> constrained by policies established by due democratic processes. We >>> consider the Internet as a global commons and a global public good. The >>> design principles and policies that constitute its governance should, >>> therefore, flow from such recognition of the Internet as a commons and >>> public good. >>> >>> >>> Text as amended now: >>> >>> We recognise the Internet to be an emergent and emerging reality. As a >>> global network of networks, it is an its intricate combination of hardware, >>> software, protocols, human intentionality and a new kind of social >>> spatiality, brought together by a common set of design principles, and >>> constrained by policies established by due democratic processes. The >>> design principles and policies that constitute its governance should >>> principally aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global >>> public goods character of the Internet. >>> >>> >>> We may add, or not, the following, in order to make clearer the nature >>> of the problems that we are trying to address: >>> >>> There is an increased tendency towards diminishing the non-excludablity >>> of the Internet (through a new kind of 'enclosure movement'* >>> of the digital space) and also its non-rivalrousness (through excessive >>> commodification), which should be stemmed. >>> >>> (* 'enclosure movement' is kind of exactly opposite to, and sought to be >>> undone by, contemporary occupy movements) >>> >>> (text suggestion ends) >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> Related to that and more generally (and building on Jeanette's >>> pertinent observation), why do we seem to assume sometimes that government >>> has the monopoly of publicness (or we equate publicness advocates with >>> government advocates)? I would wish to have a clarification once for all on >>> this list about that. Who is public? Who is the/a guadian of the public >>> interest? Is it only the government? Obviously no, I would think. Isn't CS >>> also about the "public"? And yes, doesn't market sometimes, maybe even >>> often, improve the conditions and circumstances of the public? (But is >>> there any such thing as pure market, without any help of public concern? I >>> would argue no, just as many governments, eg, in the US and in Brazil, >>> routinely show that government may be willing to take private money and >>> undermine itself.) >>> >>> So (in line with the idea that private and public are the opposite ends >>> of a spectrum) the question is: Under what conditions, and maybe to what >>> extent, do actors other than governments contribute to the "public" (public >>> good, public interest, public welfare or wellbeing, public etc.)? Does >>> anyone know of a conceptual framework that may be pragmatically useful, and >>> may be set as a reference on the matter, in these debates of ours? That >>> would be really helpful to prevent locking ourselves or our debating >>> challengers into a sterile categorization government vs. business, public >>> vs. private. >>> >>> One last thing, in our quest of (or claim for) scientific truths, we >>> can look at history in different ways or at different levels: Yes, history >>> shows that there are many, maybe overwhelming, instances where governments >>> failed the public interest and private business delivered more good to the >>> public. Does that mean private business has always succeeded anytime, >>> everywhere? What about private business success vs. private business >>> failure? Or isn't private business failure possible? History may also show >>> that there are some conditions under which private business fails (and >>> fails gravely the community that has made them possible), and other >>> conditions under which they succeed both as business in the narrow sense >>> (re. bottom line) and as social actors. The truth in these social matters >>> is often temporal and contextual by several other dimensions. Indeed, the >>> fact that certain market liberalization has proved to be so successful in >>> the late 20th century in the US and in Western Europe, for example, may or >>> may not be totally unrelated with the fact that those markets were >>> previously protected during decades through monopoly or various >>> protectionism regimes. Even turning the observable (and indisputable) facts >>> of the day into a-temporal truths may sometimes be misleading. We will have >>> to be more nuanced on that spectrum spanning from private to public, >>> putting the facts in perspective wrt the nature of the actors and the >>> sociohistorical context. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Mawaki >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:29 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>> >>>> Apart from all the completely gratuitous ad hominem's -- "pursuing a >>>> political agenda", "honest debate", "you and others who so fervently blah >>>> blah…", "sane people blah blah" and the rather silly attempt to hijack a >>>> discussion by insisting that his position is "scientific" and thus anyone >>>> else's is presumably what… superstition? I see little interest or value in >>>> pursuing this discussion… That kind of stuff may fly in academic >>>> environments where grad students and junior colleagues have no choice but >>>> to listen and nod and go on but is really beyond the pale in the real world >>>> except those who get their policy discussions via Faux News etc.etc. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> M >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: >>>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller >>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:39 PM >>>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> >>>> *Subject:* RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >>>> >>>> >>>> And in that context I pointed to the discussion around these related >>>> issues by Inge Kaul and Joseph Steiglitz in the UNDP Human Development >>>> Index supported effort to re-awaken/redefine issues concerning "public >>>> goods" and take them out of the dessicated hands/minds of the professional >>>> classical (read ideologically Friedmanian) economists/public policy >>>> geeks/academics. And to recreate these notions as a tool to support those >>>> looking to protect the public interest from the onslaught of those who >>>> would destroy thist at the altar of universalized Hobbesian privatized >>>> interests. >>>> >>>> * * >>>> >>>> *[Milton L Mueller] Right. So from my perspective you are just flatly >>>> admitting that you are pursuing a political agenda and there is no real >>>> scientific basis for your claim. * >>>> >>>> * * >>>> >>>> *I’ve got an idea: why don’t we have an _honest_ fact-based debate >>>> about the role of the public sector in the Internet’s development and use? >>>> Instead of arbitrarily attaching a label “public good” to it and trying to >>>> derive pre-ordained policies from that, why don’t you just come out and >>>> say, “I think there should be more governmental control, subsidization and >>>> regulation of the Internet”? Make an honest case for how that will change >>>> things for the better?* >>>> >>>> * * >>>> >>>> *If we have such an honest debate, the first thing that you and others >>>> who believe so fervently in public sector-led development will have to face >>>> is that privatization and liberalization of telecommunications is what led >>>> to widespread diffusion of telecom infrastructure, and that the attendant >>>> deregulation and free trade in information and telecom services led to the >>>> rapid diffusion and development of the internet. And conversely, that 70 >>>> years of state-owned monopolies – telecoms as public good –stunted >>>> development and led to penetration rates of 10% of less and waiting periods >>>> of sometimes 6 years simply to get a telephone line. And it is still >>>> countries with the least liberalization who have the least-developed, least >>>> accessible internet sectors. * >>>> >>>> * * >>>> >>>> *I know that the unparalleled success of neoliberal policies must >>>> drive anti-neoliberals crazy. But, there it is: undeniable fact, played out >>>> in country after country, year after year, for 20 years. I am so sorry that >>>> reality did not conform to your beliefs. I really am. You have my deepest >>>> sympathy. Those “dessicated” market processes actually produced more public >>>> good, more public benefit, than your telecom socialism. Ouch. That must >>>> hurt. Deal with it. * >>>> >>>> * * >>>> >>>> *Typically, sane people adjust their beliefs to reality. They do not >>>> try to re-label reality so that it conforms to their ideology. * >>>> >>>> * * >>>> >>>> And to my mind if there is a suitable candidate for the type of >>>> redifinition in which they are/were engaged "the Internet" is surely one, >>>> and rather than defining the Internet in such a way as to obviate the >>>> possibility of it being understood as a global public good, perhaps better >>>> to understand how the definiition of the Internet should be recognized as >>>> one that at a minimum accommodates such notions. >>>> >>>> * * >>>> >>>> *[Milton L Mueller] An accurate, reality-grounded definition of the >>>> internet can easily accommodate notions of non-proprietary spaces, commons, >>>> common pool governance, as well as private, competitive market-driven >>>> spaces. The whole point, which I have tried to make in papers such as this >>>> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1828102 is that the >>>> Internet arrived at a very powerful, creative balance of private, >>>> competitive and open, public spaces. It wasn’t planned, it just happened, >>>> because it worked. * >>>> >>>> * * >>>> >>>> *Before you mess with that equation, I’d ask you to at least seek to >>>> understand it. Show some respect for economic and political science, >>>> actually READ Ostrom and don’t just chant the words “commons,” and “public >>>> good,” understand how economic structures and incentives affect what >>>> happens. Pay attention to the private, competitive, market side of the >>>> equation, show it some respect, apply labels and concepts critically, >>>> testing whether they actually conform to reality. * >>>> >>>> * * >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 19 00:39:27 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 10:09:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> On Friday 19 April 2013 06:44 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > I was late to join this very interesting debate, but like to share my > thoughts. > > First of all, "facts" or "reality" and "principle" or "definition" are > not the same thing in my view. > > The fact that telecom is liberalized and operated by private companies > does not always > mean that the definition of telecom is totally departed from public > good/service/ or common > and became private good period. They are rather relative things not > static and fixed, as Jeanette rightly points out. > > I think privatization and introducing fair market competition to > former monopoly would result in > better "public" service in a larger view was the principle idea behind > the liberalization of the telecom, and as indicated in some countries, > there have been universal service obligation still exercised > (including in my country) with government regulation. So facts and > ideas or principles could be on different layers. > > Second, as we all know, "Internet" is consisted of different layers, > or set of networks. > We may have different understanding of what is Internet, or which > layer of Internet - > by devices, (open and common) protocols, access services, or > end-services, which may > lead different level of (non-)excludability. > > > Just making a single, simple definition might lead to an ambiguous > phrase that mean not much, I am afraid. Remembering the working > definition of Internet Governance in the WGIG days. Izumi WGIG sought a definition of Internet governance to be able to make progress on what and how of IG... All such efforts are contextual and with different purposes. Here, with IGC, the effort is not to define the Internet or IG, but to set up a basic advocacy principle on which side of what is happening, or what could happen, to the Internet would we like to put their weight on..... It is civil society's vision of the directions that the Internet should evolve in, and alternatively, not go towards.... parminder > > > izumi > > > 2013/4/19 Mawaki Chango > > > Corrections: "devices" instead of "artifacts" in the first > sentence, and in the last sentence, "global Internet *governance* > agenda" plus slight improvements. The previous option 2 then reads: > > We recognise the Internet to be not only a global network of > networks comprised of computing devices and processes, but also an > emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an > intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, human > intentionality enabling new kind of social interactions and > transactions, which is brought together by a common set of design > principles, and stirred by policies established through due > democratic processes. While the design principles and policies > that constitute its governance should ensure its stability, > functionality and security, they must also aim at preserving and > enhancing the global commons and global public good character of > the Internet [which has made previous innovations possible*]. > Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet > experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces, > we urge that the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's > global commons and public good dimensions be at the forefront of > global Internet governance agenda going forward. > > [...*] to be added as you see appropriate. > > mc > > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Mawaki Chango > wrote: > > I think 'stirred' or 'shaped' is preferable to 'constrained by > policies..., Adding a few changes I suggest the following > version of the statement: > > We recognise the Internet to be not only a global network of > networks comprised of computing artifacts and processes, but > also an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, > it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, > protocols, human intentionality and a new kind of social > spatiality, brought together by a common set of design > principles, and stirred by policies established through due > democratic processes. While the design principles and policies > that constitute its governance should ensure its stability, > functionality and security, they must also aim at preserving > and enhancing the global commons and global public good > character of the Internet. In the face of the danger for the > Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary > spaces, we urge that the global commons and global public good > dimensions be at the forefront of global Internet agenda going > forward. > > Or, paraphrasing 'social spatiality'...: > > We recognise the Internet to be not only a global network of > networks comprised of computing artifacts and processes, but > also an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, > it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, > protocols, human intentionality enabling new kind of social > interactions and transactions, which is brought together by a > common set of design principles, and stirred by policies > established through due democratic processes. While the design > principles and policies that constitute its governance should > ensure its stability, functionality and security, they must > also aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and > global public good character of the Internet. In the face of > the danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed > or proprietary spaces, we urge that the global commons and > global public good dimensions be at the forefront of global > Internet agenda going forward. > > > Mawaki > > > > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:34 PM, parminder > > > wrote: > > > On Wednesday 17 April 2013 11:57 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> So one thing is for the caucus to keep the discussion on >> as to where we want to go wrt to the issue put forth by >> Parminder and Anriette, seeking a conceptually robust >> basis to advocate for the public good-ness of the >> internet, etc. In that regard, BTW, the recently proposed >> draft definition of the internet in a related thread does >> not have to be presented as THE definition of THE concept >> of Internet, but a conceptual frame to be considered >> aside other possibly valid definitions. Time will tell >> how pertinent that framing might be. Why shouldn't we be >> able to do that, especially since we all seem to agree, >> at various degrees, that internet includes public as well >> as private aspects/components (and, as Parminder notes, >> we're witnessing the onslaught of some of its publicness >> which is of importance in our view)? > > After seeing many comments in this discussion, I think one > way to go forward is to speak about "preserving and > enhancing Internet's commons and public good nature" > rather than declaring that the Internet is a commons and a > public goods. This approach circumvents some of the > problems expressed in this discussion, and makes it more > aspirational (although based on some clearly established > facts) rather than precisely definitional. Accordingly, I > have modified the text as it last stood as follows. > > Text as it stood: > > We recognise the Internet to be an emergent and > emerging reality. As a global network of networks, it > is an its intricate combination of hardware, software, > protocols, human intentionality and a new kind of > social spatiality, brought together by a common set of > design principles, and constrained by policies > established by due democratic processes. We consider > the Internet as a global commons and a global public > good. The design principles and policies that > constitute its governance should, therefore, flow from > such recognition of the Internet as a commons and > public good. > > > Text as amended now: > > We recognise the Internet to be an emergent and > emerging reality. As a global network of networks, it > is an its intricate combination of hardware, software, > protocols, human intentionality and a new kind of > social spatiality, brought together by a common set of > design principles, and constrained by policies > established by due democratic processes. The design > principles and policies that constitute its governance > should principally aim at preserving and enhancing the > global commons and global public goods character of > the Internet. > > > We may add, or not, the following, in order to make > clearer the nature of the problems that we are trying to > address: > > There is an increased tendency towards diminishing the > non-excludablity of the Internet (through a new kind of > 'enclosure movement > '* > of the digital space) and also its non-rivalrousness > (through excessive commodification), which should be stemmed. > > (* 'enclosure movement' is kind of exactly opposite to, > and sought to be undone by, contemporary occupy movements) > > (text suggestion ends) > > parminder > >> >> Related to that and more generally (and building on >> Jeanette's pertinent observation), why do we seem to >> assume sometimes that government has the monopoly of >> publicness (or we equate publicness advocates with >> government advocates)? I would wish to have a >> clarification once for all on this list about that. Who >> is public? Who is the/a guadian of the public interest? >> Is it only the government? Obviously no, I would think. >> Isn't CS also about the "public"? And yes, doesn't market >> sometimes, maybe even often, improve the conditions and >> circumstances of the public? (But is there any such thing >> as pure market, without any help of public concern? I >> would argue no, just as many governments, eg, in the US >> and in Brazil, routinely show that government may be >> willing to take private money and undermine itself.) >> >> So (in line with the idea that private and public are the >> opposite ends of a spectrum) the question is: Under what >> conditions, and maybe to what extent, do actors other >> than governments contribute to the "public" (public good, >> public interest, public welfare or wellbeing, public >> etc.)? Does anyone know of a conceptual framework that >> may be pragmatically useful, and may be set as a >> reference on the matter, in these debates of ours? That >> would be really helpful to prevent locking ourselves or >> our debating challengers into a sterile categorization >> government vs. business, public vs. private. >> >> One last thing, in our quest of (or claim for) scientific >> truths, we can look at history in different ways or at >> different levels: Yes, history shows that there are many, >> maybe overwhelming, instances where governments failed >> the public interest and private business delivered more >> good to the public. Does that mean private business has >> always succeeded anytime, everywhere? What about private >> business success vs. private business failure? Or isn't >> private business failure possible? History may also show >> that there are some conditions under which private >> business fails (and fails gravely the community that has >> made them possible), and other conditions under which >> they succeed both as business in the narrow sense (re. >> bottom line) and as social actors. The truth in these >> social matters is often temporal and contextual by >> several other dimensions. Indeed, the fact that certain >> market liberalization has proved to be so successful in >> the late 20th century in the US and in Western Europe, >> for example, may or may not be totally unrelated with the >> fact that those markets were previously protected during >> decades through monopoly or various protectionism >> regimes. Even turning the observable (and indisputable) >> facts of the day into a-temporal truths may sometimes be >> misleading. We will have to be more nuanced on that >> spectrum spanning from private to public, putting the >> facts in perspective wrt the nature of the actors and the >> sociohistorical context. >> >> Best, >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:29 PM, michael gurstein >> > wrote: >> >> Apart from all the completely gratuitous ad hominem's >> -- "pursuing a political agenda", "honest debate", >> "you and others who so fervently blah blah…", "sane >> people blah blah" and the rather silly attempt to >> hijack a discussion by insisting that his position is >> "scientific" and thus anyone else's is presumably >> what… superstition? I see little interest or value in >> pursuing this discussion… That kind of stuff may fly >> in academic environments where grad students and >> junior colleagues have no choice but to listen and >> nod and go on but is really beyond the pale in the >> real world except those who get their policy >> discussions via Faux News etc.etc. >> >> M >> >> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> ] *On >> Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller >> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:39 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> >> >> *Subject:* RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ >> public good >> >> *From:*michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >> >> And in that context I pointed to the discussion >> around these related issues by Inge Kaul and Joseph >> Steiglitz in the UNDP Human Development Index >> supported effort to re-awaken/redefine issues >> concerning "public goods" and take them out of the >> dessicated hands/minds of the professional classical >> (read ideologically Friedmanian) economists/public >> policy geeks/academics. And to recreate these notions >> as a tool to support those looking to protect the >> public interest from the onslaught of those who would >> destroy thist at the altar of universalized Hobbesian >> privatized interests. >> >> *//* >> >> */[Milton L Mueller] Right. So from my perspective >> you are just flatly admitting that you are pursuing a >> political agenda and there is no real scientific >> basis for your claim. /* >> >> *//* >> >> */I’ve got an idea: why don’t we have an _honest_ >> fact-based debate about the role of the public sector >> in the Internet’s development and use? Instead of >> arbitrarily attaching a label “public good” to it and >> trying to derive pre-ordained policies from that, why >> don’t you just come out and say, “I think there >> should be more governmental control, subsidization >> and regulation of the Internet”? Make an honest case >> for how that will change things for the better?/* >> >> *//* >> >> */If we have such an honest debate, the first thing >> that you and others who believe so fervently in >> public sector-led development will have to face is >> that privatization and liberalization of >> telecommunications is what led to widespread >> diffusion of telecom infrastructure, and that the >> attendant deregulation and free trade in information >> and telecom services led to the rapid diffusion and >> development of the internet. And conversely, that 70 >> years of state-owned monopolies – telecoms as public >> good –stunted development and led to penetration >> rates of 10% of less and waiting periods of sometimes >> 6 years simply to get a telephone line. And it is >> still countries with the least liberalization who >> have the least-developed, least accessible internet >> sectors. /* >> >> *//* >> >> */I know that the unparalleled success of neoliberal >> policies must drive anti-neoliberals crazy. But, >> there it is: undeniable fact, played out in country >> after country, year after year, for 20 years. I am so >> sorry that reality did not conform to your beliefs. I >> really am. You have my deepest sympathy. Those >> “dessicated” market processes actually produced more >> public good, more public benefit, than your telecom >> socialism. Ouch. That must hurt. Deal with it. /* >> >> *//* >> >> */Typically, sane people adjust their beliefs to >> reality. They do not try to re-label reality so that >> it conforms to their ideology. /* >> >> *//* >> >> And to my mind if there is a suitable candidate for >> the type of redifinition in which they are/were >> engaged "the Internet" is surely one, and rather than >> defining the Internet in such a way as to obviate the >> possibility of it being understood as a global public >> good, perhaps better to understand how the >> definiition of the Internet should be recognized as >> one that at a minimum accommodates such notions. >> >> *//* >> >> */[Milton L Mueller] An accurate, reality-grounded >> definition of the internet can easily accommodate >> notions of non-proprietary spaces, commons, common >> pool governance, as well as private, competitive >> market-driven spaces. The whole point, which I have >> tried to make in papers such as this >> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1828102 >> is that the Internet arrived at a very powerful, >> creative balance of private, competitive and open, >> public spaces. It wasn’t planned, it just happened, >> because it worked. /* >> >> *//* >> >> */Before you mess with that equation, I’d ask you to >> at least seek to understand it. Show some respect for >> economic and political science, actually READ Ostrom >> and don’t just chant the words “commons,” and “public >> good,” understand how economic structures and >> incentives affect what happens. Pay attention to the >> private, competitive, market side of the equation, >> show it some respect, apply labels and concepts >> critically, testing whether they actually conform to >> reality. /* >> >> *//* >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 19 00:44:35 2013 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:44:35 +0900 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, Thanks for the clarification of the intent. I am not against that at all, but there seemed to be a confusion, or different ideas about what we want to achieve, and my and your clarification, among others, seem to make this point clearer. Yes, I meant it was a "working definition" during WGIG, and similar to that, y/our effort of making the definition of the Internet as civil society is our kind of working definition. izumi 2013/4/19 parminder > > On Friday 19 April 2013 06:44 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > I was late to join this very interesting debate, but like to share my > thoughts. > > First of all, "facts" or "reality" and "principle" or "definition" are > not the same thing in my view. > > The fact that telecom is liberalized and operated by private companies > does not always > mean that the definition of telecom is totally departed from public > good/service/ or common > and became private good period. They are rather relative things not static > and fixed, as Jeanette rightly points out. > > I think privatization and introducing fair market competition to former > monopoly would result in > better "public" service in a larger view was the principle idea behind the > liberalization of the telecom, and as indicated in some countries, there > have been universal service obligation still exercised (including in my > country) with government regulation. So facts and ideas or principles could > be on different layers. > > Second, as we all know, "Internet" is consisted of different layers, or > set of networks. > We may have different understanding of what is Internet, or which layer of > Internet - > by devices, (open and common) protocols, access services, or end-services, > which may > lead different level of (non-)excludability. > > > Just making a single, simple definition might lead to an ambiguous > phrase that mean not much, I am afraid. Remembering the working definition > of Internet Governance in the WGIG days. > > > Izumi > > WGIG sought a definition of Internet governance to be able to make > progress on what and how of IG... All such efforts are contextual and with > different purposes. Here, with IGC, the effort is not to > define the Internet or IG, but to set up a basic advocacy principle on > which side of what is happening, or what could happen, to the Internet > would we like to put their weight on..... It is civil society's vision of > the directions that the Internet should evolve in, and alternatively, not > go towards.... > > parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > izumi > > > 2013/4/19 Mawaki Chango > >> Corrections: "devices" instead of "artifacts" in the first sentence, >> and in the last sentence, "global Internet *governance* agenda" plus slight >> improvements. The previous option 2 then reads: >> >> We recognise the Internet to be not only a global network of networks >> comprised of computing devices and processes, but also an emergent and >> emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of >> hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality enabling new kind of >> social interactions and transactions, which is brought together by a common >> set of design principles, and stirred by policies established through due >> democratic processes. While the design principles and policies that >> constitute its governance should ensure its stability, functionality and >> security, they must also aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons >> and global public good character of the Internet [which has made previous >> innovations possible*]. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for >> the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online >> spaces, we urge that the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's >> global commons and public good dimensions be at the forefront of global >> Internet governance agenda going forward. >> >> [...*] to be added as you see appropriate. >> >> mc >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> >>> I think 'stirred' or 'shaped' is preferable to 'constrained by >>> policies..., Adding a few changes I suggest the following version of the >>> statement: >>> >>> We recognise the Internet to be not only a global network of networks >>> comprised of computing artifacts and processes, but also an emergent and >>> emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of >>> hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality and a new kind of >>> social spatiality, brought together by a common set of design principles, >>> and stirred by policies established through due democratic processes. While >>> the design principles and policies that constitute its governance should >>> ensure its stability, functionality and security, they must also aim at >>> preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good >>> character of the Internet. In the face of the danger for the Internet >>> experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary spaces, we urge that the >>> global commons and global public good dimensions be at the forefront of >>> global Internet agenda going forward. >>> >>> Or, paraphrasing 'social spatiality'...: >>> >>> We recognise the Internet to be not only a global network of networks >>> comprised of computing artifacts and processes, but also an emergent and >>> emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of >>> hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality enabling new kind of >>> social interactions and transactions, which is brought together by a common >>> set of design principles, and stirred by policies established through due >>> democratic processes. While the design principles and policies that >>> constitute its governance should ensure its stability, functionality and >>> security, they must also aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons >>> and global public good character of the Internet. In the face of the danger >>> for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary spaces, >>> we urge that the global commons and global public good dimensions be at the >>> forefront of global Internet agenda going forward. >>> >>> >>> Mawaki >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:34 PM, parminder wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Wednesday 17 April 2013 11:57 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>>> >>>> So one thing is for the caucus to keep the discussion on as to where >>>> we want to go wrt to the issue put forth by Parminder and Anriette, seeking >>>> a conceptually robust basis to advocate for the public good-ness of the >>>> internet, etc. In that regard, BTW, the recently proposed draft definition >>>> of the internet in a related thread does not have to be presented as THE >>>> definition of THE concept of Internet, but a conceptual frame to be >>>> considered aside other possibly valid definitions. Time will tell how >>>> pertinent that framing might be. Why shouldn't we be able to do that, >>>> especially since we all seem to agree, at various degrees, that internet >>>> includes public as well as private aspects/components (and, as Parminder >>>> notes, we're witnessing the onslaught of some of its publicness which is of >>>> importance in our view)? >>>> >>>> >>>> After seeing many comments in this discussion, I think one way to go >>>> forward is to speak about "preserving and enhancing Internet's commons and >>>> public good nature" rather than declaring that the Internet is a commons >>>> and a public goods. This approach circumvents some of the problems >>>> expressed in this discussion, and makes it more aspirational (although >>>> based on some clearly established facts) rather than precisely >>>> definitional. Accordingly, I have modified the text as it last stood as >>>> follows. >>>> >>>> Text as it stood: >>>> >>>> We recognise the Internet to be an emergent and emerging reality. As a >>>> global network of networks, it is an its intricate combination of hardware, >>>> software, protocols, human intentionality and a new kind of social >>>> spatiality, brought together by a common set of design principles, and >>>> constrained by policies established by due democratic processes. We >>>> consider the Internet as a global commons and a global public good. The >>>> design principles and policies that constitute its governance should, >>>> therefore, flow from such recognition of the Internet as a commons and >>>> public good. >>>> >>>> >>>> Text as amended now: >>>> >>>> We recognise the Internet to be an emergent and emerging reality. As a >>>> global network of networks, it is an its intricate combination of hardware, >>>> software, protocols, human intentionality and a new kind of social >>>> spatiality, brought together by a common set of design principles, and >>>> constrained by policies established by due democratic processes. The >>>> design principles and policies that constitute its governance should >>>> principally aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global >>>> public goods character of the Internet. >>>> >>>> >>>> We may add, or not, the following, in order to make clearer the nature >>>> of the problems that we are trying to address: >>>> >>>> There is an increased tendency towards diminishing the non-excludablity >>>> of the Internet (through a new kind of 'enclosure movement'* >>>> of the digital space) and also its non-rivalrousness (through excessive >>>> commodification), which should be stemmed. >>>> >>>> (* 'enclosure movement' is kind of exactly opposite to, and sought to >>>> be undone by, contemporary occupy movements) >>>> >>>> (text suggestion ends) >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> Related to that and more generally (and building on Jeanette's >>>> pertinent observation), why do we seem to assume sometimes that government >>>> has the monopoly of publicness (or we equate publicness advocates with >>>> government advocates)? I would wish to have a clarification once for all on >>>> this list about that. Who is public? Who is the/a guadian of the public >>>> interest? Is it only the government? Obviously no, I would think. Isn't CS >>>> also about the "public"? And yes, doesn't market sometimes, maybe even >>>> often, improve the conditions and circumstances of the public? (But is >>>> there any such thing as pure market, without any help of public concern? I >>>> would argue no, just as many governments, eg, in the US and in Brazil, >>>> routinely show that government may be willing to take private money and >>>> undermine itself.) >>>> >>>> So (in line with the idea that private and public are the opposite ends >>>> of a spectrum) the question is: Under what conditions, and maybe to what >>>> extent, do actors other than governments contribute to the "public" (public >>>> good, public interest, public welfare or wellbeing, public etc.)? Does >>>> anyone know of a conceptual framework that may be pragmatically useful, and >>>> may be set as a reference on the matter, in these debates of ours? That >>>> would be really helpful to prevent locking ourselves or our debating >>>> challengers into a sterile categorization government vs. business, public >>>> vs. private. >>>> >>>> One last thing, in our quest of (or claim for) scientific truths, we >>>> can look at history in different ways or at different levels: Yes, history >>>> shows that there are many, maybe overwhelming, instances where governments >>>> failed the public interest and private business delivered more good to the >>>> public. Does that mean private business has always succeeded anytime, >>>> everywhere? What about private business success vs. private business >>>> failure? Or isn't private business failure possible? History may also show >>>> that there are some conditions under which private business fails (and >>>> fails gravely the community that has made them possible), and other >>>> conditions under which they succeed both as business in the narrow sense >>>> (re. bottom line) and as social actors. The truth in these social matters >>>> is often temporal and contextual by several other dimensions. Indeed, the >>>> fact that certain market liberalization has proved to be so successful in >>>> the late 20th century in the US and in Western Europe, for example, may or >>>> may not be totally unrelated with the fact that those markets were >>>> previously protected during decades through monopoly or various >>>> protectionism regimes. Even turning the observable (and indisputable) facts >>>> of the day into a-temporal truths may sometimes be misleading. We will have >>>> to be more nuanced on that spectrum spanning from private to public, >>>> putting the facts in perspective wrt the nature of the actors and the >>>> sociohistorical context. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Mawaki >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:29 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>>> >>>>> Apart from all the completely gratuitous ad hominem's -- "pursuing a >>>>> political agenda", "honest debate", "you and others who so fervently blah >>>>> blah…", "sane people blah blah" and the rather silly attempt to hijack a >>>>> discussion by insisting that his position is "scientific" and thus anyone >>>>> else's is presumably what… superstition? I see little interest or value in >>>>> pursuing this discussion… That kind of stuff may fly in academic >>>>> environments where grad students and junior colleagues have no choice but >>>>> to listen and nod and go on but is really beyond the pale in the real world >>>>> except those who get their policy discussions via Faux News etc.etc. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> M >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: >>>>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller >>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:39 PM >>>>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> >>>>> *Subject:* RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And in that context I pointed to the discussion around these related >>>>> issues by Inge Kaul and Joseph Steiglitz in the UNDP Human Development >>>>> Index supported effort to re-awaken/redefine issues concerning "public >>>>> goods" and take them out of the dessicated hands/minds of the professional >>>>> classical (read ideologically Friedmanian) economists/public policy >>>>> geeks/academics. And to recreate these notions as a tool to support those >>>>> looking to protect the public interest from the onslaught of those who >>>>> would destroy thist at the altar of universalized Hobbesian privatized >>>>> interests. >>>>> >>>>> * * >>>>> >>>>> *[Milton L Mueller] Right. So from my perspective you are just flatly >>>>> admitting that you are pursuing a political agenda and there is no real >>>>> scientific basis for your claim. * >>>>> >>>>> * * >>>>> >>>>> *I’ve got an idea: why don’t we have an _honest_ fact-based debate >>>>> about the role of the public sector in the Internet’s development and use? >>>>> Instead of arbitrarily attaching a label “public good” to it and trying to >>>>> derive pre-ordained policies from that, why don’t you just come out and >>>>> say, “I think there should be more governmental control, subsidization and >>>>> regulation of the Internet”? Make an honest case for how that will change >>>>> things for the better?* >>>>> >>>>> * * >>>>> >>>>> *If we have such an honest debate, the first thing that you and >>>>> others who believe so fervently in public sector-led development will have >>>>> to face is that privatization and liberalization of telecommunications is >>>>> what led to widespread diffusion of telecom infrastructure, and that the >>>>> attendant deregulation and free trade in information and telecom services >>>>> led to the rapid diffusion and development of the internet. And conversely, >>>>> that 70 years of state-owned monopolies – telecoms as public good –stunted >>>>> development and led to penetration rates of 10% of less and waiting periods >>>>> of sometimes 6 years simply to get a telephone line. And it is still >>>>> countries with the least liberalization who have the least-developed, least >>>>> accessible internet sectors. * >>>>> >>>>> * * >>>>> >>>>> *I know that the unparalleled success of neoliberal policies must >>>>> drive anti-neoliberals crazy. But, there it is: undeniable fact, played out >>>>> in country after country, year after year, for 20 years. I am so sorry that >>>>> reality did not conform to your beliefs. I really am. You have my deepest >>>>> sympathy. Those “dessicated” market processes actually produced more public >>>>> good, more public benefit, than your telecom socialism. Ouch. That must >>>>> hurt. Deal with it. * >>>>> >>>>> * * >>>>> >>>>> *Typically, sane people adjust their beliefs to reality. They do not >>>>> try to re-label reality so that it conforms to their ideology. * >>>>> >>>>> * * >>>>> >>>>> And to my mind if there is a suitable candidate for the type of >>>>> redifinition in which they are/were engaged "the Internet" is surely one, >>>>> and rather than defining the Internet in such a way as to obviate the >>>>> possibility of it being understood as a global public good, perhaps better >>>>> to understand how the definiition of the Internet should be recognized as >>>>> one that at a minimum accommodates such notions. >>>>> >>>>> * * >>>>> >>>>> *[Milton L Mueller] An accurate, reality-grounded definition of the >>>>> internet can easily accommodate notions of non-proprietary spaces, commons, >>>>> common pool governance, as well as private, competitive market-driven >>>>> spaces. The whole point, which I have tried to make in papers such as this >>>>> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1828102 is that >>>>> the Internet arrived at a very powerful, creative balance of private, >>>>> competitive and open, public spaces. It wasn’t planned, it just happened, >>>>> because it worked. * >>>>> >>>>> * * >>>>> >>>>> *Before you mess with that equation, I’d ask you to at least seek to >>>>> understand it. Show some respect for economic and political science, >>>>> actually READ Ostrom and don’t just chant the words “commons,” and “public >>>>> good,” understand how economic structures and incentives affect what >>>>> happens. Pay attention to the private, competitive, market side of the >>>>> equation, show it some respect, apply labels and concepts critically, >>>>> testing whether they actually conform to reality. * >>>>> >>>>> * * >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Apr 19 02:23:38 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 11:53:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> On Friday 19 April 2013 10:14 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Parminder, > Thanks for the clarification of the intent. I am not against that at > all, but there seemed to be a confusion, or different ideas about what > we want to achieve, and my and your clarification, among others, seem > to make this point clearer. Yes, Izumi, exactly so. Thanks... Meanwhile, for the attention of the co-coordinators, there seems to be good level of general approval for the IGC adopting some text on the commons and the public good nature of the Internet, but there is still some degree of lack of clarity abut what should be in such a text and what not (although Mawaki's current text looks very promising to me) Can we perhaps adopt some kind of a rough procedure - maybe an online vote - to get the sense of the house first on whether people at all want any kind of text on 'commons and public goods nature of the Internet' adopted or not.... and then when, and if, we know that such is the general will of the group, we can proceed to drafting the text, and then put it up for a consensus/ rough consensus call... or alternatively, we can directly put the Mawaki's text, with a few possible modifications in the next few days to the consensus/ rough consensus process. Just for your consideration parminder > > Yes, I meant it was a "working definition" during WGIG, and similar to > that, y/our effort of making the definition of the Internet as civil > society is our kind of working definition. > > izumi > > > > 2013/4/19 parminder > > > > On Friday 19 April 2013 06:44 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> I was late to join this very interesting debate, but like to >> share my thoughts. >> >> First of all, "facts" or "reality" and "principle" or >> "definition" are not the same thing in my view. >> >> The fact that telecom is liberalized and operated by private >> companies does not always >> mean that the definition of telecom is totally departed from >> public good/service/ or common >> and became private good period. They are rather relative things >> not static and fixed, as Jeanette rightly points out. >> >> I think privatization and introducing fair market competition to >> former monopoly would result in >> better "public" service in a larger view was the principle idea >> behind the liberalization of the telecom, and as indicated in >> some countries, there have been universal service obligation >> still exercised (including in my country) with government >> regulation. So facts and ideas or principles could be on >> different layers. >> >> Second, as we all know, "Internet" is consisted of different >> layers, or set of networks. >> We may have different understanding of what is Internet, or which >> layer of Internet - >> by devices, (open and common) protocols, access services, or >> end-services, which may >> lead different level of (non-)excludability. >> >> >> Just making a single, simple definition might lead to an >> ambiguous phrase that mean not much, I am afraid. Remembering >> the working definition of Internet Governance in the WGIG days. > > Izumi > > WGIG sought a definition of Internet governance to be able to make > progress on what and how of IG... All such efforts are contextual > and with different purposes. Here, with IGC, the effort is not to > define the Internet or IG, but to set up a basic advocacy > principle on which side of what is happening, or what could > happen, to the Internet would we like to put their weight on..... > It is civil society's vision of the directions that the Internet > should evolve in, and alternatively, not go towards.... > > parminder > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> izumi >> >> >> 2013/4/19 Mawaki Chango > > >> >> Corrections: "devices" instead of "artifacts" in the first >> sentence, and in the last sentence, "global Internet >> *governance* agenda" plus slight improvements. The previous >> option 2 then reads: >> >> We recognise the Internet to be not only a global network of >> networks comprised of computing devices and processes, but >> also an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, >> it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, >> protocols, human intentionality enabling new kind of social >> interactions and transactions, which is brought together by a >> common set of design principles, and stirred by policies >> established through due democratic processes. While the >> design principles and policies that constitute its governance >> should ensure its stability, functionality and security, they >> must also aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons >> and global public good character of the Internet [which has >> made previous innovations possible*]. Therefore, in the face >> of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be >> reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces, we urge that >> the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global >> commons and public good dimensions be at the forefront of >> global Internet governance agenda going forward. >> >> [...*] to be added as you see appropriate. >> >> mc >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Mawaki Chango >> > wrote: >> >> I think 'stirred' or 'shaped' is preferable to >> 'constrained by policies..., Adding a few changes I >> suggest the following version of the statement: >> >> We recognise the Internet to be not only a global network >> of networks comprised of computing artifacts and >> processes, but also an emergent and emerging social >> reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of >> hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality and a >> new kind of social spatiality, brought together by a >> common set of design principles, and stirred by policies >> established through due democratic processes. While the >> design principles and policies that constitute its >> governance should ensure its stability, functionality and >> security, they must also aim at preserving and enhancing >> the global commons and global public good character of >> the Internet. In the face of the danger for the Internet >> experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary spaces, >> we urge that the global commons and global public good >> dimensions be at the forefront of global Internet agenda >> going forward. >> >> Or, paraphrasing 'social spatiality'...: >> >> We recognise the Internet to be not only a global network >> of networks comprised of computing artifacts and >> processes, but also an emergent and emerging social >> reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of >> hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality >> enabling new kind of social interactions and >> transactions, which is brought together by a common set >> of design principles, and stirred by policies established >> through due democratic processes. While the design >> principles and policies that constitute its governance >> should ensure its stability, functionality and security, >> they must also aim at preserving and enhancing the global >> commons and global public good character of the Internet. >> In the face of the danger for the Internet experience to >> be reduced to closed or proprietary spaces, we urge that >> the global commons and global public good dimensions be >> at the forefront of global Internet agenda going forward. >> >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:34 PM, parminder >> > > wrote: >> >> >> On Wednesday 17 April 2013 11:57 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>> So one thing is for the caucus to keep the >>> discussion on as to where we want to go wrt to the >>> issue put forth by Parminder and Anriette, seeking a >>> conceptually robust basis to advocate for the public >>> good-ness of the internet, etc. In that regard, BTW, >>> the recently proposed draft definition of the >>> internet in a related thread does not have to be >>> presented as THE definition of THE concept of >>> Internet, but a conceptual frame to be considered >>> aside other possibly valid definitions. Time will >>> tell how pertinent that framing might be. Why >>> shouldn't we be able to do that, especially since we >>> all seem to agree, at various degrees, that internet >>> includes public as well as private >>> aspects/components (and, as Parminder notes, we're >>> witnessing the onslaught of some of its publicness >>> which is of importance in our view)? >> >> After seeing many comments in this discussion, I >> think one way to go forward is to speak about >> "preserving and enhancing Internet's commons and >> public good nature" rather than declaring that the >> Internet is a commons and a public goods. This >> approach circumvents some of the problems expressed >> in this discussion, and makes it more aspirational >> (although based on some clearly established facts) >> rather than precisely definitional. Accordingly, I >> have modified the text as it last stood as follows. >> >> Text as it stood: >> >> We recognise the Internet to be an emergent and >> emerging reality. As a global network of >> networks, it is an its intricate combination of >> hardware, software, protocols, human >> intentionality and a new kind of social >> spatiality, brought together by a common set of >> design principles, and constrained by policies >> established by due democratic processes. We >> consider the Internet as a global commons and a >> global public good. The design principles and >> policies that constitute its governance should, >> therefore, flow from such recognition of the >> Internet as a commons and public good. >> >> >> Text as amended now: >> >> We recognise the Internet to be an emergent and >> emerging reality. As a global network of >> networks, it is an its intricate combination of >> hardware, software, protocols, human >> intentionality and a new kind of social >> spatiality, brought together by a common set of >> design principles, and constrained by policies >> established by due democratic processes. The >> design principles and policies that constitute >> its governance should principally aim at >> preserving and enhancing the global commons and >> global public goods character of the Internet. >> >> >> We may add, or not, the following, in order to make >> clearer the nature of the problems that we are trying >> to address: >> >> There is an increased tendency towards diminishing >> the non-excludablity of the Internet (through a new >> kind of 'enclosure movement >> '* >> of the digital space) and also its non-rivalrousness >> (through excessive commodification), which should be >> stemmed. >> >> (* 'enclosure movement' is kind of exactly opposite >> to, and sought to be undone by, contemporary occupy >> movements) >> >> (text suggestion ends) >> >> parminder >> >>> >>> Related to that and more generally (and building on >>> Jeanette's pertinent observation), why do we seem to >>> assume sometimes that government has the monopoly of >>> publicness (or we equate publicness advocates with >>> government advocates)? I would wish to have a >>> clarification once for all on this list about that. >>> Who is public? Who is the/a guadian of the public >>> interest? Is it only the government? Obviously no, I >>> would think. Isn't CS also about the "public"? And >>> yes, doesn't market sometimes, maybe even often, >>> improve the conditions and circumstances of the >>> public? (But is there any such thing as pure market, >>> without any help of public concern? I would argue >>> no, just as many governments, eg, in the US and in >>> Brazil, routinely show that government may be >>> willing to take private money and undermine itself.) >>> >>> So (in line with the idea that private and public >>> are the opposite ends of a spectrum) the question >>> is: Under what conditions, and maybe to what extent, >>> do actors other than governments contribute to the >>> "public" (public good, public interest, public >>> welfare or wellbeing, public etc.)? Does anyone know >>> of a conceptual framework that may be pragmatically >>> useful, and may be set as a reference on the matter, >>> in these debates of ours? That would be really >>> helpful to prevent locking ourselves or our debating >>> challengers into a sterile categorization government >>> vs. business, public vs. private. >>> >>> One last thing, in our quest of (or claim for) >>> scientific truths, we can look at history in >>> different ways or at different levels: Yes, history >>> shows that there are many, maybe overwhelming, >>> instances where governments failed the public >>> interest and private business delivered more good to >>> the public. Does that mean private business has >>> always succeeded anytime, everywhere? What about >>> private business success vs. private business >>> failure? Or isn't private business failure possible? >>> History may also show that there are some conditions >>> under which private business fails (and fails >>> gravely the community that has made them possible), >>> and other conditions under which they succeed both >>> as business in the narrow sense (re. bottom line) >>> and as social actors. The truth in these social >>> matters is often temporal and contextual by several >>> other dimensions. Indeed, the fact that certain >>> market liberalization has proved to be so successful >>> in the late 20th century in the US and in Western >>> Europe, for example, may or may not be totally >>> unrelated with the fact that those markets were >>> previously protected during decades through monopoly >>> or various protectionism regimes. Even turning the >>> observable (and indisputable) facts of the day into >>> a-temporal truths may sometimes be misleading. We >>> will have to be more nuanced on that spectrum >>> spanning from private to public, putting the facts >>> in perspective wrt the nature of the actors and the >>> sociohistorical context. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Mawaki >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 3:29 PM, michael gurstein >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Apart from all the completely gratuitous ad >>> hominem's -- "pursuing a political agenda", >>> "honest debate", "you and others who so >>> fervently blah blah…", "sane people blah blah" >>> and the rather silly attempt to hijack a >>> discussion by insisting that his position is >>> "scientific" and thus anyone else's is >>> presumably what… superstition? I see little >>> interest or value in pursuing this discussion… >>> That kind of stuff may fly in academic >>> environments where grad students and junior >>> colleagues have no choice but to listen and nod >>> and go on but is really beyond the pale in the >>> real world except those who get their policy >>> discussions via Faux News etc.etc. >>> >>> M >>> >>> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>> ] >>> *On Behalf Of *Milton L Mueller >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 16, 2013 6:39 PM >>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> >>> >>> *Subject:* RE: [governance] Internet as a >>> commons/ public good >>> >>> *From:*michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >>> >>> And in that context I pointed to the discussion >>> around these related issues by Inge Kaul and >>> Joseph Steiglitz in the UNDP Human Development >>> Index supported effort to re-awaken/redefine >>> issues concerning "public goods" and take them >>> out of the dessicated hands/minds of the >>> professional classical (read ideologically >>> Friedmanian) economists/public policy >>> geeks/academics. And to recreate these notions >>> as a tool to support those looking to protect >>> the public interest from the onslaught of those >>> who would destroy thist at the altar of >>> universalized Hobbesian privatized interests. >>> >>> *//* >>> >>> */[Milton L Mueller] Right. So from my >>> perspective you are just flatly admitting that >>> you are pursuing a political agenda and there is >>> no real scientific basis for your claim. /* >>> >>> *//* >>> >>> */I’ve got an idea: why don’t we have an >>> _honest_ fact-based debate about the role of the >>> public sector in the Internet’s development and >>> use? Instead of arbitrarily attaching a label >>> “public good” to it and trying to derive >>> pre-ordained policies from that, why don’t you >>> just come out and say, “I think there should be >>> more governmental control, subsidization and >>> regulation of the Internet”? Make an honest case >>> for how that will change things for the better?/* >>> >>> *//* >>> >>> */If we have such an honest debate, the first >>> thing that you and others who believe so >>> fervently in public sector-led development will >>> have to face is that privatization and >>> liberalization of telecommunications is what led >>> to widespread diffusion of telecom >>> infrastructure, and that the attendant >>> deregulation and free trade in information and >>> telecom services led to the rapid diffusion and >>> development of the internet. And conversely, >>> that 70 years of state-owned monopolies – >>> telecoms as public good –stunted development and >>> led to penetration rates of 10% of less and >>> waiting periods of sometimes 6 years simply to >>> get a telephone line. And it is still countries >>> with the least liberalization who have the >>> least-developed, least accessible internet >>> sectors. /* >>> >>> *//* >>> >>> */I know that the unparalleled success of >>> neoliberal policies must drive anti-neoliberals >>> crazy. But, there it is: undeniable fact, played >>> out in country after country, year after year, >>> for 20 years. I am so sorry that reality did not >>> conform to your beliefs. I really am. You have >>> my deepest sympathy. Those “dessicated” market >>> processes actually produced more public good, >>> more public benefit, than your telecom >>> socialism. Ouch. That must hurt. Deal with it. /* >>> >>> *//* >>> >>> */Typically, sane people adjust their beliefs to >>> reality. They do not try to re-label reality so >>> that it conforms to their ideology. /* >>> >>> *//* >>> >>> And to my mind if there is a suitable candidate >>> for the type of redifinition in which they >>> are/were engaged "the Internet" is surely one, >>> and rather than defining the Internet in such a >>> way as to obviate the possibility of it being >>> understood as a global public good, perhaps >>> better to understand how the definiition of the >>> Internet should be recognized as one that at a >>> minimum accommodates such notions. >>> >>> *//* >>> >>> */[Milton L Mueller] An accurate, >>> reality-grounded definition of the internet can >>> easily accommodate notions of non-proprietary >>> spaces, commons, common pool governance, as well >>> as private, competitive market-driven spaces. >>> The whole point, which I have tried to make in >>> papers such as this >>> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1828102 >>> is that the Internet arrived at a very powerful, >>> creative balance of private, competitive and >>> open, public spaces. It wasn’t planned, it just >>> happened, because it worked. /* >>> >>> *//* >>> >>> */Before you mess with that equation, I’d ask >>> you to at least seek to understand it. Show some >>> respect for economic and political science, >>> actually READ Ostrom and don’t just chant the >>> words “commons,” and “public good,” understand >>> how economic structures and incentives affect >>> what happens. Pay attention to the private, >>> competitive, market side of the equation, show >>> it some respect, apply labels and concepts >>> critically, testing whether they actually >>> conform to reality. /* >>> >>> *//* >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the >>> list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's >>> charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: >>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Apr 19 04:17:40 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 11:17:40 +0300 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?IP-Watch=3A_ISOC=2C_IETF_Promote_Open_Stan?= =?UTF-8?Q?dardisation=2C_Consider_What=27s_=E2=80=9COpen=E2=80=9D=3F?= In-Reply-To: <201304190717.r3J7HI43020744@imu289.infomaniak.ch> References: <201304190717.r3J7HI43020744@imu289.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <5170FDA4.2010603@gmail.com> ******************************************************************************************************** April 19, 2013. ISOC, IETF Promote Open Standardisation, Consider What's “Open”? Open standardisation processes, their problems and their value for economy and society were the subject of discussion at a conference on 17 April at the German Ministry of Economy and Technology in Berlin. Link to the article: http://www.ip-watch.org/?p=28357&utm_source=post&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 19 12:22:51 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:22:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> Parminder wrote: > Can we perhaps adopt some kind of a rough procedure - maybe an online > vote - to get the sense of the house first on whether people at all > want any kind of text on 'commons and public goods nature of the > Internet' adopted or not.... > > and then when, and if, we know that such is the general will of the > group, we can proceed to drafting the text, and then put it up for a > consensus/ rough consensus call... or alternatively, we can directly > put the Mawaki's text, with a few possible modifications in the next > few days to the consensus/ rough consensus process. > > Just for your consideration I believe that there is precedent for using online polls as part of the implementation of the process of making a "rough consensus call". If (outside of the specific kind of context of IGC decision-making processes) the objective is to simply get some informal feedback, to learn something about how many IGC members feel strongly in one or the other way about a given question, anyone can use a survey tool like for example moreganize.com to conduct a poll. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Apr 19 14:27:30 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:27:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net>,<20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, I agree with use of Mawaki's text as a starting point. Lee PS: A few further suggested edits below. Or, these can wait til a procedure, as Parminder and Norbert have discussed, is established. We recognise the Internet to be a global network of networks comprised of computing devices and processes, policies established through due democratic processes. ensure its stability, functionality and security, aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet [which has made previous innovations possible*]. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces, we urge that the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions be at the forefront of global Internet governance agenda going forward. ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Norbert Bollow [nb at bollow.ch] Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 12:22 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good Parminder wrote: > Can we perhaps adopt some kind of a rough procedure - maybe an online > vote - to get the sense of the house first on whether people at all > want any kind of text on 'commons and public goods nature of the > Internet' adopted or not.... > > and then when, and if, we know that such is the general will of the > group, we can proceed to drafting the text, and then put it up for a > consensus/ rough consensus call... or alternatively, we can directly > put the Mawaki's text, with a few possible modifications in the next > few days to the consensus/ rough consensus process. > > Just for your consideration I believe that there is precedent for using online polls as part of the implementation of the process of making a "rough consensus call". If (outside of the specific kind of context of IGC decision-making processes) the objective is to simply get some informal feedback, to learn something about how many IGC members feel strongly in one or the other way about a given question, anyone can use a survey tool like for example moreganize.com to conduct a poll. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Apr 19 15:09:50 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 12:09:50 -0700 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net>,<20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> Colleagues, I've done a quick edit for style/grammar of Lee's edited version. My minor edits of Lee's version are below and below that is a clean version of my edited version. (Looks good!) We recognise the Internet to be a global network of networks comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality enabling new kind of social interactions and transactions, brought together by a common set of design principles, and policies established through due democratic processes. The design principles and policies that constitute its governance ensure its stability, functionality and security, and aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces, we urge that the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions be at the forefront of global Internet governance agenda going forward. My CLEAR version! We recognise the Internet to be a global network of networks comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, and human intentionality enabling new kinds of social interactions and transactions, brought together by a common set of design principles, and policies established through due democratic processes. The design principles and policies that constitute its governance ensure its stability, functionality and security, and aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet the combination of which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces, we urge that the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions be at the forefront of global Internet governance agenda going forward. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 11:28 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow; parminder Subject: RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good Hi, I agree with use of Mawaki's text as a starting point. Lee PS: A few further suggested edits below. Or, these can wait til a procedure, as Parminder and Norbert have discussed, is established. We recognise the Internet to be a global network of networks comprised of computing devices and processes, policies established through due democratic processes. ensure its stability, functionality and security, aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet [which has made previous innovations possible*]. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces, we urge that the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions be at the forefront of global Internet governance agenda going forward. ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Norbert Bollow [nb at bollow.ch] Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 12:22 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good Parminder < parminder at itforchange.net> wrote: > Can we perhaps adopt some kind of a rough procedure - maybe an online > vote - to get the sense of the house first on whether people at all > want any kind of text on 'commons and public goods nature of the > Internet' adopted or not.... > > and then when, and if, we know that such is the general will of the > group, we can proceed to drafting the text, and then put it up for a > consensus/ rough consensus call... or alternatively, we can directly > put the Mawaki's text, with a few possible modifications in the next > few days to the consensus/ rough consensus process. > > Just for your consideration I believe that there is precedent for using online polls as part of the implementation of the process of making a "rough consensus call". If (outside of the specific kind of context of IGC decision-making processes) the objective is to simply get some informal feedback, to learn something about how many IGC members feel strongly in one or the other way about a given question, anyone can use a survey tool like for example moreganize.com to conduct a poll. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Fri Apr 19 15:24:08 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:24:08 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net>,<20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: I've been watching this discussion develop with interest. I've been quiet so far because I wanted to see where it was going before speaking up. I think the attempt to define the Internet as anything more than a communications medium will be too limiting at some future date. I would prefer something very simple like: "The Internet is a communications medium that allows communications between endpoints with all endpoints being equal in their potential to communicate with all other endpoints." This does not limit any future changes to the way the communications happen or what is communicated. Trying to include content and purpose may at some point limit innovation. Defining the Internet this way doesn't exclude us from discussing content, commons vs. public good etc. It just ensures that the medium itself is separate from what the medium is used for. Both will change over time. If they are linked by definition it may stifle innovation. 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 Fri Apr 19 16:06:44 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:06:44 -0700 Subject: [governance] Wikipedia: Enhanced Cooperation Message-ID: <116001ce3d39$743fede0$5cbfc9a0$@gmail.com> I'm not sure that this has been discussed... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_cooperation Comments? 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Apr 19 16:22:40 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 06:22:40 +1000 Subject: [governance] Workshop proposal - MS selection processes: accountability and transparency" Message-ID: <89F8080CAB004A8395F27A7922A477F9@Toshiba> Just to let the list know that our workshop proposal “MS selection processes: accountability and transparency” has gone forward and a full proposal will need to be lodged by May 7. I have posted full details to the dedicated list for this workshop and suggest that is the best place for any discussions on this. WS1IGF2013 at lists.igcaucus.orgmailto:WS1IGF2013 at lists.igcaucus.orgWS1IGF2013@lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Apr 19 17:45:50 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 21:45:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Kerry, My understanding is that we have given up defining the Internet per se (so we're not going to present this as our definition of the Internet). Therefore the focus is now on the purpose of this endeavor (which again is not to define the Internet and which I believe has abundantly been made clear by Parminder) while avoiding any factual inaccuracy --and maybe those two things should constitute good enough measure of our acceptance. To that end, it's meaningful that the statement starts with "We recognise..." and not "Internet is..." Were we on the same page and am I just laboring the point? Mawaki On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: > I've been watching this discussion develop with interest. I've been quiet > so far because I wanted to see where it was going before speaking up. I > think the attempt to define the Internet as anything more than a > communications medium will be too limiting at some future date. I would > prefer something very simple like: > > "The Internet is a communications medium that allows communications > between endpoints with all endpoints being equal in their potential to > communicate with all other endpoints." > > This does not limit any future changes to the way the communications > happen or what is communicated. Trying to include content and purpose may > at some point limit innovation. Defining the Internet this way doesn't > exclude us from discussing content, commons vs. public good etc. It just > ensures that the medium itself is separate from what the medium is used > for. Both will change over time. If they are linked by definition it may > stifle innovation. > > Kerry Brown > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Apr 19 18:19:25 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 01:19:25 +0300 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5171C2ED.90604@gmail.com> Mawaki et al I think we have to operate at multiple levels of abstraction, and let the matter have some of these dynamics particularly in the exploratory stage; the broader social 'definition' (conception) vs the specific 'definition' (conception). From my perspective, not to speak for KB, I think there is some value in having functional understandings/approaches/worldviews/definitions for 'the Internet'. Issues are technical. These can define the realm of possibility - no VOIP layer then that feature is not possible or rather constrained by the technical. So there IS a set of technical elements as the KB definition poses, which forms one small bubble. The is also the social constructivist type (poor term, but it suffices) approaches that sees a "regulatory" (formal, informal rules of the 'game', or institutional forms) which is another bubble. The difficulty comes for both bubbles at the fringes/edges and also where they overlap (overlap in the sense that Lessig means, where the technical is regulatory - single root under ICANN eg; bearing in mind the regulatory can also be technical - legal rights to go in and fix or debug elements of the hardware). Bubbles at the mid level of abstraction. Having a clear approach on what is included in the KB type proposal, I think it would delineate more clearly what is understood/felt to be in the technical realm (with its own engineering particularities imposing limits on what is possible. Reliance on this would make clear differences in diagnosis and prescription. The value of the KB proposal is that it sets feasible technical realms of possibility. With this clear we can all benefit from this type of clarity, recognising as I do the Lessig notion of the overlap. There are technical elements that have governance implications that point to specific advantages (from mid-level of abstraction analysis) regarding small specialised competent country registries, the subsidiarity and decentralisation and integration that goes with it, that are functional to the technical itself. So, WHERE RELEVANT, the one 'definition' presuppose the other. It would go a long way to curing the interminable debates on what we mean (and we oft mean different things, and come from diverse worldviews) by Internet, the specific technical (although not completely limited to that, if where relevant we recognise the sets/bubbles) of the overall conception of the internet governance space (including multiple stakeholders) holistically. Just in terms of scope, from the WSIS documents, we have a huge menu of issues, and it simply means we DO need to operate at multiple levels of abstraction. My suggestion is that both 'definitions' be worked in parallel with some sort of framing so that discussion and process wise we are more precise and clear. Thoughts? Riaz On 2013/04/20 12:45 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Kerry, > > My understanding is that we have given up defining the Internet per se > (so we're not going to present this as our definition of the > Internet). Therefore the focus is now on the purpose of this endeavor > (which again is not to define the Internet and which I believe has > abundantly been made clear by Parminder) while avoiding any factual > inaccuracy --and maybe those two things should constitute good enough > measure of our acceptance. To that end, it's meaningful that the > statement starts with "We recognise..." and not "Internet is..." > > Were we on the same page and am I just laboring the point? > > Mawaki > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Kerry Brown > wrote: > > I've been watching this discussion develop with interest. I've > been quiet so far because I wanted to see where it was going > before speaking up. I think the attempt to define the Internet as > anything more than a communications medium will be too limiting at > some future date. I would prefer something very simple like: > > "The Internet is a communications medium that allows > communications between endpoints with all endpoints being equal in > their potential to communicate with all other endpoints." > > This does not limit any future changes to the way the > communications happen or what is communicated. Trying to include > content and purpose may at some point limit innovation. Defining > the Internet this way doesn't exclude us from discussing content, > commons vs. public good etc. It just ensures that the medium > itself is separate from what the medium is used for. Both will > change over time. If they are linked by definition it may stifle > innovation. > > Kerry Brown > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Apr 19 18:28:56 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 22:28:56 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <5171C2ED.90604@gmail.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> ,<5171C2ED.90604@gmail.com> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5D6C@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, Got to run so just quick comments: Re: "The Internet is a communications medium that allows communications between endpoints with all endpoints being equal in their potential to communicate with all other endpoints." Comment: I understand merit of embedding end to end principle into definition; but am not sure it buys us that much at soundbite level over basic technical terminology of a 'network of networks.' 2nd comment: for the more expansive tightened version, maybe the word should be added after Internet, in 2nd sentence. To make clear that it is not just the present net of nets being spoken of. And of course new species and mutations are implied to be expected, in that phraseology, hence no limiting future innovation. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Riaz K Tayob [riaz.tayob at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 6:19 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good Mawaki et al I think we have to operate at multiple levels of abstraction, and let the matter have some of these dynamics particularly in the exploratory stage; the broader social 'definition' (conception) vs the specific 'definition' (conception). >From my perspective, not to speak for KB, I think there is some value in having functional understandings/approaches/worldviews/definitions for 'the Internet'. Issues are technical. These can define the realm of possibility - no VOIP layer then that feature is not possible or rather constrained by the technical. So there IS a set of technical elements as the KB definition poses, which forms one small bubble. The is also the social constructivist type (poor term, but it suffices) approaches that sees a "regulatory" (formal, informal rules of the 'game', or institutional forms) which is another bubble. The difficulty comes for both bubbles at the fringes/edges and also where they overlap (overlap in the sense that Lessig means, where the technical is regulatory - single root under ICANN eg; bearing in mind the regulatory can also be technical - legal rights to go in and fix or debug elements of the hardware). Bubbles at the mid level of abstraction. Having a clear approach on what is included in the KB type proposal, I think it would delineate more clearly what is understood/felt to be in the technical realm (with its own engineering particularities imposing limits on what is possible. Reliance on this would make clear differences in diagnosis and prescription. The value of the KB proposal is that it sets feasible technical realms of possibility. With this clear we can all benefit from this type of clarity, recognising as I do the Lessig notion of the overlap. There are technical elements that have governance implications that point to specific advantages (from mid-level of abstraction analysis) regarding small specialised competent country registries, the subsidiarity and decentralisation and integration that goes with it, that are functional to the technical itself. So, WHERE RELEVANT, the one 'definition' presuppose the other. It would go a long way to curing the interminable debates on what we mean (and we oft mean different things, and come from diverse worldviews) by Internet, the specific technical (although not completely limited to that, if where relevant we recognise the sets/bubbles) of the overall conception of the internet governance space (including multiple stakeholders) holistically. Just in terms of scope, from the WSIS documents, we have a huge menu of issues, and it simply means we DO need to operate at multiple levels of abstraction. My suggestion is that both 'definitions' be worked in parallel with some sort of framing so that discussion and process wise we are more precise and clear. Thoughts? Riaz On 2013/04/20 12:45 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: Kerry, My understanding is that we have given up defining the Internet per se (so we're not going to present this as our definition of the Internet). Therefore the focus is now on the purpose of this endeavor (which again is not to define the Internet and which I believe has abundantly been made clear by Parminder) while avoiding any factual inaccuracy --and maybe those two things should constitute good enough measure of our acceptance. To that end, it's meaningful that the statement starts with "We recognise..." and not "Internet is..." Were we on the same page and am I just laboring the point? Mawaki On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Kerry Brown > wrote: I've been watching this discussion develop with interest. I've been quiet so far because I wanted to see where it was going before speaking up. I think the attempt to define the Internet as anything more than a communications medium will be too limiting at some future date. I would prefer something very simple like: "The Internet is a communications medium that allows communications between endpoints with all endpoints being equal in their potential to communicate with all other endpoints." This does not limit any future changes to the way the communications happen or what is communicated. Trying to include content and purpose may at some point limit innovation. Defining the Internet this way doesn't exclude us from discussing content, commons vs. public good etc. It just ensures that the medium itself is separate from what the medium is used for. Both will change over time. If they are linked by definition it may stifle innovation. Kerry Brown ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Apr 20 04:17:50 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 11:17:50 +0300 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5D6C@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> ,<5171C2ED.90604@gmail.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5D6C@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <51724F2E.2080001@gmail.com> Lee I think you suggestion of ecosystem is pretty useful for a more expansive definition. But I must admit I do prefer working at different levels of abstraction as it would represent the fractions/parts of the major differences amongst views. The precision provided by KBs definition is very important, and should not be diluted in any process - it is the /nuts and bolts'/ hard stuff of the net. However, I take a different view of the dangers alluded to by KB regarding an expansive definition, that it would limit innovation in the future. First, I do not think much can be anticipated about the dynamic phenomenon (aside from corporate enclosure), and hence these are at best functional definitions. Second, the danger is probably the other way around. A specific and narrow definition may achieve precision at the price of relevance. It is plain that there are two major different worldviews that shape our discussions (with nuance within each, etc). I do not think that we should try to harmonise what is evidently something that both strong and solid reasons justify either side. When we create two streams, on one level it is about splitting civil society or the caucus. On another level it is about civil society that has differences, an which through an iterative or discursive process brings this to bear on specific and particular policy issues. Now this definition does not cover all aspects of differences, but it is one we have had 'bun fights' over for the longest time, it is recurrent, divisive and was not conducive to the wonderful tenor we now seem to be developing on this list. If we differ at the level of first principles (from which we derive different specific policy proposals) then it will help us later on. Harmony should not be confused with managing diversity, it is the goal or end point of civil society. As such, I do hope we can maintain the differences so that we are clear on where we differ and do not have to have unnecessary arguments - first principle views are hard to reconcile and become almost intractable on specific policy issues. And these paragraphs are preamble type aspirations, functional 'definitions' and have great room for discretion on both sides (they do need further work) in particular concrete policy debates. I would strongly suggest that we ride this wave of 'diversity management' in an open way. Since no one is effectively excluded, and as it typical in these types of documents, because of their softer nature, I do hope we can sharpen some of the fractures (which are more method/focus than substance) so that each side can deepen (which is what consensus building or confrontational approaches weaken) the analysis. Riaz On 2013/04/20 01:28 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > Got to run so just quick comments: > > Re: > "The Internet is a communications medium that allows communications > between endpoints with all endpoints being equal in their potential to > communicate with all other endpoints." > > Comment: I understand merit of embedding end to end principle into > definition; but am not sure it buys us that much at soundbite level > over basic technical terminology of a 'network of networks.' > > 2nd comment: for the more expansive tightened version, maybe the word > should be added after Internet, in 2nd sentence. To make > clear that it is not just the present net of nets being spoken of. > > And of course new species and mutations are implied to be expected, in > that phraseology, hence no limiting future innovation. > > Lee > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Riaz K Tayob > [riaz.tayob at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, April 19, 2013 6:19 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good > > Mawaki et al > > I think we have to operate at multiple levels of abstraction, and let > the matter have some of these dynamics particularly in the exploratory > stage; the broader social 'definition' (conception) vs the specific > 'definition' (conception). > > >From my perspective, not to speak for KB, I think there is some value > in having functional understandings/approaches/worldviews/definitions > for 'the Internet'. Issues are technical. These can define the realm > of possibility - no VOIP layer then that feature is not possible or > rather constrained by the technical. So there IS a set of technical > elements as the KB definition poses, which forms one small bubble. The > is also the social constructivist type (poor term, but it suffices) > approaches that sees a "regulatory" (formal, informal rules of the > 'game', or institutional forms) which is another bubble. The > difficulty comes for both bubbles at the fringes/edges and also where > they overlap (overlap in the sense that Lessig means, where the > technical is regulatory - single root under ICANN eg; bearing in mind > the regulatory can also be technical - legal rights to go in and fix > or debug elements of the hardware). Bubbles at the mid level of > abstraction. > > Having a clear approach on what is included in the KB type proposal, I > think it would delineate more clearly what is understood/felt to be in > the technical realm (with its own engineering particularities imposing > limits on what is possible. Reliance on this would make clear > differences in diagnosis and prescription. The value of the KB > proposal is that it sets feasible technical realms of possibility. > With this clear we can all benefit from this type of clarity, > recognising as I do the Lessig notion of the overlap. There are > technical elements that have governance implications that point to > specific advantages (from mid-level of abstraction analysis) regarding > small specialised competent country registries, the subsidiarity and > decentralisation and integration that goes with it, that are > functional to the technical itself. > > So, WHERE RELEVANT, the one 'definition' presuppose the other. It > would go a long way to curing the interminable debates on what we mean > (and we oft mean different things, and come from diverse worldviews) > by Internet, the specific technical (although not completely limited > to that, if where relevant we recognise the sets/bubbles) of the > overall conception of the internet governance space (including > multiple stakeholders) holistically. Just in terms of scope, from the > WSIS documents, we have a huge menu of issues, and it simply means we > DO need to operate at multiple levels of abstraction. > > My suggestion is that both 'definitions' be worked in parallel with > some sort of framing so that discussion and process wise we are more > precise and clear. > > Thoughts? > > Riaz > > > > On 2013/04/20 12:45 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> Kerry, >> >> My understanding is that we have given up defining the Internet per >> se (so we're not going to present this as our definition of the >> Internet). Therefore the focus is now on the purpose of this endeavor >> (which again is not to define the Internet and which I believe has >> abundantly been made clear by Parminder) while avoiding any factual >> inaccuracy --and maybe those two things should constitute good enough >> measure of our acceptance. To that end, it's meaningful that the >> statement starts with "We recognise..." and not "Internet is..." >> >> Were we on the same page and am I just laboring the point? >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Kerry Brown > > wrote: >> >> I've been watching this discussion develop with interest. I've >> been quiet so far because I wanted to see where it was going >> before speaking up. I think the attempt to define the Internet as >> anything more than a communications medium will be too limiting >> at some future date. I would prefer something very simple like: >> >> "The Internet is a communications medium that allows >> communications between endpoints with all endpoints being equal >> in their potential to communicate with all other endpoints." >> >> This does not limit any future changes to the way the >> communications happen or what is communicated. Trying to include >> content and purpose may at some point limit innovation. Defining >> the Internet this way doesn't exclude us from discussing content, >> commons vs. public good etc. It just ensures that the medium >> itself is separate from what the medium is used for. Both will >> change over time. If they are linked by definition it may stifle >> innovation. >> >> Kerry Brown >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 20 05:21:53 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:21:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] Wikipedia: Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <116001ce3d39$743fede0$5cbfc9a0$@gmail.com> References: <116001ce3d39$743fede0$5cbfc9a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <116001ce3d39$743fede0$5cbfc9a0$@gmail.com>, at 13:06:44 on Fri, 19 Apr 2013, michael gurstein writes >I'm not sure that this has been discussed... > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_cooperation > >Comments? On one hand I would say that Wikipedia is a classic example of a bottom-up multistakeholder model, so if you don't agree with what it says then change it. On the other hand, the process described is nothing to do with WSIS, it's simply a different EU process with the same name. The way Wikipedia usually deals with such things is with a 'disambiguation' page. (It's not uncommon for the EU to throw up naming ambiguities, a lot of people have a hard time telling the difference between the Council of Europe, and the Council of the European Union, let alone the European Council, which is a different thing in Brussels). -- 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 Sat Apr 20 08:16:42 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 14:16:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130420141642.16370658@quill.bollow.ch> Kerry Brown wrote: > I've been watching this discussion develop with interest. I've been > quiet so far because I wanted to see where it was going before > speaking up. I think the attempt to define the Internet as anything > more than a communications medium will be too limiting at some future > date. I would prefer something very simple like: > > "The Internet is a communications medium that allows communications > between endpoints with all endpoints being equal in their potential > to communicate with all other endpoints." One may nitpick about details like measures that force consumer PCs to send mail via their ISP's mailserver rather than running an MTA that will connect directly to port 25 on the recipient's mailserver, but apart that kind of thing, this IMO describes one of the meanings of the term "Internet" quite well. However the term "Internet" can also refer to this communications medium together with its current patterns of usage, etc., including the entirety of what has been called the "ephiphenomenon". I think that we need a working definition of that meaning of the term "Internet" also -- one that corresponds to the WGIG definition of "Internet governance". > This does not limit any future changes to the way the communications > happen or what is communicated. Trying to include content and purpose > may at some point limit innovation. Defining the Internet this way > doesn't exclude us from discussing content, commons vs. public good > etc. It just ensures that the medium itself is separate from what the > medium is used for. Both will change over time. If they are linked by > definition it may stifle innovation. I would suggest that the lack of a useful definition for the conception of the Internet that encompasses all relevant aspects of the commons/ public good perspective on the Internet is a problem that stifles innovation in public policy oriented conceptions right now. Greetings, Norbert ** Acronyms used: ISP = Internet Service Provider MTA = Message Transport Agent IMO = In My Opinion WGIG= Working Group on Internet Governance -- Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Sat Apr 20 10:24:34 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:24:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] Shared Decision Making Procedures In-Reply-To: References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> <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: <40A27D5C-831B-4358-BB4A-E59267678E0E@istaff.org> On Apr 1, 2013, at 10:11 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > 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...) Bertrand - Apologies for a very belated reply, but I've been thinking about the above text and wondering if there is a fundamental difference between "dealing in a distributed manner with the governance OF the Internet" and "a venue for issues related to the governance ON the Internet", and if, as a result, we in the community are making a significant mistake in referring to both on occasions as "Internet Governance"... Thoughts? /John Disclaimers: My views alone. The term "Internet" in the above refers to the unique global communications capability based upon the "Internet Protocol." (both versions :-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 20 10:59:30 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 15:59:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <20130420141642.16370658@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <20130420141642.16370658@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message <20130420141642.16370658 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 14:16:42 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, Norbert Bollow writes >> "The Internet is a communications medium that allows communications >> between endpoints with all endpoints being equal in their potential >> to communicate with all other endpoints." > >One may nitpick about details like measures that force consumer PCs to >send mail via their ISP's mailserver rather than running an MTA that >will connect directly to port 25 on the recipient's mailserver, but >apart that kind of thing, this IMO describes one of the meanings of the >term "Internet" quite well. I have at least one [mobile] ISP in the UK that will only let me send SMTP[1] email on port 587, for example. Should we be concerned at my inequality when it comes to sending SMTP email *at all* on port 25 (through that ISP)? http://tinyurl.com/three-port25 [1] I can, of course, send webmail via port 80. -- 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 Sat Apr 20 11:27:22 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 15:27:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <20130420141642.16370658@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <20130420141642.16370658@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Defining the Internet rather narrowly as the medium doesn't preclude governing how the medium is used. Defining the medium in an abstract way allows us to discuss the governance of how the medium is used without being constrained by what the medium currently is. We can make policy decisions about things like commons and public good that are not limited because they reference a concrete thing that may change and invalidate the policy. 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-20-13 5:17 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good > > Kerry Brown wrote: > > > I've been watching this discussion develop with interest. I've been > > quiet so far because I wanted to see where it was going before > > speaking up. I think the attempt to define the Internet as anything > > more than a communications medium will be too limiting at some future > > date. I would prefer something very simple like: > > > > "The Internet is a communications medium that allows communications > > between endpoints with all endpoints being equal in their potential to > > communicate with all other endpoints." > > One may nitpick about details like measures that force consumer PCs to send > mail via their ISP's mailserver rather than running an MTA that will connect > directly to port 25 on the recipient's mailserver, but apart that kind of thing, > this IMO describes one of the meanings of the term "Internet" quite well. > > However the term "Internet" can also refer to this communications medium > together with its current patterns of usage, etc., including the entirety of > what has been called the "ephiphenomenon". I think that we need a working > definition of that meaning of the term "Internet" also -- one that > corresponds to the WGIG definition of "Internet governance". > > > This does not limit any future changes to the way the communications > > happen or what is communicated. Trying to include content and purpose > > may at some point limit innovation. Defining the Internet this way > > doesn't exclude us from discussing content, commons vs. public good > > etc. It just ensures that the medium itself is separate from what the > > medium is used for. Both will change over time. If they are linked by > > definition it may stifle innovation. > > I would suggest that the lack of a useful definition for the conception of the > Internet that encompasses all relevant aspects of the commons/ public good > perspective on the Internet is a problem that stifles innovation in public > policy oriented conceptions right now. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ** Acronyms used: > ISP = Internet Service Provider > MTA = Message Transport Agent > IMO = In My Opinion > WGIG= Working Group on Internet Governance > > -- > Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. > Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Apr 20 11:41:25 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:11:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Shared Decision Making Procedures In-Reply-To: <40A27D5C-831B-4358-BB4A-E59267678E0E@istaff.org> References: <5151CBF5.5040607@apc.org> <5151D8CB.1050302@ITforChange.net> <6D7A739E-FAED-4923-B54F-3B21077B5157@hserus.net> <51554F91.9000401@ITforChange.net> <515557EE.2030802@itforchange.net> <5155BEC3.5040406@itforchange.net> <85C7B90A-C0F7-4914-8C31-EAD02136437F@hserus.net> <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> <40A27D5C-831B-4358-BB4A-E59267678E0E@istaff.org> Message-ID: <5172B725.8010209@itforchange.net> On Saturday 20 April 2013 07:54 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Apr 1, 2013, at 10:11 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle > > wrote: >> >> 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...) >> Bertrand, We agree that the latter set of issues - which I call larger Internet-related public policy issues or just Internet-related public policy issues in contrast to CIR management, which is the former set of issues above - remains unaddressed, in a truly global and democratic manner. We should focus on the two sets of issues separately - as two different tracks - in the Woking Group on enhanced cooperation and other enhanced cooperation discussions. I hope we can agree to this proposition at the issue framing level. Meanwhile, I understand that your prescription for addressing the 'Internet related public policy issues' part is to set up issue-based governance networks. I am happy to discuss this proposal in full seriousness, and to its finest detail. It is a clear contribution to the enhanced cooperation discussion. (more on this in another email.) Please do make a fully detailed proposal on it to the Woking Group. Another note to John's comment below. > Bertrand - > > Apologies for a very belated reply, but I've been thinking about the > above text and > wondering if there is a fundamental difference between "dealing in a > distributed > manner with the governance OF the Internet" and "a venue for issues > related to the > governance ON the Internet", and if, as a result, we in the > community are making a > significant mistake in referring to both on occasions as "Internet > Governance"... I am very much for a separate treatment of the two set of issues. And I see good agreement for their separation here. What the two sets are respectively called is not so mich a problem with me as long they are separated in the 'enhanced cooperation' discussion. Whether one is called Internet governance and other as 'Social Network Governance' or whatever..... (I prefer to call one as 'technical governance of the Internet' and the other as 'socio-political governance of the Internet', both together constituting Internet governance.) parminder > > Thoughts? > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone. The term "Internet" in the above refers > to the unique > global communications capability based upon the > "Internet Protocol." > (both versions :-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Apr 20 11:51:27 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:21:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] Ex-White House Official Joins Group Fighting "Excessive" Online Privacy Laws In-Reply-To: References: <093d01ce2f02$50eafaa0$f2c0efe0$@gmail.com> <515A64D4.9050600@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5172B97F.4060901@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 09 April 2013 11:45 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > 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... Some clarifications needed here. Are these issue-based governance networks voluntary? If so, how do we bring to them those actors who may not gain by 'additional' governance of the 'issue'? And if they dont come, how do these governance networks enforce their outcomes? I understand that we were not dealing with technical governance here ( as per your other email) but with core social, political, economic and cultural issues...... (BTW, I am reminded how almost all enthusiasm about IGF's potential efficacy in the first 2-3 IGFs was based on hopes from its dynamic coalitions, and what finally happend to them.) parminder > > 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 > wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 20 13:42:51 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:42:51 -0700 Subject: Epi-phenomena? RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance Message-ID: <147901ce3dee$8236bfe0$86a43fa0$@gmail.com> This is an interesting way of presenting this McTIm but I'm not sure I agree.. .Rather I see it as follows I think it may be misleading to talk/think of the social/political/economic/cultural elements linked to the Internet as an "epi-phenomenon". Rather I think it more useful to think of the current Internet as a coalescence of an underlying technical network (of networks?) with a pre-existing (even if somewhat dormant in parts) set of social/human/political/cultural relationships/networks. To accept these latter as an "epi-phenomenon" is to accept the Thatcher argument that "there is no society/social contract". Even, or particularly, if one focuses only on these latter relationships/networks, these form complex and powerful sets of social connections between people within their families, communities, cultural linguistic groups and so on. We individually, collectively and all of us live in some sorts of social connections (networking) with others and those networks pervade all aspects of human activity (including the development and operation of the Internet). I think that it is unquestionable that there has been a strong and pervasive inter-penetration of these two sub-strata--the emerging technical network (of networks?--the Internet) with the pre-existing social/cultural/economic/political sub-strata of family/community/society networks (of networks-society and culture). IMHO these two sub-strata have always been in intimate relationship with each other with perhaps initially the social having more (if less immediately visible) influence on the evolution of the technical but now with the technical having significant if not co-equal influence on the evolution of the social. An Internet governance perspective thus I think should evolve in full recognition of the above co-evolution and interpenetration and Internet Governance itself should be seen as a broader framework where specific tech governance issues are dealt with in one sector perhaps with enhanced reliance on those with expert tech knowledge; specific social etc. network issues (as they relate to the internet) could/should be seen in a second sector; and the over-arching issues governing both sub-strata and most importantly the interactions between and co-evolutions of both could and should be seen as a third sector. "Enhanced co-operation" to my mind is about this third sector. As for the "definitions"--clearly each sector may (and has) developed its own "definition"--as we are seeing in the current discussion. Hopefully we can agree as a group on a definition that can usefully apply to this third. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 11:08 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Nnenna Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance All, For ~3 decades the Internet has been define as a "network of networks". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet We seem to be defining it by its epiphenomenal effects rather than by its its core definition. Is that what we want to do? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Nnenna wrote: > > Hi people > > Thanks for this discussion. This is what interests me in this group. > I have added a few things and returning the text. > > = > We reconise the Internet as an emergent and emerging reality. Its > specificity is inherent in its intricate combination of hardware, > software, protocols, human intentionality and a new kind of social > spatiality, brought together by a common set of design principles, and > constrained by policies established by due democratic processes. We > consider the Internetas a global commons and a global public good. The > design principles and policies that constitute its governance should, > therefore, flow from such recognition of the Internet as a commons and public good. > > > = > > "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. 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." > > (* Here we employ a wider socio-political meaning of a 'public good', > as for instance articulated by Inge Kaul in her UNDP publication, > rather than the narrow construction employed by many neo- classical > economists) > > == > I cut out the initial sentence. I think it has more presence when it > is shorter. I love the word "reality" as it is not a commodity, or a > thing. I started off the second sentence on the "specificity which is > inherent". I changed "fashioned" to "established".. but still > thinking we may find a better word, liked "forged". I rearranged the > last sentence to lead from reason to action. > > So on top is text 2, and below is text 1 > > 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: Norbert Bollow > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder > > Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 12:47 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, > Conflicts in Internet Governance > > Parminder : > >> Agree. The second sentence does not follow from the first. The >> amended text, removing 'accordingly' will stand as: >> >> "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. 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." > > This part is pretty good already I think. > >> (* Here we employ a wider socio-political meaning of a 'public good', >> as for instance articulated by Inge Kaul in her UNDP publication >> , >> rather than the narrow construction employed by many neo- classical >> economists) > > I think we should reword the last part a bit to make it sound less > like a criticism of economists. > > How about for example: > > "... rather than the narrower meaning often attached to the term in > contexts of economics." > > ? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Sat Apr 20 14:08:38 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 18:08:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <20130420141642.16370658@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry > Sent: April-20-13 8:00 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good > > In message <20130420141642.16370658 at quill.bollow.ch>, at 14:16:42 on Sat, > 20 Apr 2013, Norbert Bollow writes > >> "The Internet is a communications medium that allows communications > >> between endpoints with all endpoints being equal in their potential > >> to communicate with all other endpoints." > > > >One may nitpick about details like measures that force consumer PCs to > >send mail via their ISP's mailserver rather than running an MTA that > >will connect directly to port 25 on the recipient's mailserver, but > >apart that kind of thing, this IMO describes one of the meanings of the > >term "Internet" quite well. > > I have at least one [mobile] ISP in the UK that will only let me send SMTP[1] > email on port 587, for example. > > Should we be concerned at my inequality when it comes to sending SMTP > email *at all* on port 25 (through that ISP)? > As long as the potential of communication is there the fact that the particular network you are connected to chooses to block some types of communication is a decision that the managers of the network have a right to make. You can still send the email to any other endpoint on the Internet that will accept it. You just have to use a different method. This can't be conflated with the issue where some networks block some endpoints from communicating with other endpoints by any method. That is a human rights issue that isn't limited to the Internet. 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Apr 20 15:15:48 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 20:15:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <20130420141642.16370658@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <+gO2qWeklucRFArr@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 18:08:38 on Sat, 20 Apr 2013, Kerry Brown writes >> I have at least one [mobile] ISP in the UK that will only let me send SMTP[1] >> email on port 587, for example. >> >> Should we be concerned at my inequality when it comes to sending SMTP >> email *at all* on port 25 (through that ISP)? >> > >As long as the potential of communication is there the fact that the particular network you are connected to chooses to block some types of >communication is a decision that the managers of the network have a right to make. That's an interesting qualification, and one that I don't think most supporters of "network neutrality" would necessarily approve of. >You can still send the email to any other endpoint on the Internet that will accept it. You just have to use a different method. This can't be >conflated with the issue where some networks block some endpoints from communicating with other endpoints by any method. That is a human rights >issue that isn't limited to the Internet. So my end point is equal to all others, just as long as there's one way (and only one) to communicate with the outside world? Like nntp, as an example. [Something which several networks have seen fit to either block or severely throttle in recent times]. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Apr 20 17:56:53 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:56:53 -0400 Subject: Epi-phenomena? RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <147901ce3dee$8236bfe0$86a43fa0$@gmail.com> References: <147901ce3dee$8236bfe0$86a43fa0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 1:42 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > This is an interesting way of presenting this McTIm but I'm not sure I > agree.. .Rather I see it as follows > > I think it may be misleading to talk/think of the > social/political/economic/cultural elements linked to the Internet as an > "epi-phenomenon". Rather I think it more useful to think of the current > Internet as a coalescence of an underlying technical network (of networks?) > with a pre-existing (even if somewhat dormant in parts) set of > social/human/political/cultural relationships/networks. To accept these > latter as an "epi-phenomenon" is to accept the Thatcher argument that "there > is no society/social contract". I don't see that this could possibly be the case. Not that I am defending the Baroness (I lived in Thatcherite Britain, and it was no picnic IIRC). An epiphenomenon (plural - epiphenomena) is a secondary phenomenon that occurs alongside or in parallel to a primary phenomenon. The TCP/IP Internetwork is the primary phenomenon, and what people do with it is the secondary. I would think that would be self evident. -- 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 Sat Apr 20 20:25:44 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 20:25:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] Another view of Social Media and Multistakeholderism?? Message-ID: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22214511 Deirdre -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Apr 20 20:55:20 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 10:55:20 +1000 Subject: [governance] Another view of Social Media and Multistakeholderism?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <733A4557D4B64D1D98259C841305C015@Toshiba> Interesting article, Deirdre. I guess the primary question is whether the right to provide misinformation should belong only to Murdoch, licensed media and shock jocks or whether it should be available to all of us. The instances above and many others were also carried by some mainstream media during this particular crisis and there are of course many other examples where we jump to conclusions – and to retaliation - based on misinformation. Iraq wars come to mind...and they are probably as old as McCarthyism and even Middle Ages witch burning and Inquisitions. I don’t know how we improve critical thinking faculties in human behaviour. They were lacking before the Internet as well of course. I don’t think the Internet or social media either aid or abet this deep seated fear based flaw in human thinking and subsequent behaviour. Ian Peter From: Deirdre Williams Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 10:25 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Another view of Social Media and Multistakeholderism?? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22214511 Deirdre -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 20 21:50:10 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 18:50:10 -0700 Subject: Epi-phenomena? RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <147901ce3dee$8236bfe0$86a43fa0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <156301ce3e32$9a32caf0$ce9860d0$@gmail.com> Yes, an epi-phenomenon is a secondary phenomenon which rests on and in some manner is derivative from the (primary) phenomenon/phenomena... My point is that if one starts off for example, from the observation that the primary phenonema for any social construct are the social phenomena--language, laws, social norms, family relationships--then something such as TCP/IP which is of course a socially embedded construct is epi-ephenomenal to that social sub-strate/social phenomena... (when seen from a social construct perspective... Imagine trying to develop TCP/IP without language, or without a background of socially/publically research institutions, or a structure of laws governing how people work together, pay their bills, manage contracts etc. From that perspective the social framework is primary and what people do within that context is "epi-phenomenal". (which dare I say, strikes me as "self-evident... M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 2:57 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Nnenna Subject: Re: Epi-phenomena? RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good; was, Conflicts in Internet Governance On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 1:42 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > This is an interesting way of presenting this McTIm but I'm not sure I > agree.. .Rather I see it as follows > > I think it may be misleading to talk/think of the > social/political/economic/cultural elements linked to the Internet as > an "epi-phenomenon". Rather I think it more useful to think of the > current Internet as a coalescence of an underlying technical network > (of networks?) with a pre-existing (even if somewhat dormant in parts) > set of social/human/political/cultural relationships/networks. To > accept these latter as an "epi-phenomenon" is to accept the Thatcher > argument that "there is no society/social contract". I don't see that this could possibly be the case. Not that I am defending the Baroness (I lived in Thatcherite Britain, and it was no picnic IIRC). An epiphenomenon (plural - epiphenomena) is a secondary phenomenon that occurs alongside or in parallel to a primary phenomenon. The TCP/IP Internetwork is the primary phenomenon, and what people do with it is the secondary. I would think that would be self evident. -- Cheers, McTim[MG>] "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Sun Apr 21 09:14:08 2013 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 10:14:08 -0300 Subject: [governance] Leadership position for ICANN are open just till May 1st! APPLY NOW! Message-ID: <187850B8-F6BA-44E5-843D-C4E12C595967@uol.com.br> Http://nomcom.icann.org Best, Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPad -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sun Apr 21 09:43:47 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 08:43:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] Leadership position for ICANN are open just till May 1st! APPLY NOW! In-Reply-To: <187850B8-F6BA-44E5-843D-C4E12C595967@uol.com.br> References: <187850B8-F6BA-44E5-843D-C4E12C595967@uol.com.br> Message-ID: Hi, > Http://nomcom.icann.org One thing to point out on this for those who have trouble traveling to things > Reasonable direct expenses incurred in the course of service will be reimbursed. And while you might find that their notion of "reasonable"* and yours might not always align, they do pay for people to travel to and from all required ICANN meetings. But know that if you volunteer to be considered for one of the roles, you will not have to worry about fundraising for your travel costs. I think this is not only a good opportunity to get involved in some of the nitty gritty of Internet governance, it is a chance to work in one of the handful of areas I know of that serves as active crucible for applied experimentation and development in multistakeholder model of regulatory functions. The Nomcom process Vonda mentioned is, in my view, the way to try to bring those who are involved in Internet governance but not already directly involved in ICANN into this particular effort. Remember half of the voting members of the ICANN Board is made up of volunteers picked by the Nomcom process. There are definitely people on this list who I think would benefit ICANN by their participation, and even perhaps find some benefit for themselves in participation in the process. avri *In fact as a Board member, you would even get 3 years of Business class travel. They do treat board members reasonably well, and everyone else get treated ok, for the most part, for some definition of ok. On 21 Apr 2013, at 08:14, Vanda UOL wrote: > > Best, > > Vanda Scartezini > Sent from my iPad > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sun Apr 21 09:58:25 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 08:58:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] more ICANN stuff Message-ID: Hi, And while talking about ICANN: Other ways to get involved other than volunteering to become a volunteer policy worker responding to public comments. There are always open public comment periods going on about all kinds of issues. These can be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment Especially interesting at this point is the open comment on the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) comment period that is collecting the issues and questions that must be reviewed this year. If there is something you think we need to be looking at in terms of ICANN Accountability and Transparency, now is the time to put it on the table. http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/atrt2-02apr13-en.htm For those who don't know how the ICANN open comments work: - the comment period - opne for 21 days of more for comments from anyone, anywhere on the issues in the report. - the reply period, if there are comments, another period of at least 21 days that gives people a chance to comment of previous comments. - the comments and replies are then synthesized into a report by the ICANN staff and then are taken as input by the committee or WG working on the issues. Standards are evolving on how not only to take these into account but how to show it has been done; in general they are taken seriously. The reply period was instituted, I beleive, so that people could not sneak comments in at the mast moment and thus go unchallenged. As a member of this year's ATRT, I think it would be good to see some input from the people on this list on these subjects. The Accountability and Transparency review happens every 3 years as part of the Affirmation of Commitments process. 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sun Apr 21 10:44:54 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 07:44:54 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [IP] re GE claims 'Industrial Internet' Bolsters Critical Infrastructure Security In-Reply-To: References: <9B61B21D-7E2D-4120-A514-9277ECFC35AC@searls.com> Message-ID: <16a001ce3e9e$d2734e50$7759eaf0$@gmail.com> From: Doc Searls Subject: Re: [IP] GE claims 'Industrial Internet' Bolsters Critical Infrastructure Security Date: April 21, 2013 10:03:58 AM EDT To: dave at farber.net SWIFT , the global system for transferring $trillions per day, runs a worldwide network of its own, and brags about how it stays up through all kinds of troubles, citing for example its persistence through the 9/11/2001 attack in New York. I don't know if uses Internet protocols, but I believe it does qualify as a highly hardened "parallel" system. It differs from GE's, however, in not having an adjectival name with "Internet" as its noun. Far as I know, SWIFT's network is operated for its own purposes, alone. GE's "Industrial Internet" is - at least at the PR level - short on facts and long on what appears to be the shunting of industrial-grade requirements into GE's own private walled "canals" through the open Net. I'd be curious to know if it is other than a wish on their part to fork the Net into a public and a private branch, in which they have, in effect, the first private one. (Are there others, already, called "_______ Internet"?) The Internet is "inter," of course, and one of the connected nets could be GE's new industrial one. But calling that one another Internet, with its own qualifying adjective, offends the meaning of Internet as a noun. So I would hope that those of us who value both the Internet's openness and its original meaning will urge GE to re-name the offering, without the term "Internet." To sum up: there is nothing wrong with GE renting out its own private "industrial grade" network. Just with calling it a branch of the Internet itself. IMHO on a Sunday morning, anyway. Doc On Apr 20, 2013, at 6:39 PM, "DAVID J. FARBER" wrote: > Agreed > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Lauren Weinstein > Subject: [ NNSquad ] GE claims 'Industrial Internet' Bolsters Critical Infrastructure Security > Date: April 20, 2013 4:46:20 PM EDT > To: nnsquad at nnsquad.org > > > GE claims 'Industrial Internet' Bolsters Critical Infrastructure Security > > http://j.mp/12vURRU (eWeek) > > General Electric has introduced something it calls the "Industrial > Internet," which is a communications environment aimed at > infrastructure companies that exists in parallel with the public > Internet. But it doesn't rely on the public Web for mission critical > needs. > > - - - > > Maintaining true compartmentalization of such "parallel networks" is > in reality very difficult, even in military environments. Networking > history is replete with examples of how reliance on this technique can > go wrong. > > --Lauren-- > Lauren Weinstein (lauren at vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren > > > ------------------------------------------- > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/456592-2ddec125 > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?& > Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?&&post_id=20130420183954:36A18E64-AA0B- 11E2-ABB5-BC23367AC9F6 > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd43 08 Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-9 7c5b007&post_id=20130421100634:AAABC4F6-AA8C-11E2-92B5-B5C68B89C8A3 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Apr 21 16:07:14 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 13:07:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report (Der Spiegel) Message-ID: <175101ce3ecb$db22feb0$9168fc10$@gmail.com> In Germany. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/special-commission-calls-for-int ernet-commissioner-in-germany-a-895412.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Apr 21 17:22:07 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:22:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report (Der Spiegel) In-Reply-To: <175101ce3ecb$db22feb0$9168fc10$@gmail.com> References: <175101ce3ecb$db22feb0$9168fc10$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F7047@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Very interesting material. Link to final report: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/125/1712550.pdf Perhaps IGC's own Jeanette Hoffman who participated, might summarize the 1200 pp full report, and suggest implications for global internet governance? : ) Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 4:07 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report (Der Spiegel) In Germany. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/special-commission-calls-for-internet-commissioner-in-germany-a-895412.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Apr 22 01:17:37 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:47:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report (Der Spiegel) In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F7047@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <175101ce3ecb$db22feb0$9168fc10$@gmail.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F7047@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <5174C7F1.6080405@itforchange.net> On Monday 22 April 2013 02:52 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Very interesting material. > > Link to final report: > http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/125/1712550.pdf > > > Perhaps IGC's own Jeanette Hoffman who participated, might summarize > the 1200 pp full report, and suggest implications for global internet > governance? : ) http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/special-commission-calls-for-internet-commissioner-in-germany-a-895412.html While one awaits further information, one thing is clear from the referred news item that the Commission strongly underscored the importance of cross cutting Internet-related public policy issues in asking the "German government to get more serious about Internet-related issues" and in seeking the setting up /*a new committee of the parliament for Internet-related public policy issues*/ . To me, it closely parallels the Indian demand for the UN Committee on Internet-related Policies. The overall logic and justifications are very similar, especially with what we all recognise as an inherently global nature of the Internet. Will be interesting to know if the prosed German Parliamentary Committee will have similar levels of multistakeholder engagement as the India' proposed UN CIRP. And I quote from the CIRP proposal so that people/ we can make a comparison. (quote from UN CIRP proposal begins) It will ensure the participation of all relevant stakeholders by establishing four Advisory Groups, one each for civil society, the private sector, inter­governmental and international organizations, and the technical and academic community. The Advisory Groups will provide their inputs and recommendations to the CIRP . The meetings of CIRP and the advisory groups will be serviced by the UNCTAD Secretariat that also services the meetings of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development. The Internet Governance Forum will provide inputs to CIRP in the spirit of complementarity between the two. (ends) With further elaboration in the Annexure to the CIRP proposal (quote begins) /*Multi­stakeholder participation*/: Recognizing the need to involve all stakeholders in Global Internet Governance in their respective roles, the CIRP shall ensure the participation of all stakeholders recognized in the Tunis Agenda. Four Advisory Groups ­ one each for Civil Society, the Private Sector, Inter­Governmental and International Organisations, and the Technical and Academic Community ­ will be established, to assist and advise the CIRP . These Groups would be self­ organized, as per agreed principles, to ensure transparency, representativity and inclusiveness. The Advisory Groups will meet annually in Geneva and in conjunction with any additional meetings of the CIRP , Their meetings will be held back ­to­ back with the meetings of the CIRP , so that they are able to provide their inputs and recommendations in a timely manner, to the CIRP . /* */ /**/ /*Links with the IGF*/: Recognizing the value of the Internet Governance Forum as an open, unique forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue on Internet issues, the deliberations in the lGF along with any inputs, background information and analysis it may provide, will be taken as inputs for consideration of the CIRP . An improved and strengthened lGF that can serve as a purposeful body for policy consultations and provide meaningful policy inputs to the CIRP , will ensure a stronger and more effective complementarity between the CIRP and the IGF. (ends) Parminder > > Lee > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of michael gurstein > [gurstein at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, April 21, 2013 4:07 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report > (Der Spiegel) > > In Germany. > > > > http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/special-commission-calls-for-internet-commissioner-in-germany-a-895412.html > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Apr 22 06:42:01 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:42:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] Another view of Social Media and Multistakeholderism?? In-Reply-To: <733A4557D4B64D1D98259C841305C015@Toshiba> References: <733A4557D4B64D1D98259C841305C015@Toshiba> Message-ID: <20130422124201.56fb8c8f@quill.bollow.ch> Ian Peter wrote: > I don’t know how we improve critical thinking faculties in human > behaviour. They were lacking before the Internet as well of course. I > don’t think the Internet or social media either aid or abet this deep > seated fear based flaw in human thinking and subsequent behaviour. There's a lot of well thought-out analysis on the Internet on just about any topic. The problem is IMO that these worthwhile exemplars of critical thinking are often hard to find and recognize in the midst of all the shallow stuff -- and especially when strong emotions are involved, even intelligent people are not likely to search long for in-depth information. I wonder whether some kind of distributed reputation system might help with that problem? Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Apr 22 07:10:14 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 20:10:14 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Rigf_discuss] Reminder: Call for Workshops & Themes for APrIGF Seoul 2013 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: APrIGF Secretariat Date: Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 8:03 PM Subject: [Rigf_discuss] Reminder: Call for Workshops & Themes for APrIGF Seoul 2013 To: discuss at ap.rigf.asia Call for Workshops & Themes Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum APrIGF 2013, Seoul, South Korea 4-6 September 2013 Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) has been held annually since 2010. The Forum serves as a platform for aggregating IGF related discussions and collaborations at the regional level, and ultimately advances the development of Internet governance in the Asia Pacific. APrIGF 2013 will be hosted by Korea Internet Governance Alliance (KIGA) and supported by the local secretariat Korea Internet Security Agency (KISA) and APrIGF secretariat DotAsia Organisation respectively. The APrIGF Program Committee calls for your participation in developing the Forum agenda in an open process by submitting your topics of interest and workshop proposals. We encourage all members of the Asia Pacific community to join the program development process in the following ways: • Submit a workshop proposal • Comment on the proposed theme: Towards a Better Internet: A more Secured, Convenient, Vibrant, Equivalent, and Desirable Internet • Suggest sub-themes or topic of interests • Join the program committee discussions (Multi-stakeholder Steering Group) Each workshop will be 90 minutes with time for Q&A and should present the proposed issue in an inclusive manner, incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective. Send your proposals of not more than 500 words with the below format to proposals at aprigf.asia. Title of the Workshop Thematic area of interest Specific Issues of Discussions Expected format and Target panel members Full name and contact details of the workshop organiser The deadline for submission is May 18 (Sat) 23:59 UTC. If you are interested to follow any news and updates about APrIGF and discuss relevant issues, you may subscribe to the mailing list discuss at aprigf.asia via this link. If you are interested to join the program committee of Seoul 2013 discussions (Multi-stakeholder Steering Group), please send email request to sec at aprigf.asia with a brief introduction of your expertise and represented entity. We welcome any Internet-related organisation that wishes to become a supporting organisation or sponsor. Please contact sec at aprigf.asia for more information. Secretariat of APrIGF DotAsia Organisation Ltd. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Address: 15F, 6 Knutsford Terrace, Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong Tel: +852 3520 2635 ︳Fax: +852 3520 2634 ︳http://www.aprigf.asia _______________________________________________ Rigf_discuss mailing list Rigf_discuss at web2.dotasia.org https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_discuss -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Mon Apr 22 09:06:51 2013 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:06:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report (Der Spiegel) In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F7047@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <175101ce3ecb$db22feb0$9168fc10$@gmail.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F7047@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <517535EB.7040503@wzb.eu> Hi, as you imagine it is impossible to summarize the reports. All in all the 12 project groups of the enquete commission produced nearly 2000 pages in 3 years. Enquete commissions have a long tradition. They exist both on the state as well as the federal level. As the Spiegel article said, 50% of its membership consists of members of the parliament and 50% of experts appointed by the parliamentary factions, depending on their relative size. Thus, the enquete commission is clearly a multi stakeholder endevaour that has been around before the term was coined. Btw, among the 17 experts were at least 5 former WSIS participants. The Internet enquete also experimented a bit with integrating the public into its work. One form of integration was the 18th expert, which allowed observers to ask questions during public hearings. Another form of integration was "adhocracy", a platform that allowed people to suggest issues and recommendations and also evaluate suggestions by fellow users of the adhocracy platform. Adhocracy wasn't as much as expected, and it was introduced a bit too late to substantially influence the work of he enquete. The general idea is that enquete commissions should work on topics that are not presently addressed by the parliament so that typical party politics do not permanently interfer with the work of the commission. In practice, this hardly ever works, and the enquete commission on internet and digital society was no exception. Still, some of project groups managed to have a constructive debate by strictly compartmentalizing assessment reports from recommendations. The project group on copyright that I co-led worked well until we had to draft recommendations. So, depending on the controversial nature of each topic some of them have many minority votes expressed in footnotes or addenda. The German internet community is divided in its judgment over the enquete commission's work. Not unlike the IGF, the rule of thumb is the more involved people have been in the commission the more gentle there final verdict may be. Observers, on the other hand tend to be critical and many regard these 3 years of work as a waste of time. Personally I think it is too early evaluate the relevance of the enquete commission. The Green party that appointed me as an expert just hired somebody to comb through some 400 recommendations and select those that are worth taking up in the next legislative term. I would hope that other factions plan to do the same. In our last meeting we have agreed to get all 12 reports translated into English. The president of the parliament dismissed this decision on the grounds of the costs. I tend to agree with this decision since not all reports are worth a translation. Sadly, the report on international internet governance is one of them. That group started too late, had not enough meetings and members. Internet governance does not enjoy much interest among both politicians and civil society people in Germany. In any case, some of the reports are like to be translated. best, jeanette Am 21.04.2013 23:22, schrieb Lee W McKnight: > Very interesting material. > > Link to final report: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/125/1712550.pdf > > Perhaps IGC's own Jeanette Hoffman who participated, might summarize the > 1200 pp full report, and suggest implications for global internet > governance? : ) > > Lee > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of michael gurstein > [gurstein at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, April 21, 2013 4:07 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report > (Der Spiegel) > > In Germany. > > > > http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/special-commission-calls-for-internet-commissioner-in-germany-a-895412.html > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Mon Apr 22 21:34:09 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:34:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] Another view of Social Media and Multistakeholderism?? In-Reply-To: <733A4557D4B64D1D98259C841305C015@Toshiba> References: <733A4557D4B64D1D98259C841305C015@Toshiba> Message-ID: I was thinking more about "aggregated collaboration" and its effects rather than about misinformation. How to find a point of balance that encourages the "stone soup" http://www.stonesoup.com/the-original-stone-soup-story/ while discouraging too many cooks from spoiling the broth (an English proverb - see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/too_many_cooks_spoil_the_broth .) Stone soup begins from nothing - a pan of water and a stone; the broth already exists when it risks being spoiled. In the end everyone who contributed will share the stone soup; the cooks are not planning to drink the broth, only to have power over its making and praise for the flavour of the final product. Certainly there needs to be a wider awareness that collaboration, even with very positive motivation, can also have negative results. Deirdre On 20 April 2013 20:55, Ian Peter wrote: > Interesting article, Deirdre. > > I guess the primary question is whether the right to provide > misinformation should belong only to Murdoch, licensed media and shock > jocks or whether it should be available to all of us. The instances above > and many others were also carried by some mainstream media during this > particular crisis and there are of course many other examples where we jump > to conclusions – and to retaliation - based on misinformation. Iraq wars > come to mind...and they are probably as old as McCarthyism and even Middle > Ages witch burning and Inquisitions. > > I don’t know how we improve critical thinking faculties in human > behaviour. They were lacking before the Internet as well of course. I don’t > think the Internet or social media either aid or abet this deep seated fear > based flaw in human thinking and subsequent behaviour. > > Ian Peter > > *From:* Deirdre Williams > *Sent:* Sunday, April 21, 2013 10:25 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* [governance] Another view of Social Media and > Multistakeholderism?? > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22214511 > Deirdre > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue Apr 23 08:22:19 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz Tayob) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:22:19 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Ip-health] Viacom and other MPAA members join book publishers to weaken a treaty for the blind In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So much for public interest! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/disney-viacom-and-other-m_b_3137653.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Tue Apr 23 12:34:31 2013 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:34:31 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report (Der Spiegel) In-Reply-To: <5174C7F1.6080405@itforchange.net> References: <175101ce3ecb$db22feb0$9168fc10$@gmail.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F7047@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5174C7F1.6080405@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <007801ce4040$6eff41f0$4cfdc5d0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> First of all, the link provided is not the link to the 1200 pages report, but to the 48 pages “executive summary”. As to the questions about the multistakeholder nature: · The composition of the Internet Enquete Commission was 17 parliamentarians and 17 members from different stakeholder groups, so this was a multistakeholder commission. · The Internet Enquete Commission has employed a number of innovative online participation options giving citizens the chance to directly contribute and comment on the proceedings. Regarding Internet Governance: The most relevant detailed report about International Issues and Internet Governance is here: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/124/1712480.pdf The recommendation of this report is to keep the established governance framework and to protect the freedom and open character of the Internet. To assure the government is kept abreast of changes, there shall be a regular monitoring and reports. Multistakeholder participation in national and international governance issues shall be further strengthened. There shall be no new governmental or intergovernmental Internet Governance institutions as long as the existing institutions maintain the current way of an open and free Internet. The Commission is of the opinion that the current US oversight should yield to a broader supervisory structure for ICANN and IANA and suggests more engagement by the German government and the EU. To enable that, German ministries should get expanded funding to enhance their support for multistakeholder participation. The IGF should get German funding through the trust fund managed by UN DESA. There is a lot more, but this summarizes some of the main points. Jeanette has already provided some background into the general working of the commission. I’m sure Wolfgang and Jeanette can shed some more light on the content of the Internet Governance debate. Throwing the text through an automatic translation engine might also help to access its contents for those who don’t understand sufficient German. -- Peter Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von parminder Gesendet: 22 April 2013 07:18 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report (Der Spiegel) On Monday 22 April 2013 02:52 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: Very interesting material. Link to final report: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/125/1712550.pdf Perhaps IGC's own Jeanette Hoffman who participated, might summarize the 1200 pp full report, and suggest implications for global internet governance? : ) http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/special-commission-calls-for-internet-commissioner-in-germany-a-895412.html While one awaits further information, one thing is clear from the referred news item that the Commission strongly underscored the importance of cross cutting Internet-related public policy issues in asking the "German government to get more serious about Internet-related issues" and in seeking the setting up a new committee of the parliament for Internet-related public policy issues . To me, it closely parallels the Indian demand for the UN Committee on Internet-related Policies. The overall logic and justifications are very similar, especially with what we all recognise as an inherently global nature of the Internet. Will be interesting to know if the prosed German Parliamentary Committee will have similar levels of multistakeholder engagement as the India' proposed UN CIRP. And I quote from the CIRP proposal so that people/ we can make a comparison. (quote from UN CIRP proposal begins) It will ensure the participation of all relevant stakeholders by establishing four Advisory Groups, one each for civil society, the private sector, inter­governmental and international organizations, and the technical and academic community. The Advisory Groups will provide their inputs and recommendations to the CIRP . The meetings of CIRP and the advisory groups will be serviced by the UNCTAD Secretariat that also services the meetings of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development. The Internet Governance Forum will provide inputs to CIRP in the spirit of complementarity between the two. (ends) With further elaboration in the Annexure to the CIRP proposal (quote begins) Multi­stakeholder participation: Recognizing the need to involve all stakeholders in Global Internet Governance in their respective roles, the CIRP shall ensure the participation of all stakeholders recognized in the Tunis Agenda. Four Advisory Groups ­ one each for Civil Society, the Private Sector, Inter­Governmental and International Organisations, and the Technical and Academic Community ­ will be established, to assist and advise the CIRP . These Groups would be self­ organized, as per agreed principles, to ensure transparency, representativity and inclusiveness. The Advisory Groups will meet annually in Geneva and in conjunction with any additional meetings of the CIRP , Their meetings will be held back ­to­ back with the meetings of the CIRP , so that they are able to provide their inputs and recommendations in a timely manner, to the CIRP . Links with the IGF: Recognizing the value of the Internet Governance Forum as an open, unique forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue on Internet issues, the deliberations in the lGF along with any inputs, background information and analysis it may provide, will be taken as inputs for consideration of the CIRP . An improved and strengthened lGF that can serve as a purposeful body for policy consultations and provide meaningful policy inputs to the CIRP , will ensure a stronger and more effective complementarity between the CIRP and the IGF. (ends) Parminder Lee _____ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 4:07 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report (Der Spiegel) In Germany. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/special-commission-calls-for-internet-commissioner-in-germany-a-895412.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue Apr 23 11:41:47 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:41:47 +0300 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net>,<20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> Looks interesting, any traction? On 2013/04/19 10:09 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Colleagues, > > I've done a quick edit for style/grammar of Lee's edited version. My > minor edits of Lee's version are below and below that is a clean > version of my edited version. (Looks good!) > > /We recognise the Internet to be a global network of networks > comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and > emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination > of hardware, software, protocols, human intentionality enabling > new kind of social interactions and transactions, > brought together by a common set of design principles, and policies > established through due democratic processes. The design principles > and policies that constitute its governance ensure its stability, > functionality and security, and aim at preserving and enhancing the > global commons and global public good character of the Internet combination of> which has made previous innovations possible. > Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet > experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces, we > urge that the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global > commons and public good dimensions be at the forefront of global > Internet governance agenda going forward./ > > My CLEAR version! > > *We recognise the Internet to be a global network of networks > comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and > emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination > of hardware, software, protocols, and human intentionality enabling > new kinds of social interactions and transactions, brought together by > a common set of design principles, and policies established through > due democratic processes. The design principles and policies that > constitute its governance ensure its stability, functionality and > security, and aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and > global public good character of the Internet the combination of which > has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the > growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or > proprietary online spaces, we urge that the preservation and > enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good > dimensions be at the forefront of global Internet governance agenda > going forward.* > > ** > > *Mike* > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 11:28 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow; parminder > Subject: RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good > > Hi, > > I agree with use of Mawaki's text as a starting point. > > Lee > > PS: A few further suggested edits below. Or, these can wait til a > procedure, as Parminder and Norbert have discussed, is established. > > We recognise the Internet to be a global network of > networks comprised of computing devices and processes, also> it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, human > intentionality enabling new kind of social interactions and > transactions, which is brought together by a common set of design > principles, and policies established through due > democratic processes. policies that constitute its governance ensure its > stability, functionality and security, and> aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global > public good character of the Internet [which has made previous > innovations possible*]. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger > for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary > online spaces, we urge that the preservation and enhancement of the > Internet's global commons and public good dimensions be at the > forefront of global Internet governance agenda going forward. > > ________________________________________ > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Norbert Bollow > [nb at bollow.ch] > > Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 12:22 PM > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; parminder > > Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good > > Parminder > wrote: > > > Can we perhaps adopt some kind of a rough procedure - maybe an online > > > vote - to get the sense of the house first on whether people at all > > > want any kind of text on 'commons and public goods nature of the > > > Internet' adopted or not.... > > > > > > and then when, and if, we know that such is the general will of the > > > group, we can proceed to drafting the text, and then put it up for a > > > consensus/ rough consensus call... or alternatively, we can directly > > > put the Mawaki's text, with a few possible modifications in the next > > > few days to the consensus/ rough consensus process. > > > > > > Just for your consideration > > I believe that there is precedent for using online polls as part of > the implementation of the process of making a "rough consensus call". > > If (outside of the specific kind of context of IGC decision-making > > processes) the objective is to simply get some informal feedback, to > learn something about how many IGC members feel strongly in one or the > other way about a given question, anyone can use a survey tool like > for example moreganize.com to conduct a poll. > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > -- > > Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: > > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the > person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 23 18:43:27 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:43:27 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net>,<20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> We recognise the Internet to be a global network of networks comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, and human intentionality enabling new kinds of social interactions and transactions, brought together by a common set of design principles, and policies established through due democratic processes. [Milton L Mueller] assuming that historical accuracy matters, and depending on what “policies” one is referring to, I don’t think “democratic” process was involved in the origin of the internet at all. The IETF developers were meritocratic, not democratic. The design principles and policies that constitute its governance ensure its stability, functionality and security, and aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet the combination of which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or [Milton L Mueller] yes, but they are also, and should be also, aim at preserving and enhancing the private good aspects of the Internet. As the success of the internet rests on a creative combination of both, why are we emphasizing only one aspect of this? proprietary online spaces, we urge that the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions [Milton L Mueller] what are these dimensions? Why not specify them? Why not also recognize that we should not interfere with the innovation and creativity that has come from affording entrepreneurs and individuals to experiment and innovate with new private services? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 23 20:02:17 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:02:17 +1000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com><855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com><516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net><5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net><5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net>,<20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <44E81E773C5149D5B391C35B4F59326C@Toshiba> From: Milton L Mueller Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 8:43 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good We recognise the Internet to be a global network of networks comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, and human intentionality enabling new kinds of social interactions and transactions, brought together by a common set of design principles, and policies established through due democratic processes. [Milton L Mueller] assuming that historical accuracy matters, and depending on what “policies” one is referring to, I don’t think “democratic” process was involved in the origin of the internet at all. The IETF developers were meritocratic, not democratic. IP – have to agree with Milton. Tnere is no historic democratic processes. The design principles and policies that constitute its governance ensure its stability, functionality and security, and aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet the combination of which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or [Milton L Mueller] yes, but they are also, and should be also, aim at preserving and enhancing the private good aspects of the Internet. As the success of the internet rests on a creative combination of both, why are we emphasizing only one aspect of this? IP. It is not secure, and I believe its functionality is somewhat basic. I’d go straight to the global commons stuff and skip the first part. proprietary online spaces, we urge that the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions [Milton L Mueller] what are these dimensions? Why not specify them? Why not also recognize that we should not interfere with the innovation and creativity that has come from affording entrepreneurs and individuals to experiment and innovate with new private services? IP. My somewhat reduced version would then be We recognise the Internet to be a global network of networks comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, and human intentionality enabling new kinds of social interactions and transactions, brought together by a common set of design principles. The design principles and policies that constitute its governance aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet the combination of which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces, we urge the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 23 21:14:11 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:14:11 +0800 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <44E81E773C5149D5B391C35B4F59326C@Toshiba> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com><855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com><516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net><5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net><5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net>,<20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <44E81E773C5149D5B391C35B4F59326C@Toshiba> Message-ID: <65F18F26-304B-4C27-B2F9-CF56162D64B2@ciroap.org> On 24/04/2013, at 8:02 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > IP. My somewhat reduced version would then be > > We recognise the Internet to be a global network of networks comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, and human intentionality enabling new kinds of social interactions and transactions, brought together by a common set of design principles. The design principles and policies that constitute its governance aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet the combination of which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces, we urge the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions. Sorry to bring this up late, but I don't like the reductionist definition of Internet governance that is implicit in the mention of its design principles and policies. The design principles of the Internet have no transcendent moral value of their own, they are just technical choices which do not, in themselves, have any legitimacy that we can convincingly justify. As Milton pointed out, the IETF is not a democracy, it's a meritocracy. More broadly, the Internet's design principles are not justifiable as an outcome of any democratic (still less globally democratic) process. Mostly those choices are favourable for our underlying values such as freedom of expression and (less often) privacy, but sometimes they are not. So we cannot elevate the design principles of the Internet to such a privileged position, when if different technical choices had been made in the beginning some of the Internet's acknowledged problems that exist today (spam, phishing, etc) could have been less. The Internet's design principles may be good for advancing particular policies, but they may also be bad, or they may be indifferent. I don't think that those principles can be said to "aim" at anything in particular, other than technical soundness, nor that they can sensibly be described as a "common set". -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 23 21:34:49 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 07:04:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <44E81E773C5149D5B391C35B4F59326C@Toshiba> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com><855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com><516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net><5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net><5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net>,<20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <44E81E773C5149D5B391C35B4F59326C@Toshiba> Message-ID: <517736B9.7020005@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 24 April 2013 05:32 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > *From:* Milton L Mueller > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 24, 2013 8:43 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good > > *We recognise the Internet to be a global network of networks > comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and > emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination > of hardware, software, protocols, and human intentionality enabling > new kinds of social interactions and transactions, brought together by > a common set of design principles, and policies established through > due democratic processes. *** > > */[Milton L Mueller] assuming that historical accuracy matters, and > depending on what “policies” one is referring to, I don’t think > “democratic” process was involved in the origin of the internet at > all. The IETF developers were meritocratic, not democratic. /* > > */IP – have to agree with Milton. Tnere is no historic democratic > processes./* > (Parminder) Agree. It should instead be '....policies, that should be established by due democratic prcoess". BTW, thanks for both of you for confirming that historically there is no due democratic process :) > *//* > > *//* > > *The design principles and policies that constitute its governance > ensure its stability, functionality and security, and aim at > preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good > character of the Internet the combination of which has made previous > innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for > the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or *** > > */[Milton L Mueller] yes, but they are also, and should be also, aim > at preserving and enhancing the private good aspects of the Internet. > As the success of the internet rests on a creative combination of > both, why are we emphasizing only one aspect of this? /* > (Parminder). > > */IP. It is not secure, and I believe its functionality is somewhat > basic. I’d go straight to the global commons stuff and skip the first > part./* > (Parminder) Agree. > > *//* > > *//* > > *proprietary online spaces, we urge that the preservation and > enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions*** > > */[Milton L Mueller] what are these dimensions? Why not specify them? > Why not also recognize that we should not interfere with the > innovation and creativity that has come from affording entrepreneurs > and individuals to experiment and innovate with new private services? /* > (Parminder) Becuase we are not aiming at completeness of a definition here, but making a core advocacy principle/ statement for the Caucus stating which direction and side in the current evolution of the Internet the caucus will like to weight on. And isnt private property being over 'protected' already - which as the last line says 'is the problem', See for instance the one global 'Principles on Internet policy making' that authoritatively exist today, those developed by the OECD. The document was criticised by civil society for its intellectual property (IP) focus The document lists its policy objectives as "the protection of privacy, security, children online, and intellectual property, as well as the reinforcement of trust in the Internet " . There is no mention of any egalitarian political economy objective, which of course is understandable coming from a club of the richest countries. IP is mentioned 15 times in the document and commons/ public goods (and we are assuming some such character of the Internet does exist) not once. Also, we now have IETF seeking to issue an RFC focussing on the market but not commons aspect of the Internet as primary. Even W3C is coming up with an HTML extension standard specification that caters to the demands of IP owner for greater IP protection..... One simply thinks that more than enough is happening on the private/ property side and hardly anything on the commons/ public side. In the circumstances, it is for a civil society group to step in as we are trying to do to emphasize the commons/ public gods side of the Internet and the need to protect and foster it. I would also appeal to others who think that such a statement on commons/ public goods nature of the Internet should be adopted by the caucus as a basic advocacy principle, inter alia to preface our submissions to various bodies, may chip in at this stage. Of course also those who have different views are welcome to speak up. But let us close it one way or the other. Thanks Riaz for bringing this back to the group's attention. parminder > *//* > > */IP. My somewhat reduced version would then be/* > > *//* > > *We recognise the Internet to be a global network of networks > comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and > emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination > of hardware, software, protocols, and human intentionality enabling > new kinds of social interactions and transactions, brought together by > a common set of design principles. *The design principles and policies > that constitute its governance aim at preserving and enhancing the > global commons and global public good character of the Internet the > combination of which has made previous innovations possible. > Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet > experience to be reduced to closed or ***proprietary online spaces, we > urge the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons > and public good dimensions.* > > *//* > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 23 21:41:08 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 07:11:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <44E81E773C5149D5B391C35B4F59326C@Toshiba> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com><855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com><516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net><5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net><5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net>,<20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <44E81E773C5149D5B391C35B4F59326C@Toshiba> Message-ID: <51773834.4000304@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 24 April 2013 05:32 AM, Ian Peter wrote: /**/ *//* */IP. My somewhat reduced version would then be/* *//* *We recognise the Internet to be a global network of networks comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, and human intentionality enabling new kinds of social interactions and transactions, brought together by a common set of design principles. *The design principles and policies that constitute its governance aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet the combination of which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or ***proprietary online spaces, we urge the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions. * * *(Parminder) May I add back the amended democratic process part, per my last email (although I am happy with the above as it stands as well)*. *Added parts in brackets. * * *"We recognise the Internet to be a global network of networks comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, and human intentionality enabling new kinds of social interactions and transactions, brought together by a common set of design principles. The design principles and policies that constitute its governance {should be derived through due democratic processes, and must} aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet the combination of which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces, we urge the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions."* * * parminder * * *//* > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Apr 23 21:53:27 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 07:23:27 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report (Der Spiegel) In-Reply-To: <007801ce4040$6eff41f0$4cfdc5d0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> References: <175101ce3ecb$db22feb0$9168fc10$@gmail.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F7047@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5174C7F1.6080405@itforchange.net> <007801ce4040$6eff41f0$4cfdc5d0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> Message-ID: <51773B17.4030300@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 23 April 2013 10:04 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > > First of all, the link provided is not the link to the 1200 pages > report, but to the 48 pages “executive summary”. > > As to the questions about the multistakeholder nature: > > ·The composition of the Internet Enquete Commission was 17 > parliamentarians and 17 members from different stakeholder groups, so > this was a multistakeholder commission. > Peter, (Parminder) 17 members not from other stakeholder groups, but 'experts' nominated by political parties in proportion of their strength in the parliament, right! For instance, no industry representative here. Are you now ready to consider inclusion of 'experts' selected by politicians as enough to make things multi-stakeholder? If so, I can tell you that UN has endless number of committee consisting of such experts, doing very important work. > ·The Internet Enquete Commission has employed a number of innovative > online participation options giving citizens the chance to directly > contribute and comment on the proceedings. > > Regarding Internet Governance: > > The most relevant detailed report about International Issues and > Internet Governance is here: > http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/124/1712480.pdf > > The recommendation of this report is to keep the established > governance framework and to protect the freedom and open character of > the Internet. To assure the government is kept abreast of changes, > there shall be a regular monitoring and reports. Multistakeholder > participation in national and international governance issues shall be > further strengthened. There shall be no new governmental or > intergovernmental Internet Governance institutions as long as the > existing institutions maintain the current way of an open and free > Internet. The Commission is of the opinion that the current US > oversight should yield to a broader supervisory structure for ICANN > and IANA > (Parminder) Exactly the demand of most developing countries, not a penny more... Only, countries like India have gone further beyond generic statements and suggested what such a broad supervisory structure could look like. We, as in IT for Change, have tried to present some structural possibilities and trigger a debate here in the IGC. But coming from the Southern side, all that looks like so explosive, betrayal and so on..... Now since a German nationally constituted 'multi-stakeholder' commission also calls for a new 'supervisory structure' can we at least now debate the possible contours of one... parminder > and suggests more engagement by the German government and the EU. To > enable that, German ministries should get expanded funding to enhance > their support for multistakeholder participation. The IGF should get > German funding through the trust fund managed by UN DESA. > > There is a lot more, but this summarizes some of the main points. > Jeanette has already provided some background into the general working > of the commission. I’m sure Wolfgang and Jeanette can shed some more > light on the content of the Internet Governance debate. Throwing the > text through an automatic translation engine might also help to access > its contents for those who don’t understand sufficient German. > > -- Peter > > *Von:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *Im Auftrag von *parminder > *Gesendet:* 22 April 2013 07:18 > *An:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Betreff:* Re: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission > Report (Der Spiegel) > > On Monday 22 April 2013 02:52 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > Very interesting material. > > Link to final report: > http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/125/1712550.pdf > > Perhaps IGC's own Jeanette Hoffman who participated, might > summarize the 1200 pp full report, and suggest implications for > global internet governance? : ) > > http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/special-commission-calls-for-internet-commissioner-in-germany-a-895412.html > > > > While one awaits further information, one thing is clear from the > referred news item that the Commission strongly underscored the > importance of cross cutting Internet-related public policy issues in > asking the "German government to get more serious about > Internet-related issues" and in seeking the setting up */a new > committee of the parliament for Internet-related public policy > issues/* . To me, it closely parallels the Indian demand for the UN > Committee on Internet-related Policies. The overall logic and > justifications are very similar, especially with what we all recognise > as an inherently global nature of the Internet. > > Will be interesting to know if the prosed German Parliamentary > Committee will have similar levels of multistakeholder engagement as > the India' proposed UN CIRP. And I quote from the CIRP proposal so > that people/ we can make a comparison. > > (quote from UN CIRP proposal begins) > > It will ensure the participation of all relevant stakeholders by > establishing four Advisory Groups, one each for civil society, the > private sector, inter­governmental and international organizations, > and the technical and academic community. The Advisory Groups will > provide their inputs and recommendations to the CIRP . The meetings of > CIRP and the advisory groups will be serviced by the UNCTAD > Secretariat that also services the meetings of the Commission on > Science and Technology for Development. The Internet Governance Forum > will provide inputs to CIRP in the spirit of complementarity between > the two. > > (ends) > > With further elaboration in the Annexure to the CIRP proposal > > > (quote begins) > > */Multi­stakeholder participation/*: Recognizing the need to > involve all stakeholders in Global Internet Governance in their > respective roles, the CIRP shall ensure the participation of all > stakeholders recognized in the Tunis Agenda. Four Advisory Groups > ­ one each for Civil Society, the Private Sector, > Inter­Governmental and International Organisations, and the > Technical and Academic Community ­ will be established, to assist > and advise the CIRP . These Groups would be self­ organized, as > per agreed principles, to ensure transparency, representativity > and inclusiveness. The Advisory Groups will meet annually in > Geneva and in conjunction with any additional meetings of the CIRP > , Their meetings will be held back ­to­ back with the meetings of > the CIRP , so that they are able to provide their inputs and > recommendations in a timely manner, to the CIRP . > > */Links with the IGF/*: Recognizing the value of the Internet > Governance Forum as an open, unique forum for multi-stakeholder > policy dialogue on Internet issues, the deliberations in the lGF > along with any inputs, background information and analysis it may > provide, will be taken as inputs for consideration of the CIRP . > An improved and strengthened lGF that can serve as a purposeful > body for policy consultations and provide meaningful policy inputs > to the CIRP , will ensure a stronger and more effective > complementarity between the CIRP and the IGF. > > (ends) > > Parminder > > > > > > > Lee > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > ] on behalf of michael > gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com ] > *Sent:* Sunday, April 21, 2013 4:07 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report > (Der Spiegel) > > In Germany. > > http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/special-commission-calls-for-internet-commissioner-in-germany-a-895412.html > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Apr 23 21:58:02 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 07:28:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <65F18F26-304B-4C27-B2F9-CF56162D64B2@ciroap.org> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com><516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net><5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net><5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net>,<20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <44E81E773C5149D5B391C35B4F59326C@Toshiba> <65F18F26-304B-4C27-B2F9-CF56162D64B2@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <51773C2A.5080408@itforchange.net> Jeremy Sorry, saw your email after I sent my amendments to Ian's text. But i think the amendments address all your concerns. We do not elevate design principles to any transcedent moral value but such principles 'should' be derived through due democratic processes. Also they do not automatically get considered as enhancing commons/ public good character of the Internet but 'must' aim at doing so. The text as amended by me is as follows *"We recognise the Internet to be a global network of networks comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, and human intentionality enabling new kinds of social interactions and transactions, brought together by a common set of design principles. The design principles and policies that constitute its governance {should be derived through due democratic processes, and must} aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet the combination of which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces, we urge the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions." parminder * On Wednesday 24 April 2013 06:44 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 24/04/2013, at 8:02 AM, Ian Peter > wrote: > >> */IP. My somewhat reduced version would then be/* >> *//* >> *We recognise the Internet to be a global network of networks >> comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and >> emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate >> combination of hardware, software, protocols, and human >> intentionality enabling new kinds of social interactions and >> transactions, brought together by a common set of design >> principles.*The design principles and policies that constitute its >> governance aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and >> global public good character of the Internet the combination of which >> has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the >> growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed >> or***proprietary online spaces, we urge the preservation and >> enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions.* > > Sorry to bring this up late, but I don't like the reductionist > definition of Internet governance that is implicit in the mention of > its design principles and policies. The design principles of the > Internet have no transcendent moral value of their own, they are just > technical choices which do not, in themselves, have any legitimacy > that we can convincingly justify. As Milton pointed out, the IETF is > not a democracy, it's a meritocracy. More broadly, the Internet's > design principles are not justifiable as an outcome of any democratic > (still less globally democratic) process. > > Mostly those choices are favourable for our underlying values such as > freedom of expression and (less often) privacy, but sometimes they are > not. So we cannot elevate the design principles of the Internet to > such a privileged position, when if different technical choices had > been made in the beginning some of the > Internet's acknowledged problems that exist today (spam, phishing, > etc) could have been less. The Internet's design principles may be > good for advancing particular policies, but they may also be bad, or > they may be indifferent. I don't think that those principles can be > said to "aim" at anything in particular, other than technical > soundness, nor that they can sensibly be described as a "common set". > > -- > > *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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 23 22:08:58 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:08:58 +0800 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <51773C2A.5080408@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com><516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net><5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net><5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net>,<20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <44E81E773C5149D5B391C35B4F59326C@Toshiba> <65F18F26-304B-4C27-B2F9-CF56162D64B2@ciroap.org> <51773C2A.5080408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51773EBA.8070308@ciroap.org> On 24/04/13 09:58, parminder wrote: > > Jeremy > > Sorry, saw your email after I sent my amendments to Ian's text. But i > think the amendments address all your concerns. We do not elevate > design principles to any transcedent moral value but such principles > 'should' be derived through due democratic processes. Also they do not > automatically get considered as enhancing commons/ public good > character of the Internet but 'must' aim at doing so. Yes I agree, thanks Parminder. -- *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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 23 22:24:56 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:24:56 +1000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <51773EBA.8070308@ciroap.org> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com><516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net><5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net><5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net>,<20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <44E81E773C5149D5B391C35B4F59326C@Toshiba> <65F18F26-304B-4C27-B2F9-CF56162D64B2@ciroap.org> <51773C2A.5080408@itforchange.net> <51773EBA.8070308@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <5EB30D7468334F0BB7A7595B3E4725C3@Toshiba> I like new text as suggested by Parminder as well – but one quibble “due democratic processes”. That sounds to me like something governments do without consultation. I would prefer multistakeholder processes. But as that means whatever people want it to mean, and may not be acceptable to everyone. Perhaps something like “through processes involving all stakeholder groups” might be a middle ground. Ian From: Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 12:08 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good On 24/04/13 09:58, parminder wrote: Jeremy Sorry, saw your email after I sent my amendments to Ian's text. But i think the amendments address all your concerns. We do not elevate design principles to any transcedent moral value but such principles 'should' be derived through due democratic processes. Also they do not automatically get considered as enhancing commons/ public good character of the Internet but 'must' aim at doing so. Yes I agree, thanks Parminder. -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 23 22:28:40 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:28:40 +0800 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <5EB30D7468334F0BB7A7595B3E4725C3@Toshiba> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net><5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net><5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net>,<20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <44E81E773C5149D5B391C35B4F59326C@Toshiba> <65F18F26-304B-4C27-B2F9-CF56162D64B2@ciroap.org> <51773C2A.5080408@itforchange.net> <51773EBA.8070308@ciroap.org> <5EB30D7468334F0BB7A7595B3E4725C3@Toshiba> Message-ID: <51774358.1060701@ciroap.org> On 24/04/13 10:24, Ian Peter wrote: > I like new text as suggested by Parminder as well – but one quibble > > “due democratic processes”. That sounds to me like something > governments do without consultation. > > I would prefer multistakeholder processes. But as that means whatever > people want it to mean, and may not be acceptable to everyone. Perhaps > something like > > “through processes involving all stakeholder groups” might be a middle > ground. As multistakeholderism is just an approach to improving democracy particularly at the global level where there are inherent democratic deficits, how about "democratic, multistakeholder processes" or "multistakeholder democratic processes". -- *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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Tue Apr 23 22:44:19 2013 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 22:44:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] Mali gives away free domain in hopes of outside investment In-Reply-To: <5164424E.4000209@gmail.com> References: <5164424E.4000209@gmail.com> Message-ID: <57DBA0CA-6313-4703-9C5C-994D65083B39@privaterra.org> folks that run .mil aren't going to be to happy about this news... On 2013-04-09, at 12:31 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > [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 > > > 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, 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 23 23:05:33 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 08:35:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <5EB30D7468334F0BB7A7595B3E4725C3@Toshiba> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net><5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net><5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net>,<20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <44E81E773C5149D5B391C35B4F59326C@Toshiba> <65F18F26-304B-4C27-B2F9-CF56162D64B2@ciroap.org> <51773C2A.5080408@itforchange.net> <51773EBA.8070308@ciroap.org> <5EB30D7468334F0BB7A7595B3E4725C3@Toshiba> Message-ID: <51774BFD.5000001@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 24 April 2013 07:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > I like new text as suggested by Parminder as well – but one quibble > “due democratic processes”. That sounds to me like something > governments do without consultation. > I would prefer multistakeholder processes. But as that means whatever > people want it to mean, and may not be acceptable to everyone. Perhaps > something like > “through processes involving all stakeholder groups” might be a middle > ground. What about "through democratic processes involving all stakeholder groups". parminder > Ian > *From:* Jeremy Malcolm > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 24, 2013 12:08 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good > On 24/04/13 09:58, parminder wrote: >> >> Jeremy >> >> Sorry, saw your email after I sent my amendments to Ian's text. But i >> think the amendments address all your concerns. We do not elevate >> design principles to any transcedent moral value but such principles >> 'should' be derived through due democratic processes. Also they do >> not automatically get considered as enhancing commons/ public good >> character of the Internet but 'must' aim at doing so. > > Yes I agree, thanks Parminder. > > -- > > *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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 23 23:14:43 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:14:43 +1000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <51774BFD.5000001@itforchange.net> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <44E81E773C5149D5B391C35B4F59326C@Toshiba> <65F18F26-304B-4C27-B2F9-CF56162D64B2@ciroap.org> <51773C2A.5080408@itforchange.net> <51773EBA.8070308@ciroap.org> <5EB30D7468334F0BB7A7595B3E4725C3@Toshiba> <51774BFD.5000001@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <6D8EB40C390444F98A703039185B754B@Toshiba> works for me.. From: parminder Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 1:05 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good On Wednesday 24 April 2013 07:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote: I like new text as suggested by Parminder as well – but one quibble “due democratic processes”. That sounds to me like something governments do without consultation. I would prefer multistakeholder processes. But as that means whatever people want it to mean, and may not be acceptable to everyone. Perhaps something like “through processes involving all stakeholder groups” might be a middle ground. What about "through democratic processes involving all stakeholder groups". parminder Ian From: Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 12:08 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good On 24/04/13 09:58, parminder wrote: Jeremy Sorry, saw your email after I sent my amendments to Ian's text. But i think the amendments address all your concerns. We do not elevate design principles to any transcedent moral value but such principles 'should' be derived through due democratic processes. Also they do not automatically get considered as enhancing commons/ public good character of the Internet but 'must' aim at doing so. Yes I agree, thanks Parminder. -- 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 23 23:16:37 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:16:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <51774BFD.5000001@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <44E81E773C5149D5B391C35B4F59326C@Toshiba> <65F18F26-304B-4C27-B2F9-CF56162D64B2@ciroap.org> <51773C2A.5080408@itforchange.net> <51773EBA.8070308@ciroap.org> <5EB30D7468334F0BB7A7595B3E4725C3@Toshiba> <51774BFD.5000001@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:05 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Wednesday 24 April 2013 07:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > I like new text as suggested by Parminder as well – but one quibble > > “due democratic processes”. That sounds to me like something governments do > without consultation. > > I would prefer multistakeholder processes. But as that means whatever people > want it to mean, and may not be acceptable to everyone. Perhaps something > like > > “through processes involving all stakeholder groups” might be a middle > ground. > > > What about "through democratic processes involving all stakeholder groups". I would be ok with that if we included: "through open, bottom-up, transparent, participatory democratic processes involving all stakeholders". Wasn't it you Parminder who put in the "due democratic processes" language in the first place? Perhaps I am misremembering. I'm still choking on the new reality bit however. MM is correct in that "success of the internet rests on a creative combination of both", so we should include end-toendiness somehow. -- 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 Tue Apr 23 23:20:36 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:20:36 -0400 Subject: AW: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report (Der Spiegel) In-Reply-To: <51773B17.4030300@itforchange.net> References: <175101ce3ecb$db22feb0$9168fc10$@gmail.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F7047@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5174C7F1.6080405@itforchange.net> <51773B17.4030300@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 9:53 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 23 April 2013 10:04 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > > First of all, the link provided is not the link to the 1200 pages report, > but to the 48 pages “executive summary”. > > > > As to the questions about the multistakeholder nature: > > > > · The composition of the Internet Enquete Commission was 17 > parliamentarians and 17 members from different stakeholder groups, so this > was a multistakeholder commission. > > > Peter, > > (Parminder) 17 members not from other stakeholder groups, but 'experts' > nominated by political parties in proportion of their strength in the > parliament, right! For instance, no industry representative here. Are you > now ready to consider inclusion of 'experts' selected by politicians as > enough to make things multi-stakeholder? If so, I can tell you that UN has > endless number of committee consisting of such experts, doing very important > work. > > > > > · The Internet Enquete Commission has employed a number of innovative > online participation options giving citizens the chance to directly > contribute and comment on the proceedings. > > > > Regarding Internet Governance: > > > > The most relevant detailed report about International Issues and Internet > Governance is here: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/124/1712480.pdf > > > > The recommendation of this report is to keep the established governance > framework and to protect the freedom and open character of the Internet. To > assure the government is kept abreast of changes, there shall be a regular > monitoring and reports. Multistakeholder participation in national and > international governance issues shall be further strengthened. There shall > be no new governmental or intergovernmental Internet Governance institutions > as long as the existing institutions maintain the current way of an open and > free Internet. The Commission is of the opinion that the current US > oversight should yield to a broader supervisory structure for ICANN and IANA > > > (Parminder) Exactly the demand of most developing countries, not a penny > more... Only, countries like India have gone further beyond generic > statements and suggested what such a broad supervisory structure could look > like. We, as in IT for Change, have tried to present some structural > possibilities and trigger a debate here in the IGC. But coming from the > Southern side, all that looks like so explosive, betrayal and so on..... It's not North vs South, it's intergovernmental vs zero-governmental. -- 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 Tue Apr 23 23:47:20 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:17:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <44E81E773C5149D5B391C35B4F59326C@Toshiba> <65F18F26-304B-4C27-B2F9-CF56162D64B2@ciroap.org> <51773C2A.5080408@itforchange.net> <51773EBA.8070308@ciroap.org> <5EB30D7468334F0BB7A7595B3E4725C3@Toshiba> <51774BFD.5000001@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <517755C8.5040503@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 24 April 2013 08:46 AM, McTim wrote: > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:05 PM, parminder wrote: >> On Wednesday 24 April 2013 07:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> I like new text as suggested by Parminder as well – but one quibble >> >> “due democratic processes”. That sounds to me like something governments do >> without consultation. >> >> I would prefer multistakeholder processes. But as that means whatever people >> want it to mean, and may not be acceptable to everyone. Perhaps something >> like >> >> “through processes involving all stakeholder groups” might be a middle >> ground. >> >> >> What about "through democratic processes involving all stakeholder groups". > I would be ok with that if we included: > > "through open, bottom-up, transparent, participatory democratic > processes involving all stakeholders". what about "democratic processes, that are open and transparent, and involve all stakeholders. (also taking note of an offline suggestion in this regard). Also adding 'end to end'. The text would then be *"We recognise the Internet to be a global, end-to-end, network of networks comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, and human intentionality enabling new kinds of social interactions and transactions, brought together by a common set of design principles. The design principles and policies that constitute Internet's governance should be derived through due democratic processes, that are open and transparent, and involve all stakeholders. Such principles and policies must aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet the combination of which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces, we urge the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions." parminder * > > Wasn't it you Parminder who put in the "due democratic processes" > language in the first place? Perhaps I am misremembering. > > I'm still choking on the new reality bit however. > > MM is correct in that "success of the internet rests on a creative > combination of both", so we should include end-toendiness somehow. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Apr 24 00:13:32 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 14:13:32 +1000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <517755C8.5040503@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <44E81E773C5149D5B391C35B4F59326C@Toshiba> <65F18F26-304B-4C27-B2F9-CF56162D64B2@ciroap.org> <51773C2A.5080408@itforchange.net> <51773EBA.8070308@ciroap.org> <5EB30D7468334F0BB7A7595B3E4725C3@Toshiba> <51774BFD.5000001@itforchange.net> <517755C8.5040503@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <427A2ADE49584310B47592C87F08D3E5@Toshiba> personally i am not sure about end-to-end , but I am not going to block consensus if everyone wants it in. end to end is probably already dead. happy with the rest though. From: parminder Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 1:47 PM To: McTim Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good On Wednesday 24 April 2013 08:46 AM, McTim wrote: On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:05 PM, parminder mailto:parminder at itforchange.net wrote: On Wednesday 24 April 2013 07:54 AM, Ian Peter wrote: I like new text as suggested by Parminder as well – but one quibble “due democratic processes”. That sounds to me like something governments do without consultation. I would prefer multistakeholder processes. But as that means whatever people want it to mean, and may not be acceptable to everyone. Perhaps something like “through processes involving all stakeholder groups” might be a middle ground. What about "through democratic processes involving all stakeholder groups". I would be ok with that if we included: "through open, bottom-up, transparent, participatory democratic processes involving all stakeholders". what about "democratic processes, that are open and transparent, and involve all stakeholders. (also taking note of an offline suggestion in this regard). Also adding 'end to end'. The text would then be "We recognise the Internet to be a global, end-to-end, network of networks comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, and human intentionality enabling new kinds of social interactions and transactions, brought together by a common set of design principles. The design principles and policies that constitute Internet's governance should be derived through due democratic processes, that are open and transparent, and involve all stakeholders. Such principles and policies must aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet the combination of which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces, we urge the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions." parminder Wasn't it you Parminder who put in the "due democratic processes" language in the first place? Perhaps I am misremembering. I'm still choking on the new reality bit however. MM is correct in that "success of the internet rests on a creative combination of both", so we should include end-toendiness somehow. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed Apr 24 00:28:26 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 23:28:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report (Der Spiegel) In-Reply-To: <51773B17.4030300@itforchange.net> References: <175101ce3ecb$db22feb0$9168fc10$@gmail.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F7047@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5174C7F1.6080405@itforchange.net> <007801ce4040$6eff41f0$4cfdc5d0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <51773B17.4030300@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <7CC465F9-995C-4396-BE50-B8B419FF1662@acm.org> On 23 Apr 2013, at 20:53, parminder wrote: > (Parminder) Exactly the demand of most developing countries, not a penny more... Only, countries like India have gone further beyond generic statements and suggested what such a broad supervisory structure could look like. Does the Indian government still support the CIRP proposal? I had the impression that they had dropped support for it but am not sure. I certainly have not heard any Indian government representatives talking about it for a while now. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Apr 24 01:18:55 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 07:18:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <51774BFD.5000001@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <44E81E773C5149D5B391C35B4F59326C@Toshiba> <65F18F26-304B-4C27-B2F9-CF56162D64B2@ciroap.org> <51773C2A.5080408@itforchange.net> <51773EBA.8070308@ciroap.org> <5EB30D7468334F0BB7A7595B3E4725C3@Toshiba> <51774BFD.5000001@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130424071855.1282fa00@quill.bollow.ch> Parminder wrote: > What about "through democratic processes involving all stakeholder > groups". IMO we should be careful to avoid any reasonable possibility of misinterpretation of the statement as an endorsement of the view that multistakeholderism is somehow "democracy 2.0" (a view to which I'd very strongly object.) How about "... through democratic and multistakeholder processes."? Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 24 03:10:13 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:10:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> Milton L Mueller wrote: > We recognise the Internet to be a global network of networks > comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and > emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate > combination of hardware, software, protocols, and human > intentionality enabling new kinds of social interactions and > transactions, brought together by a common set of design principles, > and policies established through due democratic processes. > > [Milton L Mueller] assuming that historical accuracy matters, and > depending on what “policies” one is referring to, I don’t think > “democratic” process was involved in the origin of the internet at > all. The IETF developers were meritocratic, not democratic. Even if IETF's processes do not follow the traditional patterns of democracy (in particular, they do not involve voting, and they make it hard for non-techies to participate) really the only major hurdles to effective participation in the decision-making processes that have been shaping the Internet (in the sense of the communication network, not talking about the broader sense of "Internet" right now that includes the epiphenomenon) have been willingness to engage and having a sufficient understanding of the subject matter under discussion to actually understand the suggestions and the relevant arguments. The technical development of the Internet in its significant early formative stage was not driven by special interest type business interests, but by people who truly care about what I'd call the public interest. In my view, those processes have been democratic in a very strong sense. Possibly even much more democratic than the processes of real-world parliamentary democracy are on average. It is important and significant that the major formative development of the Internet (after and beyond the initial work under the umbrella the US department of defense) was largely independent of any direct role of the state besides exercising the freedoms that are available in a democratic society (it being, IMO at least, the primary role of the democratic state to ensure the continued availability of these and related freedoms.) I'm pretty sure that the Internet (again using the word in reference to the communication network, not the epiphenomenon) couldn't possibly have been developed in a totalitarian state. Governance of the epiphenomenon has always been primarily through the processes of parliamentary democracy that shape the laws that govern democratic societies; even if many of these laws do not explicitly reference the Internet, more and more of the various processes related to doing business and to living in a democratic society rely on the Internet in some way. Going forward, we need to make sure that these two forms of governance will not become incompatible with each other and will not create incompatible results. And perhaps most importantly, we need to make sure to avoid a future in which key aspects of the rules and principles that effectively govern society are decided neither by processes of parliamentary democracy nor by other processes that can also reasonably be accepted as democratic (such as the typical processes of IETF, the RIRs, etc) but by the business interests and economic power of a small number of global companies. IMO one major cause for concern is that all too often, the "principle of multistakeholder governance" is promoted in a way that is not at all incompatible with the quite anti-democratic potential future of giving economically powerful companies effectively a veto right on all rules that would affect them. Such "multistakeholder principle" based de-regulation of economically powerful Internet-based businesses would given them the opportunity to reshape societies according to their business interests, while effectively rendering even democratic parliaments powerless to do anything about it. This is a human rights issue; specifically, the human right of the peoples to democratic self-determination is endangered here. Greetings, Norbert ** Acronyms: IETF=Internet Engineering Task Force RIR=Regional Internet Registry IMO=in my opinion -- Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Wed Apr 24 03:20:42 2013 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 09:20:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Alchemy in the namespace? Message-ID: <517787CA.1050206@panamo.eu> Hi, The main figures of the new TLDs program are in a post on lemonde.fr: it's in French, but all the illustrations are very eloquent: NB. If you wish to receive new versions, corrected and augmented, of the main paper about this matter, please feel free to write and ask for it. http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2013/04/23/icann-alchimie-noms-domaines/ Kind regards, -- Dominique Lacroix http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Wed Apr 24 04:08:56 2013 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:08:56 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report (Der Spiegel) In-Reply-To: <532268975.35835.1366786822563.open-xchange@oxbsgw15> References: <175101ce3ecb$db22feb0$9168fc10$@gmail.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F7047@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5174C7F1.6080405@itforchange.net> <007801ce4040$6eff41f0$4cfdc5d0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <532268975.35835.1366786822563.open-xchange@oxbsgw15> Message-ID: <1655629641.25647.1366790961206.open-xchange@oxbsgw17> Parminder, please check your facts before making such claims: "For instance, no industry representative here." I know personally at least two business representatives plus one parliamentarian who also runs his own business. As to your question: "Are you now ready to consider inclusion of 'experts' selected by politicians as enough to make things multi-stakeholder?" Probably as much as a selection of stakeholder reps for the IGF MAG by the UN 'black box' which has been accepted by participants in the IGF. I'm sure Wolfgang and Jeanette can say more about the selection process in the German national Internet Enquete Commission. Regards, Peter On 24.04.2013, at 03:54, "parminder" wrote: On Tuesday 23 April 2013 10:04 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > First of all, the link provided is not the link to the 1200 pages report, but to the 48 pages “executive summary”. > > As to the questions about the multistakeholder nature: > > · The composition of the Internet Enquete Commission was 17 parliamentarians and 17 members from different stakeholder groups, so this was a multistakeholder commission. Peter, (Parminder) 17 members not from other stakeholder groups, but 'experts' nominated by political parties in proportion of their strength in the parliament, right! For instance, no industry representative here. Are you now ready to consider inclusion of 'experts' selected by politicians as enough to make things multi-stakeholder? If so, I can tell you that UN has endless number of committee consisting of such experts, doing very important work. > > · The Internet Enquete Commission has employed a number of innovative online participation options giving citizens the chance to directly contribute and comment on the proceedings. > > Regarding Internet Governance: > > The most relevant detailed report about International Issues and Internet Governance is here: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/124/1712480.pdf > > The recommendation of this report is to keep the established governance framework and to protect the freedom and open character of the Internet. To assure the government is kept abreast of changes, there shall be a regular monitoring and reports. Multistakeholder participation in national and international governance issues shall be further strengthened. There shall be no new governmental or intergovernmental Internet Governance institutions as long as the existing institutions maintain the current way of an open and free Internet. The Commission is of the opinion that the current US oversight should yield to a broader supervisory structure for ICANN and IANA (Parminder) Exactly the demand of most developing countries, not a penny more... Only, countries like India have gone further beyond generic statements and suggested what such a broad supervisory structure could look like. We, as in IT for Change, have tried to present some structural possibilities and trigger a debate here in the IGC. But coming from the Southern side, all that looks like so explosive, betrayal and so on..... Now since a German nationally constituted 'multi-stakeholder' commission also calls for a new 'supervisory structure' can we at least now debate the possible contours of one... parminder > and suggests more engagement by the German government and the EU. To enable that, German ministries should get expanded funding to enhance their support for multistakeholder participation. The IGF should get German funding through the trust fund managed by UN DESA. > > There is a lot more, but this summarizes some of the main points. Jeanette has already provided some background into the general working of the commission. I’m sure Wolfgang and Jeanette can shed some more light on the content of the Internet Governance debate. Throwing the text through an automatic translation engine might also help to access its contents for those who don’t understand sufficient German. > > -- Peter > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von parminder > Gesendet: 22 April 2013 07:18 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report (Der Spiegel) > > > On Monday 22 April 2013 02:52 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Very interesting material. > > Link to final report: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/125/1712550.pdf > > Perhaps IGC's own Jeanette Hoffman who participated, might summarize the 1200 pp full report, and suggest implications for global internet governance? : ) > > > http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/special-commission-calls-for-internet-commissioner-in-germany-a-895412.html > > > While one awaits further information, one thing is clear from the referred news item that the Commission strongly underscored the importance of cross cutting Internet-related public policy issues in asking the "German government to get more serious about Internet-related issues" and in seeking the setting up a new committee of the parliament for Internet-related public policy issues . To me, it closely parallels the Indian demand for the UN Committee on Internet-related Policies. The overall logic and justifications are very similar, especially with what we all recognise as an inherently global nature of the Internet. > > Will be interesting to know if the prosed German Parliamentary Committee will have similar levels of multistakeholder engagement as the India' proposed UN CIRP. And I quote from the CIRP proposal so that people/ we can make a comparison. > > (quote from UN CIRP proposal begins) > > It will ensure the participation of all relevant stakeholders by establishing four Advisory Groups, one each for civil society, the private sector, inter­governmental and international organizations, and the technical and academic community. The Advisory Groups will provide their inputs and recommendations to the CIRP . The meetings of CIRP and the advisory groups will be serviced by the UNCTAD Secretariat that also services the meetings of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development. The Internet Governance Forum will provide inputs to CIRP in the spirit of complementarity between the two. > (ends) > > With further elaboration in the Annexure to the CIRP proposal > > (quote begins) > Multi­stakeholder participation: Recognizing the need to involve all stakeholders in Global Internet Governance in their respective roles, the CIRP shall ensure the participation of all stakeholders recognized in the Tunis Agenda. Four Advisory Groups ­ one each for Civil Society, the Private Sector, Inter­Governmental and International Organisations, and the Technical and Academic Community ­ will be established, to assist and advise the CIRP . These Groups would be self­ organized, as per agreed principles, to ensure transparency, representativity and inclusiveness. The Advisory Groups will meet annually in Geneva and in conjunction with any additional meetings of the CIRP , Their meetings will be held back ­to­ back with the meetings of the CIRP , so that they are able to provide their inputs and recommendations in a timely manner, to the CIRP . > > Links with the IGF: Recognizing the value of the Internet Governance Forum as an open, unique forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue on Internet issues, the deliberations in the lGF along with any inputs, background information and analysis it may provide, will be taken as inputs for consideration of the CIRP . An improved and strengthened lGF that can serve as a purposeful body for policy consultations and provide meaningful policy inputs to the CIRP , will ensure a stronger and more effective complementarity between the CIRP and the IGF. > > (ends) > > Parminder > > > > > > > Lee > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 4:07 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report (Der Spiegel) > > In Germany. > > > > http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/special-commission-calls-for-internet-commissioner-in-germany-a-895412.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Apr 24 04:55:48 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 14:25:48 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report (Der Spiegel) In-Reply-To: <1655629641.25647.1366790961206.open-xchange@oxbsgw17> References: <175101ce3ecb$db22feb0$9168fc10$@gmail.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F7047@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5174C7F1.6080405@itforchange.net> <007801ce4040$6eff41f0$4cfdc5d0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <532268975.35835.1366786822563.open-xchange@oxbsgw15> <1655629641.25647.1366790961206.open-xchange@oxbsgw17> Message-ID: <51779E14.2030709@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 24 April 2013 01:38 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > Parminder, please check your facts before making such claims: > > "For instance, no industry representative here." > > I know personally at least two business representatives plus one > parliamentarian who also runs his own business. Dear Peter I went by what a member of the commission, Jeanette, told us. To quote " 50% of its membership consists of members of the parliament and 50% of experts appointed by the parliamentary factions, depending on their relative size" . So I really got my facts right here. It is strange that you consider a parliamentarian who may also run his own business as an industry representative. I am sure the concerned parliamentarian will better like to describe himself as a people's representative, which is what he is. I thought stakeholder group representatives were those whom stakeholder groups expressly put forward as their representative. But it seems more you venture into the multistakeholderism world, the less you are clear about it. You say at least two business representatives other than the parliamentarian - who I understand were 'experts' nominated by political parties. Now that makes them experts nominated by political parties and not industry representatives, never mind what profession that may pursue. But let me not argue with you. But I can at least hope that you will apply definitions consistently. I simply ask, would you take a global commission on the Internet with half the members who are 'experts' nominated by various political factions in the UN - say, the regional groups or OECD country, G 77 etc groups - as a multistakeholder body? > > As to your question: > > "Are you now ready to consider inclusion of 'experts' selected by > politicians as enough to make things multi-stakeholder?" > > Probably as much as a selection of stakeholder reps for the IGF MAG by > the UN 'black box' which has been accepted by participants in the IGF. So, now IGF MAG is less multi-stakeholder than the German parliamentary commission. Interesting perspective :). > I'm sure Wolfgang and Jeanette can say more about the selection > process in the German national Internet Enquete Commission. Jeanette has described the process quite specifically, and it follows the pattern of parliamentary committees in many democracies. But happy to hear more details. parminder > > Regards, > > Peter > > On 24.04.2013, at 03:54, "parminder" > wrote: > > > On Tuesday 23 April 2013 10:04 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: >> >> First of all, the link provided is not the link to the 1200 pages >> report, but to the 48 pages “executive summary”. >> >> As to the questions about the multistakeholder nature: >> >> ·The composition of the Internet Enquete Commission was 17 >> parliamentarians and 17 members from different stakeholder groups, so >> this was a multistakeholder commission. >> > > Peter, > > (Parminder) 17 members not from other stakeholder groups, but > 'experts' nominated by political parties in proportion of their > strength in the parliament, right! For instance, no industry > representative here. Are you now ready to consider inclusion of > 'experts' selected by politicians as enough to make things > multi-stakeholder? If so, I can tell you that UN has endless number of > committee consisting of such experts, doing very important work. > > >> ·The Internet Enquete Commission has employed a number of innovative >> online participation options giving citizens the chance to directly >> contribute and comment on the proceedings. >> >> Regarding Internet Governance: >> >> The most relevant detailed report about International Issues and >> Internet Governance is here: >> http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/124/1712480.pdf >> >> The recommendation of this report is to keep the established >> governance framework and to protect the freedom and open character of >> the Internet. To assure the government is kept abreast of changes, >> there shall be a regular monitoring and reports. Multistakeholder >> participation in national and international governance issues shall >> be further strengthened. There shall be no new governmental or >> intergovernmental Internet Governance institutions as long as the >> existing institutions maintain the current way of an open and free >> Internet. The Commission is of the opinion that the current US >> oversight should yield to a broader supervisory structure for ICANN >> and IANA >> > > (Parminder) Exactly the demand of most developing countries, not a > penny more... Only, countries like India have gone further beyond > generic statements and suggested what such a broad supervisory > structure could look like. We, as in IT for Change, have tried to > present some structural possibilities and trigger a debate here in the > IGC. But coming from the Southern side, all that looks like so > explosive, betrayal and so on..... Now since a German nationally > constituted 'multi-stakeholder' commission also calls for a new > 'supervisory structure' can we at least now debate the possible > contours of one... > > parminder > >> and suggests more engagement by the German government and the EU. To >> enable that, German ministries should get expanded funding to enhance >> their support for multistakeholder participation. The IGF should get >> German funding through the trust fund managed by UN DESA. >> >> There is a lot more, but this summarizes some of the main points. >> Jeanette has already provided some background into the general >> working of the commission. I’m sure Wolfgang and Jeanette can shed >> some more light on the content of the Internet Governance debate. >> Throwing the text through an automatic translation engine might also >> help to access its contents for those who don’t understand sufficient >> German. >> >> -- Peter >> >> *Von:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *Im Auftrag von *parminder >> *Gesendet:* 22 April 2013 07:18 >> *An:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Betreff:* Re: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission >> Report (Der Spiegel) >> >> On Monday 22 April 2013 02:52 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >> Very interesting material. >> >> Link to final report: >> http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/125/1712550.pdf >> >> Perhaps IGC's own Jeanette Hoffman who participated, might >> summarize the 1200 pp full report, and suggest implications for >> global internet governance? : ) >> >> http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/special-commission-calls-for-internet-commissioner-in-germany-a-895412.html >> >> >> >> While one awaits further information, one thing is clear from the >> referred news item that the Commission strongly underscored the >> importance of cross cutting Internet-related public policy issues in >> asking the "German government to get more serious about >> Internet-related issues" and in seeking the setting up */a new >> committee of the parliament for Internet-related public policy >> issues/* . To me, it closely parallels the Indian demand for the UN >> Committee on Internet-related Policies. The overall logic and >> justifications are very similar, especially with what we all >> recognise as an inherently global nature of the Internet. >> >> Will be interesting to know if the prosed German Parliamentary >> Committee will have similar levels of multistakeholder engagement as >> the India' proposed UN CIRP. And I quote from the CIRP proposal so >> that people/ we can make a comparison. >> >> (quote from UN CIRP proposal begins) >> >> It will ensure the participation of all relevant stakeholders by >> establishing four Advisory Groups, one each for civil society, the >> private sector, inter­governmental and international organizations, >> and the technical and academic community. The Advisory Groups will >> provide their inputs and recommendations to the CIRP . The meetings >> of CIRP and the advisory groups will be serviced by the UNCTAD >> Secretariat that also services the meetings of the Commission on >> Science and Technology for Development. The Internet Governance Forum >> will provide inputs to CIRP in the spirit of complementarity between >> the two. >> >> (ends) >> >> With further elaboration in the Annexure to the CIRP proposal >> >> >> (quote begins) >> >> */Multi­stakeholder participation/*: Recognizing the need to >> involve all stakeholders in Global Internet Governance in their >> respective roles, the CIRP shall ensure the participation of all >> stakeholders recognized in the Tunis Agenda. Four Advisory Groups >> ­ one each for Civil Society, the Private Sector, >> Inter­Governmental and International Organisations, and the >> Technical and Academic Community ­ will be established, to assist >> and advise the CIRP . These Groups would be self­ organized, as >> per agreed principles, to ensure transparency, representativity >> and inclusiveness. The Advisory Groups will meet annually in >> Geneva and in conjunction with any additional meetings of the >> CIRP , Their meetings will be held back ­to­ back with the >> meetings of the CIRP , so that they are able to provide their >> inputs and recommendations in a timely manner, to the CIRP . >> >> */Links with the IGF/*: Recognizing the value of the Internet >> Governance Forum as an open, unique forum for multi-stakeholder >> policy dialogue on Internet issues, the deliberations in the lGF >> along with any inputs, background information and analysis it may >> provide, will be taken as inputs for consideration of the CIRP . >> An improved and strengthened lGF that can serve as a purposeful >> body for policy consultations and provide meaningful policy >> inputs to the CIRP , will ensure a stronger and more effective >> complementarity between the CIRP and the IGF. >> >> (ends) >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Lee >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> ] on behalf of michael >> gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com ] >> *Sent:* Sunday, April 21, 2013 4:07 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> *Subject:* [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report >> (Der Spiegel) >> >> In Germany. >> >> http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/special-commission-calls-for-internet-commissioner-in-germany-a-895412.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Wed Apr 24 05:47:02 2013 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:47:02 +0200 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report (Der Spiegel) In-Reply-To: <51779E14.2030709@itforchange.net> References: <175101ce3ecb$db22feb0$9168fc10$@gmail.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F7047@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5174C7F1.6080405@itforchange.net> <007801ce4040$6eff41f0$4cfdc5d0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <532268975.35835.1366786822563.open-xchange@oxbsgw15> <1655629641.25647.1366790961206.open-xchange@oxbsgw17> <51779E14.2030709@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <000301ce40d0$ac672860$05357920$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> Dear Parminder, I am afraid I have to disagree with you here: no, you did not have your facts right. In fact, you did not check them but relied on your interpretation of what you heard from Jeanette. Your claim was there were no industry representatives on the commission and I proved that you were wrong in making that statement or claim, since two of the experts were industry representatives. The fact that they were named experts does not disqualify them from being industry representatives. And what is wrong if they were nominated by political parties? I have no insight into the selection process, but see no wrong up-front with experts being nominated by the political parties that have been democratically elected by the citizens of the country. Looking at the parliamentarian document issued by all of the parties represented in parliament to institute the parliamentary Internet Enquete Commission (http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/009/1700950.pdf), it seems that all of the parties jointly agreed on the nomination and selection process. The two ruling parties in the coalition government got to nominate 9 experts, whereas the three opposition parties together got to nominate 7 experts. But the point is: you claimed there were no industry reps and I proved you wrong. One of them is the managing director of the German federal ICT business association, so be assured he is representing his industry, no matter how he was nominated or selected. The other has been until this month a representative of one of the biggest ISPs in Europe who also happens to lecture about the Internet at a university. That does neither disqualify him as an industry representative nor as an expert, on the contrary. And the businessman who has been elected into parliament will surely represent the citizens who elected him, but I am equally sure that he will not do anything that would be against his own fundamental business interests and personal convictions. So I posit that he will at least have some business concerns on his personal agenda. But I guess you just wanted to rant against the nomination and selection process in general as part of a bigger agenda of yours. As I said, I have no insight into how this selection process worked, but there was no objection from German stakeholders, so why should there be an objection from India, when the commission has now done its job and delivered its final report? I have not made a claim that the German model should be adopted globally, only that the Germans seemed to be happy with the way these stakeholder reps were selected by the parliament for their own national parliamentarian Internet commission. You on the other hand have used this thread to bring up the Indian proposal for internationalisation of ICANN. I think you are riding your personal agenda here which I have no inclination to get involved in. And no, I did not claim that the IGF MAG was less multi-stakeholder than the German commission. I said, in reply to your question whether I consider the above selection process sufficient for claiming multi-stakeholderism, “probably as much as”, which for me carries the meaning: “about the same as”, i.e. not claiming that one process was superior to the other. As to your new question: “I simply ask, would you take a global commission on the Internet with half the members who are 'experts' nominated by various political factions in the UN - say, the regional groups or OECD country, G 77 etc groups - as a multistakeholder body?” I think there is a big difference between “political factions” in the UN system, which is per se an inter-governmental system, and the political parties being elected by the citizens of a country in a democratic way. I would have a problem if political factions who are not democratically elected would select a multi-stakeholder body. On the other hand, I have no insight either into how the final selection process in the UN works for the IGF MAG or other processes involved in selecting multi-stakeholders. All we know that each stakeholder group may make nominations, but how does the final selection work? Do you know who makes the final decisions, who is being consulted in the process about the electability of one or the other candidate? But I know I cannot win an argument against you in this forum, even if I wanted to. You are far more experienced in twisting words and meanings and playing on words to make one’s mind spin. So, I don’t want to win this argument and would prefer to let this rest here, though I am sure you will want to have the last word. You may have it. :-) Cheers. Peter Von: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Gesendet: 24 April 2013 10:56 An: Peter H. Hellmonds Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report (Der Spiegel) On Wednesday 24 April 2013 01:38 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: Parminder, please check your facts before making such claims: "For instance, no industry representative here." I know personally at least two business representatives plus one parliamentarian who also runs his own business. Dear Peter I went by what a member of the commission, Jeanette, told us. To quote " 50% of its membership consists of members of the parliament and 50% of experts appointed by the parliamentary factions, depending on their relative size" . So I really got my facts right here. It is strange that you consider a parliamentarian who may also run his own business as an industry representative. I am sure the concerned parliamentarian will better like to describe himself as a people's representative, which is what he is. I thought stakeholder group representatives were those whom stakeholder groups expressly put forward as their representative. But it seems more you venture into the multistakeholderism world, the less you are clear about it. You say at least two business representatives other than the parliamentarian - who I understand were 'experts' nominated by political parties. Now that makes them experts nominated by political parties and not industry representatives, never mind what profession that may pursue. But let me not argue with you. But I can at least hope that you will apply definitions consistently. I simply ask, would you take a global commission on the Internet with half the members who are 'experts' nominated by various political factions in the UN - say, the regional groups or OECD country, G 77 etc groups - as a multistakeholder body? As to your question: "Are you now ready to consider inclusion of 'experts' selected by politicians as enough to make things multi-stakeholder?" Probably as much as a selection of stakeholder reps for the IGF MAG by the UN 'black box' which has been accepted by participants in the IGF. So, now IGF MAG is less multi-stakeholder than the German parliamentary commission. Interesting perspective :). I'm sure Wolfgang and Jeanette can say more about the selection process in the German national Internet Enquete Commission. Jeanette has described the process quite specifically, and it follows the pattern of parliamentary committees in many democracies. But happy to hear more details. parminder Regards, Peter On 24.04.2013, at 03:54, "parminder" wrote: On Tuesday 23 April 2013 10:04 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: First of all, the link provided is not the link to the 1200 pages report, but to the 48 pages “executive summary”. As to the questions about the multistakeholder nature: · The composition of the Internet Enquete Commission was 17 parliamentarians and 17 members from different stakeholder groups, so this was a multistakeholder commission. Peter, (Parminder) 17 members not from other stakeholder groups, but 'experts' nominated by political parties in proportion of their strength in the parliament, right! For instance, no industry representative here. Are you now ready to consider inclusion of 'experts' selected by politicians as enough to make things multi-stakeholder? If so, I can tell you that UN has endless number of committee consisting of such experts, doing very important work. · The Internet Enquete Commission has employed a number of innovative online participation options giving citizens the chance to directly contribute and comment on the proceedings. Regarding Internet Governance: The most relevant detailed report about International Issues and Internet Governance is here: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/124/1712480.pdf The recommendation of this report is to keep the established governance framework and to protect the freedom and open character of the Internet. To assure the government is kept abreast of changes, there shall be a regular monitoring and reports. Multistakeholder participation in national and international governance issues shall be further strengthened. There shall be no new governmental or intergovernmental Internet Governance institutions as long as the existing institutions maintain the current way of an open and free Internet. The Commission is of the opinion that the current US oversight should yield to a broader supervisory structure for ICANN and IANA (Parminder) Exactly the demand of most developing countries, not a penny more... Only, countries like India have gone further beyond generic statements and suggested what such a broad supervisory structure could look like. We, as in IT for Change, have tried to present some structural possibilities and trigger a debate here in the IGC. But coming from the Southern side, all that looks like so explosive, betrayal and so on..... Now since a German nationally constituted 'multi-stakeholder' commission also calls for a new 'supervisory structure' can we at least now debate the possible contours of one... parminder and suggests more engagement by the German government and the EU. To enable that, German ministries should get expanded funding to enhance their support for multistakeholder participation. The IGF should get German funding through the trust fund managed by UN DESA. There is a lot more, but this summarizes some of the main points. Jeanette has already provided some background into the general working of the commission. I’m sure Wolfgang and Jeanette can shed some more light on the content of the Internet Governance debate. Throwing the text through an automatic translation engine might also help to access its contents for those who don’t understand sufficient German. -- Peter Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von parminder Gesendet: 22 April 2013 07:18 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report (Der Spiegel) On Monday 22 April 2013 02:52 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: Very interesting material. Link to final report: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/125/1712550.pdf Perhaps IGC's own Jeanette Hoffman who participated, might summarize the 1200 pp full report, and suggest implications for global internet governance? : ) http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/special-commission-calls-for-internet-commissioner-in-germany-a-895412.html While one awaits further information, one thing is clear from the referred news item that the Commission strongly underscored the importance of cross cutting Internet-related public policy issues in asking the "German government to get more serious about Internet-related issues" and in seeking the setting up a new committee of the parliament for Internet-related public policy issues . To me, it closely parallels the Indian demand for the UN Committee on Internet-related Policies. The overall logic and justifications are very similar, especially with what we all recognise as an inherently global nature of the Internet. Will be interesting to know if the prosed German Parliamentary Committee will have similar levels of multistakeholder engagement as the India' proposed UN CIRP. And I quote from the CIRP proposal so that people/ we can make a comparison. (quote from UN CIRP proposal begins) It will ensure the participation of all relevant stakeholders by establishing four Advisory Groups, one each for civil society, the private sector, inter­governmental and international organizations, and the technical and academic community. The Advisory Groups will provide their inputs and recommendations to the CIRP . The meetings of CIRP and the advisory groups will be serviced by the UNCTAD Secretariat that also services the meetings of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development. The Internet Governance Forum will provide inputs to CIRP in the spirit of complementarity between the two. (ends) With further elaboration in the Annexure to the CIRP proposal (quote begins) Multi­stakeholder participation: Recognizing the need to involve all stakeholders in Global Internet Governance in their respective roles, the CIRP shall ensure the participation of all stakeholders recognized in the Tunis Agenda. Four Advisory Groups ­ one each for Civil Society, the Private Sector, Inter­Governmental and International Organisations, and the Technical and Academic Community ­ will be established, to assist and advise the CIRP . These Groups would be self­ organized, as per agreed principles, to ensure transparency, representativity and inclusiveness. The Advisory Groups will meet annually in Geneva and in conjunction with any additional meetings of the CIRP , Their meetings will be held back ­to­ back with the meetings of the CIRP , so that they are able to provide their inputs and recommendations in a timely manner, to the CIRP . Links with the IGF: Recognizing the value of the Internet Governance Forum as an open, unique forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue on Internet issues, the deliberations in the lGF along with any inputs, background information and analysis it may provide, will be taken as inputs for consideration of the CIRP . An improved and strengthened lGF that can serve as a purposeful body for policy consultations and provide meaningful policy inputs to the CIRP , will ensure a stronger and more effective complementarity between the CIRP and the IGF. (ends) Parminder Lee _____ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 4:07 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report (Der Spiegel) In Germany. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/special-commission-calls-for-internet-commissioner-in-germany-a-895412.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Apr 24 06:29:42 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 07:29:42 -0300 Subject: [governance] Mali gives away free domain in hopes of outside investment Message-ID: <9cw1rqf5ss7wmebf69rdspws.1366799354491@email.android.com> Do you think they will be droned? ;) ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: Robert Guerra Date: 23/04/2013 23:44 (GMT-03:00) To: Internet Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Mali gives away free domain in hopes of outside investment folks that run .mil aren't going to be to happy about this news... On 2013-04-09, at 12:31 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: [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 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, 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Apr 24 07:47:01 2013 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:47:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report (Der Spiegel) In-Reply-To: <51779E14.2030709@itforchange.net> References: <175101ce3ecb$db22feb0$9168fc10$@gmail.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F7047@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5174C7F1.6080405@itforchange.net> <007801ce4040$6eff41f0$4cfdc5d0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <532268975.35835.1366786822563.open-xchange@oxbsgw15> <1655629641.25647.1366790961206.open-xchange@oxbsgw17> <51779E14.2030709@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5177C635.3060905@wzb.eu> The appointed experts of the enquete commission had all sorts of backgrounds: ngos, academia, trade unions, chaos computer club but also industry associations and lobbyists. In my view that qualifies as multi-stakeholder. jeanette Am 24.04.2013 10:55, schrieb parminder: > > On Wednesday 24 April 2013 01:38 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: >> Parminder, please check your facts before making such claims: >> >> "For instance, no industry representative here." >> >> I know personally at least two business representatives plus one >> parliamentarian who also runs his own business. > > > Dear Peter > > I went by what a member of the commission, Jeanette, told us. To quote " > 50% of its membership consists of members of the parliament and 50% of > experts appointed by the parliamentary factions, depending on their > relative size" . So I really got my facts right here. > > It is strange that you consider a parliamentarian who may also run his > own business as an industry representative. I am sure the concerned > parliamentarian will better like to describe himself as a people's > representative, which is what he is. I thought stakeholder group > representatives were those whom stakeholder groups expressly put forward > as their representative. But it seems more you venture into the > multistakeholderism world, the less you are clear about it. > > You say at least two business representatives other than the > parliamentarian - who I understand were 'experts' nominated by > political parties. Now that makes them experts nominated by political > parties and not industry representatives, never mind what profession > that may pursue. > > But let me not argue with you. But I can at least hope that you will > apply definitions consistently. I simply ask, would you take a global > commission on the Internet with half the members who are 'experts' > nominated by various political factions in the UN - say, the regional > groups or OECD country, G 77 etc groups - as a multistakeholder body? > >> >> As to your question: >> >> "Are you now ready to consider inclusion of 'experts' selected by >> politicians as enough to make things multi-stakeholder?" >> >> Probably as much as a selection of stakeholder reps for the IGF MAG by >> the UN 'black box' which has been accepted by participants in the IGF. > > So, now IGF MAG is less multi-stakeholder than the German parliamentary > commission. Interesting perspective :). > > >> I'm sure Wolfgang and Jeanette can say more about the selection >> process in the German national Internet Enquete Commission. > > Jeanette has described the process quite specifically, and it follows > the pattern of parliamentary committees in many democracies. But happy > to hear more details. > > parminder > >> >> Regards, >> >> Peter >> >> On 24.04.2013, at 03:54, "parminder" > > wrote: >> >> >> On Tuesday 23 April 2013 10:04 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: >>> >>> First of all, the link provided is not the link to the 1200 pages >>> report, but to the 48 pages “executive summary”. >>> >>> As to the questions about the multistakeholder nature: >>> >>> ·The composition of the Internet Enquete Commission was 17 >>> parliamentarians and 17 members from different stakeholder groups, so >>> this was a multistakeholder commission. >>> >> >> Peter, >> >> (Parminder) 17 members not from other stakeholder groups, but >> 'experts' nominated by political parties in proportion of their >> strength in the parliament, right! For instance, no industry >> representative here. Are you now ready to consider inclusion of >> 'experts' selected by politicians as enough to make things >> multi-stakeholder? If so, I can tell you that UN has endless number of >> committee consisting of such experts, doing very important work. >> >> >>> ·The Internet Enquete Commission has employed a number of innovative >>> online participation options giving citizens the chance to directly >>> contribute and comment on the proceedings. >>> >>> Regarding Internet Governance: >>> >>> The most relevant detailed report about International Issues and >>> Internet Governance is here: >>> http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/124/1712480.pdf >>> >>> The recommendation of this report is to keep the established >>> governance framework and to protect the freedom and open character of >>> the Internet. To assure the government is kept abreast of changes, >>> there shall be a regular monitoring and reports. Multistakeholder >>> participation in national and international governance issues shall >>> be further strengthened. There shall be no new governmental or >>> intergovernmental Internet Governance institutions as long as the >>> existing institutions maintain the current way of an open and free >>> Internet. The Commission is of the opinion that the current US >>> oversight should yield to a broader supervisory structure for ICANN >>> and IANA >>> >> >> (Parminder) Exactly the demand of most developing countries, not a >> penny more... Only, countries like India have gone further beyond >> generic statements and suggested what such a broad supervisory >> structure could look like. We, as in IT for Change, have tried to >> present some structural possibilities and trigger a debate here in the >> IGC. But coming from the Southern side, all that looks like so >> explosive, betrayal and so on..... Now since a German nationally >> constituted 'multi-stakeholder' commission also calls for a new >> 'supervisory structure' can we at least now debate the possible >> contours of one... >> >> parminder >> >>> and suggests more engagement by the German government and the EU. To >>> enable that, German ministries should get expanded funding to enhance >>> their support for multistakeholder participation. The IGF should get >>> German funding through the trust fund managed by UN DESA. >>> >>> There is a lot more, but this summarizes some of the main points. >>> Jeanette has already provided some background into the general >>> working of the commission. I’m sure Wolfgang and Jeanette can shed >>> some more light on the content of the Internet Governance debate. >>> Throwing the text through an automatic translation engine might also >>> help to access its contents for those who don’t understand sufficient >>> German. >>> >>> -- Peter >>> >>> *Von:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *Im Auftrag von *parminder >>> *Gesendet:* 22 April 2013 07:18 >>> *An:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> *Betreff:* Re: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission >>> Report (Der Spiegel) >>> >>> On Monday 22 April 2013 02:52 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >>> >>> Very interesting material. >>> >>> Link to final report: >>> http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/125/1712550.pdf >>> >>> Perhaps IGC's own Jeanette Hoffman who participated, might >>> summarize the 1200 pp full report, and suggest implications for >>> global internet governance? : ) >>> >>> http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/special-commission-calls-for-internet-commissioner-in-germany-a-895412.html >>> >>> >>> >>> While one awaits further information, one thing is clear from the >>> referred news item that the Commission strongly underscored the >>> importance of cross cutting Internet-related public policy issues in >>> asking the "German government to get more serious about >>> Internet-related issues" and in seeking the setting up */a new >>> committee of the parliament for Internet-related public policy >>> issues/* . To me, it closely parallels the Indian demand for the UN >>> Committee on Internet-related Policies. The overall logic and >>> justifications are very similar, especially with what we all >>> recognise as an inherently global nature of the Internet. >>> >>> Will be interesting to know if the prosed German Parliamentary >>> Committee will have similar levels of multistakeholder engagement as >>> the India' proposed UN CIRP. And I quote from the CIRP proposal so >>> that people/ we can make a comparison. >>> >>> (quote from UN CIRP proposal begins) >>> >>> It will ensure the participation of all relevant stakeholders by >>> establishing four Advisory Groups, one each for civil society, the >>> private sector, inter­governmental and international organizations, >>> and the technical and academic community. The Advisory Groups will >>> provide their inputs and recommendations to the CIRP . The meetings >>> of CIRP and the advisory groups will be serviced by the UNCTAD >>> Secretariat that also services the meetings of the Commission on >>> Science and Technology for Development. The Internet Governance Forum >>> will provide inputs to CIRP in the spirit of complementarity between >>> the two. >>> >>> (ends) >>> >>> With further elaboration in the Annexure to the CIRP proposal >>> >>> >>> (quote begins) >>> >>> */Multi­stakeholder participation/*: Recognizing the need to >>> involve all stakeholders in Global Internet Governance in their >>> respective roles, the CIRP shall ensure the participation of all >>> stakeholders recognized in the Tunis Agenda. Four Advisory Groups >>> ­ one each for Civil Society, the Private Sector, >>> Inter­Governmental and International Organisations, and the >>> Technical and Academic Community ­ will be established, to assist >>> and advise the CIRP . These Groups would be self­ organized, as >>> per agreed principles, to ensure transparency, representativity >>> and inclusiveness. The Advisory Groups will meet annually in >>> Geneva and in conjunction with any additional meetings of the >>> CIRP , Their meetings will be held back ­to­ back with the >>> meetings of the CIRP , so that they are able to provide their >>> inputs and recommendations in a timely manner, to the CIRP . >>> >>> */Links with the IGF/*: Recognizing the value of the Internet >>> Governance Forum as an open, unique forum for multi-stakeholder >>> policy dialogue on Internet issues, the deliberations in the lGF >>> along with any inputs, background information and analysis it may >>> provide, will be taken as inputs for consideration of the CIRP . >>> An improved and strengthened lGF that can serve as a purposeful >>> body for policy consultations and provide meaningful policy >>> inputs to the CIRP , will ensure a stronger and more effective >>> complementarity between the CIRP and the IGF. >>> >>> (ends) >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Lee >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>> ] on behalf of michael >>> gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com ] >>> *Sent:* Sunday, April 21, 2013 4:07 PM >>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> *Subject:* [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report >>> (Der Spiegel) >>> >>> In Germany. >>> >>> http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/special-commission-calls-for-internet-commissioner-in-germany-a-895412.html >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Wed Apr 24 09:57:02 2013 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:57:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] Wikipedia: Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <806072862.21645.1366743517442.open-xchange@oxbsgw15> References: <806072862.21645.1366743517442.open-xchange@oxbsgw15> Message-ID: <1412059816.9909.1366811830574.open-xchange@oxbsgw19> Michael, At the WSIS+10 session on EC at UNESCO in Paris, which you also attended, I brought this up and asked Yrjö Lansipuro, who used to be a Finnish government representative, to explain the EU context, which he did. He also explained that while this may have been in the back of the heads of some European delegates to the WSIS, it was equally clear that everyone would take home their own interpretation of what the term should mean as it was intentionally left undefined. Such is the nature of this kind of international negotiations that future generations are left to make the best of undefined terms and processes. :-) Best Peter On 19.04.2013, at 22:07, "michael gurstein" wrote: I'm not sure that this has been discussed... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_cooperation Comments? 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From garth.graham at telus.net Wed Apr 24 10:28:47 2013 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 07:28:47 -0700 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> On 2013-04-24, at 12:10 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Governance of the epiphenomenon has always been primarily through the processes of parliamentary democracy that shape the laws that govern > democratic societies; Not quite. Inge Kaul finds the standard definition of public goods that assumes the sovereignty of nation states in regulation to be of “limited practical-political value:” “The shifts between private and public thus reflect greater shared concern for the public domain among all the main actors—the state, businesses, civil society organizations, and households—and for what others expect of them and how their private activities affect others. A wider arena, and probably a new era, of publicness have emerged.” (1) She redefines the definition “to require public goods to be inclusive (public in consumption), based on participatory decision-making (public in provision) and offering a fair deal for all (public in the distribution of benefits).”(2). She sees that, in spite of their legislative and coercive powers, more than nation states are involved in addressing the problems of undersupply and market failure. She sees a need to develop, “a more systematic approach to public policy partnerships.”(3). In her terms, Internet governance as a public good could be viewed as emerging “against the wishes of the state.” (4). “Goods often become private or public as a result of deliberate policy choices. That is why consideration should be given to expanding the definition—to recognize that in many if not most cases, goods exist not in their original forms but as social constructs, largely determined by policies and other collective human actions. According to this revised definition, public goods are nonexclusive or, put differently, de facto public in consumption.” (5) “Public goods are not just market failures, and they are not merely state-produced goods. The public and private domains exist on their own, beyond states and markets. …. It can even be argued that the state and the market are part of the public domain: they are both public goods.” (6). Personally, I find that phrase “public policy partnerships,” to be a bit more euphonious and helpful than the mouthful “multi-stakeholderism." GG (1). Inge Kaul and Ronald U.Mendoza. Advancing the Concept of Public Goods. In: Inge Kaul, Pedro Conceicao, Katell Le Goulven and Ronald U. Mendoza, editors. Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globalization. Oxford University Press, 2002. 88-89. P78. http://web.undp.org/globalpublicgoods/globalization/pdfs/KaulMendoza.pdf (2). Inge Kaul. Public Goods: Taking the Concept to the 21st Century. Paper prepared for the Auditing Public Domains Project, Robarts Centre for Canadian Studies, York University, Toronto, 2001. 3. http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf (3). Inge Kaul. 16 (4). Inge Kaul. 9. (5). Kaul – Mendoza. 80-81. (6). Kaul – Mendoza. 88. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Apr 24 15:13:55 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:13:55 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> Message-ID: Folks, let us not sound like WCIT deliberations... and be stuck on the order of words or their esthetics, if not their politics. I see nothing wrong with McTim's formulation and am not sure what positive difference the latest change proposed by Parminder (on this specific phrase) makes, while it slows down the rhythm of reading and maybe the comprehension. "through open, bottom-up, transparent, participatory democratic processes involving all stakeholders". [McTim] vs. "through due democratic processes, that are open and transparent, and involve all stakeholders." [Parminder] Or would the following satisfy all parties? "... through open, bottom-up, transparent, participatory and due democratic processes involving all stakeholders". If so please (Parminder) go ahead and add. Furthermore... *The design principles and policies that constitute its governance ensure its stability, functionality and security, and aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet the combination of which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or *** *[Milton L Mueller] yes, but they are also, and should be also, aim at preserving and enhancing the private good aspects of the Internet. As the success of the internet rests on a creative combination of both, why are we emphasizing only one aspect of this? * *proprietary online spaces, we urge that the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions*** *[Milton L Mueller] what are these dimensions? Why not specify them? Why not also recognize that we should not interfere with the innovation and creativity that has come from affording entrepreneurs and individuals to experiment and innovate with new private services? * I'm in violent agreement with Parminder's earlier response to the above. You know Milton, as well as. I do that once first movers settle in, they tend to foreclose the opportunities for potential newcomers by all sorts of tactics, whether directly or indirectly. Left to their own devices, things become naturally skewed towards entrenched interests while raising entry barriers and stifling the potential for innovations, etc. As has already been said, this is about re-adjusting the scale and striking again a healthy balance between the two ends in order to maintain and foster the creative combination you're talking about. As to the question about determining the global commons and global public good dimensions and for the sake of simplicity, I suggest we maintain the same expression to mean the same thing wherever that thing need to be expressed. So let's drop "dimensions" repeat again "global commons and global public good character". Re. the following proposition that has been dropped: "While the design principles and policies that constitute its governance should ensure its stability, functionality and security, they must also aim at..." the reason why I put this in earlier is that I remember one of us stating that, in a sense, the stability, functionality and security may be (some of) the salient dimensions of the public good-ness of the internet as opposed to the internet itself in the technical sense. That idea started generating some agreement and no opposition. Now I observe that the reason why it has been dropped was that we were hesitant using a prescriptive tense but instead used the indicative present tense, to which someone objected that the internet *is* not stable nor secure (or something along those lines.) Now that we have clarify the tense and the intent, and keeping in mind that that phrase is about the principles guiding the *governance* of the internet but not the internet itself, perhaps the basis for dropping that sentence should not hold any longer. If you think otherwise and believe that proposition does still not belong here, please do let us know. For now I will put it back in because I think that's the logical thing to do, but please be reassured, I'm not making a religion out of it. I have also added a variation of the same as option in square brackets in the version below (please not that ICANN always refers to their mandate, particularly the clauses mentioning the need to maintain stability and security, when making policy... so that's a fact.) And lastly, I feel there's something too vague about the last proposition: *... we urge the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions."* ** Shouldn't we try to be specific at on one of the following two things: either who we are urging or at least the framework where the preservation and enhancement is being promoted or needs to take place. *"We recognise the Internet to be a global, end-to-end, network of networks comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, and human intentionality enabling new kinds of social interactions and transactions, brought together by a common set of design principles. The design principles and policies that constitute Internet's governance should be derived through **open, bottom-up, transparent, participatory democratic processes involving all stakeholders. Such principles and policies must aim at** ensuring its stability, functionality and security as well as [or: While such **principles and policies strive to ensure stability, functionality and security of the Internet, they must also aim at] preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet, the combination of which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces, we urge that the governance of the **Internet promote the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good character." * Mawaki On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Garth Graham wrote: > On 2013-04-24, at 12:10 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Governance of the epiphenomenon has always been primarily through the > processes of parliamentary democracy that shape the laws that govern > > democratic societies; > > > Not quite. Inge Kaul finds the standard definition of public goods that > assumes the sovereignty of nation states in regulation to be of “limited > practical-political value:” > > “The shifts between private and public thus reflect greater shared concern > for the public domain among all the main actors—the state, businesses, > civil society organizations, and households—and for what others expect of > them and how their private activities affect others. A wider arena, and > probably a new era, of publicness have emerged.” (1) > > She redefines the definition “to require public goods to be inclusive > (public in consumption), based on participatory decision-making (public in > provision) and offering a fair deal for all (public in the distribution of > benefits).”(2). She sees that, in spite of their legislative and coercive > powers, more than nation states are involved in addressing the problems of > undersupply and market failure. She sees a need to develop, “a more > systematic approach to public policy partnerships.”(3). In her terms, > Internet governance as a public good could be viewed as emerging “against > the wishes of the state.” (4). > > “Goods often become private or public as a result of deliberate policy > choices. That is why consideration should be given to expanding the > definition—to recognize that in many if not most cases, goods exist not in > their original forms but as social constructs, largely determined by > policies and other collective human actions. According to this revised > definition, public goods are nonexclusive or, put differently, de facto > public in consumption.” (5) > > “Public goods are not just market failures, and they are not merely > state-produced goods. The public and private domains exist on their own, > beyond states and markets. …. It can even be argued that the state and the > market are part of the public domain: they are both public goods.” (6). > > Personally, I find that phrase “public policy partnerships,” to be a bit > more euphonious and helpful than the mouthful “multi-stakeholderism." > > GG > > (1). Inge Kaul and Ronald U.Mendoza. Advancing the Concept of Public > Goods. In: Inge Kaul, Pedro Conceicao, Katell Le Goulven and Ronald U. > Mendoza, editors. Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globalization. > Oxford University Press, 2002. 88-89. P78. > http://web.undp.org/globalpublicgoods/globalization/pdfs/KaulMendoza.pdf > > (2). Inge Kaul. Public Goods: Taking the Concept to the 21st Century. > Paper prepared for the Auditing Public Domains Project, Robarts Centre for > Canadian Studies, York University, Toronto, 2001. 3. > http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf > > (3). Inge Kaul. 16 > > (4). Inge Kaul. 9. > > (5). Kaul – Mendoza. 80-81. > > (6). Kaul – Mendoza. 88. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Apr 24 15:39:18 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 19:39:18 +0000 Subject: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report (Der Spiegel) In-Reply-To: <5177C635.3060905@wzb.eu> References: <175101ce3ecb$db22feb0$9168fc10$@gmail.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F7047@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <5174C7F1.6080405@itforchange.net> <007801ce4040$6eff41f0$4cfdc5d0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <532268975.35835.1366786822563.open-xchange@oxbsgw15> <1655629641.25647.1366790961206.open-xchange@oxbsgw17> <51779E14.2030709@itforchange.net>,<5177C635.3060905@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F7B72@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> And if I may add to that, German commissions have a long record of significantly (and generally, wisely) shaping policy, with what we would today call 'multi-stakeholder' membership. Perhaps we might call it a Parminderesque style in that the experts are aligned with specific political/representative/democratic blocs; albeit also requiring their own in-depth expertise to merit inclusion, such as our own Jeanette. Commissions like this are part of Germany's own good governance secret sauce imho. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 7:47 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Cc: Peter H. Hellmonds Subject: Re: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report (Der Spiegel) The appointed experts of the enquete commission had all sorts of backgrounds: ngos, academia, trade unions, chaos computer club but also industry associations and lobbyists. In my view that qualifies as multi-stakeholder. jeanette Am 24.04.2013 10:55, schrieb parminder: > > On Wednesday 24 April 2013 01:38 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: >> Parminder, please check your facts before making such claims: >> >> "For instance, no industry representative here." >> >> I know personally at least two business representatives plus one >> parliamentarian who also runs his own business. > > > Dear Peter > > I went by what a member of the commission, Jeanette, told us. To quote " > 50% of its membership consists of members of the parliament and 50% of > experts appointed by the parliamentary factions, depending on their > relative size" . So I really got my facts right here. > > It is strange that you consider a parliamentarian who may also run his > own business as an industry representative. I am sure the concerned > parliamentarian will better like to describe himself as a people's > representative, which is what he is. I thought stakeholder group > representatives were those whom stakeholder groups expressly put forward > as their representative. But it seems more you venture into the > multistakeholderism world, the less you are clear about it. > > You say at least two business representatives other than the > parliamentarian - who I understand were 'experts' nominated by > political parties. Now that makes them experts nominated by political > parties and not industry representatives, never mind what profession > that may pursue. > > But let me not argue with you. But I can at least hope that you will > apply definitions consistently. I simply ask, would you take a global > commission on the Internet with half the members who are 'experts' > nominated by various political factions in the UN - say, the regional > groups or OECD country, G 77 etc groups - as a multistakeholder body? > >> >> As to your question: >> >> "Are you now ready to consider inclusion of 'experts' selected by >> politicians as enough to make things multi-stakeholder?" >> >> Probably as much as a selection of stakeholder reps for the IGF MAG by >> the UN 'black box' which has been accepted by participants in the IGF. > > So, now IGF MAG is less multi-stakeholder than the German parliamentary > commission. Interesting perspective :). > > >> I'm sure Wolfgang and Jeanette can say more about the selection >> process in the German national Internet Enquete Commission. > > Jeanette has described the process quite specifically, and it follows > the pattern of parliamentary committees in many democracies. But happy > to hear more details. > > parminder > >> >> Regards, >> >> Peter >> >> On 24.04.2013, at 03:54, "parminder" > > wrote: >> >> >> On Tuesday 23 April 2013 10:04 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: >>> >>> First of all, the link provided is not the link to the 1200 pages >>> report, but to the 48 pages “executive summary”. >>> >>> As to the questions about the multistakeholder nature: >>> >>> ·The composition of the Internet Enquete Commission was 17 >>> parliamentarians and 17 members from different stakeholder groups, so >>> this was a multistakeholder commission. >>> >> >> Peter, >> >> (Parminder) 17 members not from other stakeholder groups, but >> 'experts' nominated by political parties in proportion of their >> strength in the parliament, right! For instance, no industry >> representative here. Are you now ready to consider inclusion of >> 'experts' selected by politicians as enough to make things >> multi-stakeholder? If so, I can tell you that UN has endless number of >> committee consisting of such experts, doing very important work. >> >> >>> ·The Internet Enquete Commission has employed a number of innovative >>> online participation options giving citizens the chance to directly >>> contribute and comment on the proceedings. >>> >>> Regarding Internet Governance: >>> >>> The most relevant detailed report about International Issues and >>> Internet Governance is here: >>> http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/124/1712480.pdf >>> >>> The recommendation of this report is to keep the established >>> governance framework and to protect the freedom and open character of >>> the Internet. To assure the government is kept abreast of changes, >>> there shall be a regular monitoring and reports. Multistakeholder >>> participation in national and international governance issues shall >>> be further strengthened. There shall be no new governmental or >>> intergovernmental Internet Governance institutions as long as the >>> existing institutions maintain the current way of an open and free >>> Internet. The Commission is of the opinion that the current US >>> oversight should yield to a broader supervisory structure for ICANN >>> and IANA >>> >> >> (Parminder) Exactly the demand of most developing countries, not a >> penny more... Only, countries like India have gone further beyond >> generic statements and suggested what such a broad supervisory >> structure could look like. We, as in IT for Change, have tried to >> present some structural possibilities and trigger a debate here in the >> IGC. But coming from the Southern side, all that looks like so >> explosive, betrayal and so on..... Now since a German nationally >> constituted 'multi-stakeholder' commission also calls for a new >> 'supervisory structure' can we at least now debate the possible >> contours of one... >> >> parminder >> >>> and suggests more engagement by the German government and the EU. To >>> enable that, German ministries should get expanded funding to enhance >>> their support for multistakeholder participation. The IGF should get >>> German funding through the trust fund managed by UN DESA. >>> >>> There is a lot more, but this summarizes some of the main points. >>> Jeanette has already provided some background into the general >>> working of the commission. I’m sure Wolfgang and Jeanette can shed >>> some more light on the content of the Internet Governance debate. >>> Throwing the text through an automatic translation engine might also >>> help to access its contents for those who don’t understand sufficient >>> German. >>> >>> -- Peter >>> >>> *Von:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *Im Auftrag von *parminder >>> *Gesendet:* 22 April 2013 07:18 >>> *An:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> *Betreff:* Re: [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission >>> Report (Der Spiegel) >>> >>> On Monday 22 April 2013 02:52 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >>> >>> Very interesting material. >>> >>> Link to final report: >>> http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/125/1712550.pdf >>> >>> Perhaps IGC's own Jeanette Hoffman who participated, might >>> summarize the 1200 pp full report, and suggest implications for >>> global internet governance? : ) >>> >>> http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/special-commission-calls-for-internet-commissioner-in-germany-a-895412.html >>> >>> >>> >>> While one awaits further information, one thing is clear from the >>> referred news item that the Commission strongly underscored the >>> importance of cross cutting Internet-related public policy issues in >>> asking the "German government to get more serious about >>> Internet-related issues" and in seeking the setting up */a new >>> committee of the parliament for Internet-related public policy >>> issues/* . To me, it closely parallels the Indian demand for the UN >>> Committee on Internet-related Policies. The overall logic and >>> justifications are very similar, especially with what we all >>> recognise as an inherently global nature of the Internet. >>> >>> Will be interesting to know if the prosed German Parliamentary >>> Committee will have similar levels of multistakeholder engagement as >>> the India' proposed UN CIRP. And I quote from the CIRP proposal so >>> that people/ we can make a comparison. >>> >>> (quote from UN CIRP proposal begins) >>> >>> It will ensure the participation of all relevant stakeholders by >>> establishing four Advisory Groups, one each for civil society, the >>> private sector, inter­governmental and international organizations, >>> and the technical and academic community. The Advisory Groups will >>> provide their inputs and recommendations to the CIRP . The meetings >>> of CIRP and the advisory groups will be serviced by the UNCTAD >>> Secretariat that also services the meetings of the Commission on >>> Science and Technology for Development. The Internet Governance Forum >>> will provide inputs to CIRP in the spirit of complementarity between >>> the two. >>> >>> (ends) >>> >>> With further elaboration in the Annexure to the CIRP proposal >>> >>> >>> (quote begins) >>> >>> */Multi­stakeholder participation/*: Recognizing the need to >>> involve all stakeholders in Global Internet Governance in their >>> respective roles, the CIRP shall ensure the participation of all >>> stakeholders recognized in the Tunis Agenda. Four Advisory Groups >>> ­ one each for Civil Society, the Private Sector, >>> Inter­Governmental and International Organisations, and the >>> Technical and Academic Community ­ will be established, to assist >>> and advise the CIRP . These Groups would be self­ organized, as >>> per agreed principles, to ensure transparency, representativity >>> and inclusiveness. The Advisory Groups will meet annually in >>> Geneva and in conjunction with any additional meetings of the >>> CIRP , Their meetings will be held back ­to­ back with the >>> meetings of the CIRP , so that they are able to provide their >>> inputs and recommendations in a timely manner, to the CIRP . >>> >>> */Links with the IGF/*: Recognizing the value of the Internet >>> Governance Forum as an open, unique forum for multi-stakeholder >>> policy dialogue on Internet issues, the deliberations in the lGF >>> along with any inputs, background information and analysis it may >>> provide, will be taken as inputs for consideration of the CIRP . >>> An improved and strengthened lGF that can serve as a purposeful >>> body for policy consultations and provide meaningful policy >>> inputs to the CIRP , will ensure a stronger and more effective >>> complementarity between the CIRP and the IGF. >>> >>> (ends) >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Lee >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>> ] on behalf of michael >>> gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com ] >>> *Sent:* Sunday, April 21, 2013 4:07 PM >>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> *Subject:* [governance] The German Federal Internet Commission Report >>> (Der Spiegel) >>> >>> In Germany. >>> >>> http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/special-commission-calls-for-internet-commissioner-in-germany-a-895412.html >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Thu Apr 25 00:45:08 2013 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:45:08 +0900 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> Message-ID: Hi, I also came late to this round of exchanges, but now have a simple question. In the current version, there is no mention about the "free flow of information (and knowledge and/or ideas) nor freedom of speech/press/assembly. If there have already been good discussion about these values most civil society proponents subscribe to, then fine. But if not, I think we should address these in some way. izumi 2013/4/25 Mawaki Chango > Folks, let us not sound like WCIT deliberations... and be stuck on the > order of words or their esthetics, if not their politics. > I see nothing wrong with McTim's formulation and am not sure what positive > difference the latest change proposed by Parminder (on this specific > phrase) makes, while it slows down the rhythm of reading and maybe the > comprehension. > > "through open, bottom-up, transparent, participatory democratic processes > involving all stakeholders". [McTim] > > vs. > > "through due democratic processes, that are open and transparent, and > involve all stakeholders." [Parminder] > > Or would the following satisfy all parties? "... through open, bottom-up, > transparent, participatory and due democratic processes involving all > stakeholders". If so please (Parminder) go ahead and add. > > Furthermore... > > *The design principles and policies that constitute its governance ensure > its stability, functionality and security, and aim at preserving and > enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the > Internet the combination of which has made previous innovations possible. > Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to > be reduced to closed or *** > > *[Milton L Mueller] yes, but they are also, and should be also, aim at > preserving and enhancing the private good aspects of the Internet. As the > success of the internet rests on a creative combination of both, why are > we emphasizing only one aspect of this? * > > *proprietary online spaces, we urge that the preservation and enhancement > of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions*** > > *[Milton L Mueller] what are these dimensions? Why not specify them? Why > not also recognize that we should not interfere with the innovation and > creativity that has come from affording entrepreneurs and individuals to > experiment and innovate with new private services? * > I'm in violent agreement with Parminder's earlier response to the above. > You know Milton, as well as. I do that once first movers settle in, they > tend to foreclose the opportunities for potential newcomers by all sorts of > tactics, whether directly or indirectly. Left to their own devices, things > become naturally skewed towards entrenched interests while raising entry > barriers and stifling the potential for innovations, etc. As has already > been said, this is about re-adjusting the scale and striking again a > healthy balance between the two ends in order to maintain and foster the > creative combination you're talking about. > > As to the question about determining the global commons and global public > good dimensions and for the sake of simplicity, I suggest we maintain the > same expression to mean the same thing wherever that thing need to be > expressed. So let's drop "dimensions" repeat again "global commons and > global public good character". > > Re. the following proposition that has been dropped: "While the design > principles and policies that constitute its governance should ensure its > stability, functionality and security, they must also aim at..." the reason > why I put this in earlier is that I remember one of us stating that, in a > sense, the stability, functionality and security may be (some of) the > salient dimensions of the public good-ness of the internet as opposed to > the internet itself in the technical sense. That idea started generating > some agreement and no opposition. Now I observe that the reason why it has > been dropped was that we were hesitant using a prescriptive tense but > instead used the indicative present tense, to which someone objected that > the internet *is* not stable nor secure (or something along those lines.) > Now that we have clarify the tense and the intent, and keeping in mind that > that phrase is about the principles guiding the *governance* of the > internet but not the internet itself, perhaps the basis for dropping that > sentence should not hold any longer. If you think otherwise and believe > that proposition does still not belong here, please do let us know. For now > I will put it back in because I think that's the logical thing to do, but > please be reassured, I'm not making a religion out of it. I have also > added a variation of the same as option in square brackets in the version > below (please not that ICANN always refers to their mandate, particularly > the clauses mentioning the need to maintain stability and security, when > making policy... so that's a fact.) > > And lastly, I feel there's something too vague about the last proposition: > > *... we urge the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global > commons and public good dimensions."* > ** > Shouldn't we try to be specific at on one of the following two things: > either who we are urging or at least the framework where the preservation > and enhancement is being promoted or needs to take place. > > > *"We recognise the Internet to be a global, end-to-end, network of > networks comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and > emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of > hardware, software, protocols, and human intentionality enabling new kinds > of social interactions and transactions, brought together by a common set > of design principles. The design principles and policies that constitute > Internet's governance should be derived through **open, bottom-up, > transparent, participatory democratic processes involving all stakeholders. > Such principles and policies must aim at** ensuring its stability, > functionality and security as well as [or: While such **principles and > policies strive to ensure stability, functionality and security of the > Internet, they must also aim at] preserving and enhancing the global > commons and global public good character of the Internet, the combination > of which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of > the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or > proprietary online spaces, we urge that the governance of the **Internetpromote the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons > and public good character." > * > Mawaki > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Garth Graham wrote: > >> On 2013-04-24, at 12:10 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >> > Governance of the epiphenomenon has always been primarily through the >> processes of parliamentary democracy that shape the laws that govern >> > democratic societies; >> >> >> Not quite. Inge Kaul finds the standard definition of public goods that >> assumes the sovereignty of nation states in regulation to be of “limited >> practical-political value:” >> >> “The shifts between private and public thus reflect greater shared >> concern for the public domain among all the main actors—the state, >> businesses, civil society organizations, and households—and for what others >> expect of them and how their private activities affect others. A wider >> arena, and probably a new era, of publicness have emerged.” (1) >> >> She redefines the definition “to require public goods to be inclusive >> (public in consumption), based on participatory decision-making (public in >> provision) and offering a fair deal for all (public in the distribution of >> benefits).”(2). She sees that, in spite of their legislative and coercive >> powers, more than nation states are involved in addressing the problems of >> undersupply and market failure. She sees a need to develop, “a more >> systematic approach to public policy partnerships.”(3). In her terms, >> Internet governance as a public good could be viewed as emerging “against >> the wishes of the state.” (4). >> >> “Goods often become private or public as a result of deliberate policy >> choices. That is why consideration should be given to expanding the >> definition—to recognize that in many if not most cases, goods exist not in >> their original forms but as social constructs, largely determined by >> policies and other collective human actions. According to this revised >> definition, public goods are nonexclusive or, put differently, de facto >> public in consumption.” (5) >> >> “Public goods are not just market failures, and they are not merely >> state-produced goods. The public and private domains exist on their own, >> beyond states and markets. …. It can even be argued that the state and the >> market are part of the public domain: they are both public goods.” (6). >> >> Personally, I find that phrase “public policy partnerships,” to be a bit >> more euphonious and helpful than the mouthful “multi-stakeholderism." >> >> GG >> >> (1). Inge Kaul and Ronald U.Mendoza. Advancing the Concept of Public >> Goods. In: Inge Kaul, Pedro Conceicao, Katell Le Goulven and Ronald U. >> Mendoza, editors. Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globalization. >> Oxford University Press, 2002. 88-89. P78. >> http://web.undp.org/globalpublicgoods/globalization/pdfs/KaulMendoza.pdf >> >> (2). Inge Kaul. Public Goods: Taking the Concept to the 21st Century. >> Paper prepared for the Auditing Public Domains Project, Robarts Centre for >> Canadian Studies, York University, Toronto, 2001. 3. >> http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf >> >> (3). Inge Kaul. 16 >> >> (4). Inge Kaul. 9. >> >> (5). Kaul – Mendoza. 80-81. >> >> (6). Kaul – Mendoza. 88. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Apr 25 01:43:16 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:13:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> Message-ID: <5178C274.1020903@itforchange.net> On Thursday 25 April 2013 12:43 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Folks, let us not sound like WCIT deliberations... and be stuck on the > order of words or their esthetics, if not their politics. > I see nothing wrong with McTim's formulation and am not sure what > positive difference the latest change proposed by Parminder (on this > specific phrase) makes, while it slows down the rhythm of reading and > maybe the comprehension. > > "through open, bottom-up, transparent, participatory democratic > processes involving all stakeholders". [McTim] > > vs. > > "through due democratic processes, that are open and transparent, and > involve all stakeholders." [Parminder] > > Or would the following satisfy all parties? "... through open, > bottom-up, transparent, participatory and due democratic processes > involving all stakeholders". If so please (Parminder) go ahead and add. Mawaki Earlier the phrase was just 'due democratic processes' to which Ian said ' it looked too much like what governments do'. To me democratic processes is not something governments do, they are just democratic processes, that is all. But I think Ian was making explicit a historical connection and assumption that he had in him mind, and presumes others have to. Similarly, the above text, especially the bottom-up part of it appears to me to point to directly and somewhat exclusively to ICANN associated processes. parminder > > Furthermore... > > *The design principles and policies that constitute its governance > ensure its stability, functionality and security, and aim at > preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good > character of the Internet the combination of which has made previous > innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for > the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or *** > > */[Milton L Mueller] yes, but they are also, and should be also, aim > at preserving and enhancing the private good aspects of the Internet. > As the success of the internet rests on a creative combination of > both, why are we emphasizing only one aspect of this? /* > > *proprietary online spaces, we urge that the preservation and > enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions*** > > */[Milton L Mueller] what are these dimensions? Why not specify them? > Why not also recognize that we should not interfere with the > innovation and creativity that has come from affording entrepreneurs > and individuals to experiment and innovate with new private services? /* > > I'm in violent agreement with Parminder's earlier response to the > above. You know Milton, as well as. I do that once first movers settle > in, they tend to foreclose the opportunities for potential newcomers > by all sorts of tactics, whether directly or indirectly. Left to their > own devices, things become naturally skewed towards entrenched > interests while raising entry barriers and stifling the potential for > innovations, etc. As has already been said, this is about re-adjusting > the scale and striking again a healthy balance between the two ends in > order to maintain and foster the creative combination you're talking > about. > > As to the question about determining the global commons and global > public good dimensions and for the sake of simplicity, I suggest we > maintain the same expression to mean the same thing wherever that > thing need to be expressed. So let's drop "dimensions" repeat again > "global commons and global public good character". > > Re. the following proposition that has been dropped: "While the design > principles and policies that constitute its governance should ensure > its stability, functionality and security, they must also aim at..." > the reason why I put this in earlier is that I remember one of us > stating that, in a sense, the stability, functionality and security > may be (some of) the salient dimensions of the public good-ness of the > internet as opposed to the internet itself in the technical sense. > That idea started generating some agreement and no opposition. Now I > observe that the reason why it has been dropped was that we were > hesitant using a prescriptive tense but instead used the indicative > present tense, to which someone objected that the internet *is* not > stable nor secure (or something along those lines.) Now that we have > clarify the tense and the intent, and keeping in mind that that phrase > is about the principles guiding the *governance* of the internet but > not the internet itself, perhaps the basis for dropping that sentence > should not hold any longer. If you think otherwise and believe that > proposition does still not belong here, please do let us know. For now > I will put it back in because I think that's the logical thing to do, > but please be reassured, I'm not making a religion out of it. I have > also added a variation of the same as option in square brackets in the > version below (please not that ICANN always refers to their mandate, > particularly the clauses mentioning the need to maintain stability and > security, when making policy... so that's a fact.) > > And lastly, I feel there's something too vague about the last proposition: > > *... we urge the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global > commons and public good dimensions."* > *//* > Shouldn't we try to be specific at on one of the following two things: > either who we are urging or at least the framework where the > preservation and enhancement is being promoted or needs to take place. > > > *"We recognise the Internet to be a global, end-to-end, network of > networks comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent > and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate > combination of hardware, software, protocols, and human intentionality > enabling new kinds of social interactions and transactions, brought > together by a common set of design principles. The design principles > and policies that constitute Internet's governance should be derived > through **open, bottom-up, transparent, participatory democratic > processes involving all stakeholders. Such principles and policies > must aim at**ensuring its stability, functionality and security as > well as [or: While such ***principles and policies strive to **ensure > stability, functionality and security of the Internet, they must also > aim at] *preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public > good character of the Internet, the combination of which has made > previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing > danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or > proprietary online spaces, we urge that the governance of the > ***Internet* promote the preservation and enhancement of the > Internet's global commons and public good character." > * > Mawaki > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Garth Graham > wrote: > > On 2013-04-24, at 12:10 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Governance of the epiphenomenon has always been primarily > through the processes of parliamentary democracy that shape the > laws that govern > > democratic societies; > > > Not quite. Inge Kaul finds the standard definition of public > goods that assumes the sovereignty of nation states in regulation > to be of “limited practical-political value:” > > “The shifts between private and public thus reflect greater shared > concern for the public domain among all the main actors—the state, > businesses, civil society organizations, and households—and for > what others expect of them and how their private activities affect > others. A wider arena, and probably a new era, of publicness have > emerged.” (1) > > She redefines the definition “to require public goods to be > inclusive (public in consumption), based on participatory > decision-making (public in provision) and offering a fair deal for > all (public in the distribution of benefits).”(2). She sees that, > in spite of their legislative and coercive powers, more than > nation states are involved in addressing the problems of > undersupply and market failure. She sees a need to develop, “a > more systematic approach to public policy partnerships.”(3). In > her terms, Internet governance as a public good could be viewed as > emerging “against the wishes of the state.” (4). > > “Goods often become private or public as a result of deliberate > policy choices. That is why consideration should be given to > expanding the definition—to recognize that in many if not most > cases, goods exist not in their original forms but as social > constructs, largely determined by policies and other collective > human actions. According to this revised definition, public goods > are nonexclusive or, put differently, de facto public in > consumption.” (5) > > “Public goods are not just market failures, and they are not > merely state-produced goods. The public and private domains exist > on their own, beyond states and markets. …. It can even be argued > that the state and the market are part of the public domain: they > are both public goods.” (6). > > Personally, I find that phrase “public policy partnerships,” to be > a bit more euphonious and helpful than the mouthful > “multi-stakeholderism." > > GG > > (1). Inge Kaul and Ronald U.Mendoza. Advancing the Concept of > Public Goods. In: Inge Kaul, Pedro Conceicao, Katell Le Goulven > and Ronald U. Mendoza, editors. Providing Global Public Goods: > Managing Globalization. Oxford University Press, 2002. 88-89. P78. > http://web.undp.org/globalpublicgoods/globalization/pdfs/KaulMendoza.pdf > > (2). Inge Kaul. Public Goods: Taking the Concept to the 21st > Century. Paper prepared for the Auditing Public Domains Project, > Robarts Centre for Canadian Studies, York University, Toronto, > 2001. 3. > http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf > > (3). Inge Kaul. 16 > > (4). Inge Kaul. 9. > > (5). Kaul – Mendoza. 80-81. > > (6). Kaul – Mendoza. 88. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 25 02:37:41 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:07:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> Message-ID: <5178CF35.9020800@itforchange.net> I am happy to add at the end Internet must also be promoted (or some better word) as a vehicle (?) of free expression and for free flow of information, knowledge and ideas. Subject to wordsmith-ing.. However, at this point I think we need to perhaps put a stop to further expanding the desirable characteristics of the Internet and corresponding policy objectives. Otherwise it will become an unending process. parminder On Thursday 25 April 2013 10:15 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Hi, I also came late to this round of exchanges, but now have a simple > question. > > In the current version, there is no mention about the "free flow of > information > (and knowledge and/or ideas) nor freedom of speech/press/assembly. > > If there have already been good discussion about these values most civil > society proponents subscribe to, then fine. But if not, I think we > should address > these in some way. > > izumi > > > > > > 2013/4/25 Mawaki Chango > > > Folks, let us not sound like WCIT deliberations... and be stuck on > the order of words or their esthetics, if not their politics. > I see nothing wrong with McTim's formulation and am not sure what > positive difference the latest change proposed by Parminder (on > this specific phrase) makes, while it slows down the rhythm of > reading and maybe the comprehension. > > "through open, bottom-up, transparent, participatory democratic > processes involving all stakeholders". [McTim] > > vs. > > "through due democratic processes, that are open and transparent, > and involve all stakeholders." [Parminder] > > Or would the following satisfy all parties? "... through open, > bottom-up, transparent, participatory and due democratic processes > involving all stakeholders". If so please (Parminder) go ahead and > add. > > Furthermore... > > *The design principles and policies that constitute its governance > ensure its stability, functionality and security, and aim at > preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good > character of the Internet the combination of which has made > previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the > growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed > or *** > > */[Milton L Mueller] yes, but they are also, and should be also, > aim at preserving and enhancing the private good aspects of the > Internet. As the success of the internet rests on a creative > combination of both, why are we emphasizing only one aspect of > this? /* > > *proprietary online spaces, we urge that the preservation and > enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good > dimensions*** > > */[Milton L Mueller] what are these dimensions? Why not specify > them? Why not also recognize that we should not interfere with the > innovation and creativity that has come from affording > entrepreneurs and individuals to experiment and innovate with new > private services? /* > > I'm in violent agreement with Parminder's earlier response to the > above. You know Milton, as well as. I do that once first movers > settle in, they tend to foreclose the opportunities for potential > newcomers by all sorts of tactics, whether directly or indirectly. > Left to their own devices, things become naturally skewed towards > entrenched interests while raising entry barriers and stifling the > potential for innovations, etc. As has already been said, this is > about re-adjusting the scale and striking again a healthy balance > between the two ends in order to maintain and foster the creative > combination you're talking about. > > As to the question about determining the global commons and global > public good dimensions and for the sake of simplicity, I suggest > we maintain the same expression to mean the same thing wherever > that thing need to be expressed. So let's drop "dimensions" repeat > again "global commons and global public good character". > > Re. the following proposition that has been dropped: "While the > design principles and policies that constitute its governance > should ensure its stability, functionality and security, they must > also aim at..." the reason why I put this in earlier is that I > remember one of us stating that, in a sense, the stability, > functionality and security may be (some of) the salient dimensions > of the public good-ness of the internet as opposed to the internet > itself in the technical sense. That idea started generating some > agreement and no opposition. Now I observe that the reason why it > has been dropped was that we were hesitant using a prescriptive > tense but instead used the indicative present tense, to which > someone objected that the internet *is* not stable nor secure (or > something along those lines.) Now that we have clarify the tense > and the intent, and keeping in mind that that phrase is about the > principles guiding the *governance* of the internet but not the > internet itself, perhaps the basis for dropping that sentence > should not hold any longer. If you think otherwise and believe > that proposition does still not belong here, please do let us > know. For now I will put it back in because I think that's the > logical thing to do, but please be reassured, I'm not making a > religion out of it. I have also added a variation of the same as > option in square brackets in the version below (please not that > ICANN always refers to their mandate, particularly the clauses > mentioning the need to maintain stability and security, when > making policy... so that's a fact.) > > And lastly, I feel there's something too vague about the last > proposition: > > *... we urge the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's > global commons and public good dimensions."* > *//* > Shouldn't we try to be specific at on one of the following two > things: either who we are urging or at least the framework where > the preservation and enhancement is being promoted or needs to > take place. > > > *"We recognise the Internet to be a global, end-to-end, network of > networks comprised of computing devices and processes, and an > emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an > intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, and human > intentionality enabling new kinds of social interactions and > transactions, brought together by a common set of design > principles. The design principles and policies that constitute > Internet's governance should be derived through **open, bottom-up, > transparent, participatory democratic processes involving all > stakeholders. Such principles and policies must aim at**ensuring > its stability, functionality and security as well as [or: While > such ***principles and policies strive to **ensure stability, > functionality and security of the Internet, they must also aim at] > *preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public > good character of the Internet, the combination of which has made > previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the > growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed > or proprietary online spaces, we urge that the governance of the > ***Internet* promote the preservation and enhancement of the > Internet's global commons and public good character." > * > Mawaki > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Garth Graham > > wrote: > > On 2013-04-24, at 12:10 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Governance of the epiphenomenon has always been primarily > through the processes of parliamentary democracy that shape > the laws that govern > > democratic societies; > > > Not quite. Inge Kaul finds the standard definition of public > goods that assumes the sovereignty of nation states in > regulation to be of “limited practical-political value:” > > “The shifts between private and public thus reflect greater > shared concern for the public domain among all the main > actors—the state, businesses, civil society organizations, and > households—and for what others expect of them and how their > private activities affect others. A wider arena, and probably > a new era, of publicness have emerged.” (1) > > She redefines the definition “to require public goods to be > inclusive (public in consumption), based on participatory > decision-making (public in provision) and offering a fair deal > for all (public in the distribution of benefits).”(2). She > sees that, in spite of their legislative and coercive powers, > more than nation states are involved in addressing the > problems of undersupply and market failure. She sees a need > to develop, “a more systematic approach to public policy > partnerships.”(3). In her terms, Internet governance as a > public good could be viewed as emerging “against the wishes of > the state.” (4). > > “Goods often become private or public as a result of > deliberate policy choices. That is why consideration should be > given to expanding the definition—to recognize that in many if > not most cases, goods exist not in their original forms but as > social constructs, largely determined by policies and other > collective human actions. According to this revised > definition, public goods are nonexclusive or, put differently, > de facto public in consumption.” (5) > > “Public goods are not just market failures, and they are not > merely state-produced goods. The public and private domains > exist on their own, beyond states and markets. …. It can even > be argued that the state and the market are part of the public > domain: they are both public goods.” (6). > > Personally, I find that phrase “public policy partnerships,” > to be a bit more euphonious and helpful than the mouthful > “multi-stakeholderism." > > GG > > (1). Inge Kaul and Ronald U.Mendoza. Advancing the Concept of > Public Goods. In: Inge Kaul, Pedro Conceicao, Katell Le > Goulven and Ronald U. Mendoza, editors. Providing Global > Public Goods: Managing Globalization. Oxford University Press, > 2002. 88-89. P78. > http://web.undp.org/globalpublicgoods/globalization/pdfs/KaulMendoza.pdf > > (2). Inge Kaul. Public Goods: Taking the Concept to the 21st > Century. Paper prepared for the Auditing Public Domains > Project, Robarts Centre for Canadian Studies, York University, > Toronto, 2001. 3. > http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf > > (3). Inge Kaul. 16 > > (4). Inge Kaul. 9. > > (5). Kaul – Mendoza. 80-81. > > (6). Kaul – Mendoza. 88. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Apr 25 02:44:07 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:14:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <5178CF35.9020800@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> <5178CF35.9020800@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5178D0B7.1040408@itforchange.net> On Thursday 25 April 2013 12:07 PM, parminder wrote: > > I am happy to add at the end > > Internet must also be promoted (or some better word) as a vehicle (?) > of free expression and for free flow of information, knowledge and ideas add here, and for free association > . Subject to wordsmith-ing.. > > However, at this point I think we need to perhaps put a stop to > further expanding the desirable characteristics of the Internet and > corresponding policy objectives. Otherwise it will become an unending > process. > > parminder > > > On Thursday 25 April 2013 10:15 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> Hi, I also came late to this round of exchanges, but now have a >> simple question. >> >> In the current version, there is no mention about the "free flow of >> information >> (and knowledge and/or ideas) nor freedom of speech/press/assembly. >> >> If there have already been good discussion about these values most civil >> society proponents subscribe to, then fine. But if not, I think we >> should address >> these in some way. >> >> izumi >> >> >> >> >> >> 2013/4/25 Mawaki Chango > >> >> Folks, let us not sound like WCIT deliberations... and be stuck >> on the order of words or their esthetics, if not their politics. >> I see nothing wrong with McTim's formulation and am not sure what >> positive difference the latest change proposed by Parminder (on >> this specific phrase) makes, while it slows down the rhythm of >> reading and maybe the comprehension. >> >> "through open, bottom-up, transparent, participatory democratic >> processes involving all stakeholders". [McTim] >> >> vs. >> >> "through due democratic processes, that are open and transparent, >> and involve all stakeholders." [Parminder] >> >> Or would the following satisfy all parties? "... through open, >> bottom-up, transparent, participatory and due democratic >> processes involving all stakeholders". If so please (Parminder) >> go ahead and add. >> >> Furthermore... >> >> *The design principles and policies that constitute its >> governance ensure its stability, functionality and security, and >> aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global >> public good character of the Internet the combination of which >> has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of >> the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to >> closed or *** >> >> */[Milton L Mueller] yes, but they are also, and should be also, >> aim at preserving and enhancing the private good aspects of the >> Internet. As the success of the internet rests on a creative >> combination of both, why are we emphasizing only one aspect of >> this? /* >> >> *proprietary online spaces, we urge that the preservation and >> enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good >> dimensions*** >> >> */[Milton L Mueller] what are these dimensions? Why not specify >> them? Why not also recognize that we should not interfere with >> the innovation and creativity that has come from affording >> entrepreneurs and individuals to experiment and innovate with new >> private services? /* >> >> I'm in violent agreement with Parminder's earlier response to the >> above. You know Milton, as well as. I do that once first movers >> settle in, they tend to foreclose the opportunities for potential >> newcomers by all sorts of tactics, whether directly or >> indirectly. Left to their own devices, things become naturally >> skewed towards entrenched interests while raising entry barriers >> and stifling the potential for innovations, etc. As has already >> been said, this is about re-adjusting the scale and striking >> again a healthy balance between the two ends in order to maintain >> and foster the creative combination you're talking about. >> >> As to the question about determining the global commons and >> global public good dimensions and for the sake of simplicity, I >> suggest we maintain the same expression to mean the same thing >> wherever that thing need to be expressed. So let's drop >> "dimensions" repeat again "global commons and global public good >> character". >> >> Re. the following proposition that has been dropped: "While the >> design principles and policies that constitute its governance >> should ensure its stability, functionality and security, they >> must also aim at..." the reason why I put this in earlier is that >> I remember one of us stating that, in a sense, the stability, >> functionality and security may be (some of) the salient >> dimensions of the public good-ness of the internet as opposed to >> the internet itself in the technical sense. That idea started >> generating some agreement and no opposition. Now I observe that >> the reason why it has been dropped was that we were hesitant >> using a prescriptive tense but instead used the indicative >> present tense, to which someone objected that the internet *is* >> not stable nor secure (or something along those lines.) Now that >> we have clarify the tense and the intent, and keeping in mind >> that that phrase is about the principles guiding the *governance* >> of the internet but not the internet itself, perhaps the basis >> for dropping that sentence should not hold any longer. If you >> think otherwise and believe that proposition does still not >> belong here, please do let us know. For now I will put it back in >> because I think that's the logical thing to do, but please be >> reassured, I'm not making a religion out of it. I have also >> added a variation of the same as option in square brackets in the >> version below (please not that ICANN always refers to their >> mandate, particularly the clauses mentioning the need to maintain >> stability and security, when making policy... so that's a fact.) >> >> And lastly, I feel there's something too vague about the last >> proposition: >> >> *... we urge the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's >> global commons and public good dimensions."* >> *//* >> Shouldn't we try to be specific at on one of the following two >> things: either who we are urging or at least the framework where >> the preservation and enhancement is being promoted or needs to >> take place. >> >> >> *"We recognise the Internet to be a global, end-to-end, network >> of networks comprised of computing devices and processes, and an >> emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an >> intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, and human >> intentionality enabling new kinds of social interactions and >> transactions, brought together by a common set of design >> principles. The design principles and policies that constitute >> Internet's governance should be derived through **open, >> bottom-up, transparent, participatory democratic processes >> involving all stakeholders. Such principles and policies must aim >> at**ensuring its stability, functionality and security as well as >> [or: While such ***principles and policies strive to **ensure >> stability, functionality and security of the Internet, they must >> also aim at] *preserving and enhancing the global commons and >> global public good character of the Internet, the combination of >> which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the >> face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be >> reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces, we urge that the >> governance of the ***Internet* promote the preservation and >> enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good >> character." >> * >> Mawaki >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Garth Graham >> > wrote: >> >> On 2013-04-24, at 12:10 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >> > Governance of the epiphenomenon has always been primarily >> through the processes of parliamentary democracy that shape >> the laws that govern >> > democratic societies; >> >> >> Not quite. Inge Kaul finds the standard definition of public >> goods that assumes the sovereignty of nation states in >> regulation to be of “limited practical-political value:” >> >> “The shifts between private and public thus reflect greater >> shared concern for the public domain among all the main >> actors—the state, businesses, civil society organizations, >> and households—and for what others expect of them and how >> their private activities affect others. A wider arena, and >> probably a new era, of publicness have emerged.” (1) >> >> She redefines the definition “to require public goods to be >> inclusive (public in consumption), based on participatory >> decision-making (public in provision) and offering a fair >> deal for all (public in the distribution of benefits).”(2). >> She sees that, in spite of their legislative and coercive >> powers, more than nation states are involved in addressing >> the problems of undersupply and market failure. She sees a >> need to develop, “a more systematic approach to public policy >> partnerships.”(3). In her terms, Internet governance as a >> public good could be viewed as emerging “against the wishes >> of the state.” (4). >> >> “Goods often become private or public as a result of >> deliberate policy choices. That is why consideration should >> be given to expanding the definition—to recognize that in >> many if not most cases, goods exist not in their original >> forms but as social constructs, largely determined by >> policies and other collective human actions. According to >> this revised definition, public goods are nonexclusive or, >> put differently, de facto public in consumption.” (5) >> >> “Public goods are not just market failures, and they are not >> merely state-produced goods. The public and private domains >> exist on their own, beyond states and markets. …. It can even >> be argued that the state and the market are part of the >> public domain: they are both public goods.” (6). >> >> Personally, I find that phrase “public policy partnerships,” >> to be a bit more euphonious and helpful than the mouthful >> “multi-stakeholderism." >> >> GG >> >> (1). Inge Kaul and Ronald U.Mendoza. Advancing the Concept of >> Public Goods. In: Inge Kaul, Pedro Conceicao, Katell Le >> Goulven and Ronald U. Mendoza, editors. Providing Global >> Public Goods: Managing Globalization. Oxford University >> Press, 2002. 88-89. P78. >> http://web.undp.org/globalpublicgoods/globalization/pdfs/KaulMendoza.pdf >> >> (2). Inge Kaul. Public Goods: Taking the Concept to the 21st >> Century. Paper prepared for the Auditing Public Domains >> Project, Robarts Centre for Canadian Studies, York >> University, Toronto, 2001. 3. >> http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf >> >> (3). Inge Kaul. 16 >> >> (4). Inge Kaul. 9. >> >> (5). Kaul – Mendoza. 80-81. >> >> (6). Kaul – Mendoza. 88. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Izumi Aizu << >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> Japan >> www.anr.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Apr 25 07:32:42 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 08:32:42 -0300 Subject: [governance] The Great Firewall of Israel? Message-ID: <3b6qx67coqco8bn5fewxyw6f.1366889562702@email.android.com> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/24/israel-tourists-email-inspections?mobile-redirect=false --c.a. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Thu Apr 25 08:29:29 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:29:29 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6736@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Izumi's comment clinches my feeling that this whole effort is misdirected and should be called off. First, there is obviously nothing near consensus on this; it is yet another attempt by one faction to impose their own peculiar ideological fixation on the rest of us, while ignoring more important and consensual values. There is no well-defined problem that this statement addresses. There is a vague reference to "the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces." I challenge the truth of this assertion. I think it's just false. I see no such trend, no such danger. Proponents of that must provide evidence of a "growing" trend, and show how it constitutes something systemic and something that end users really don't want. Note that there IS a massive amount of evidence of a growing trend toward content regulation and censorship in many countries. But somehow, we don't seem interested in addressing that. There is a growing danger of securitization. We don't address that. By the way, how does this attack on closed online spaces relate to the agenda of privacy advocates? A lot of people WANT to close off some of the information shared on the internet (although this is not an agenda I share). No one seems to have given that problem a moment's thought. Finally, those who have chosen to prioritize "public good" concepts over everything else have shown a clear misunderstanding of the concept of public goods. They have inaccurately characterized the internet as a whole as a public good when it has clear that many features of it are private goods and that much of the value we associate with the internet comes from allowing private actors to create and maintain private spaces within the global internet. Any statement that fails to recognize this is both factually inaccurate and unlikely to get widespread support. I hope IGC does not waste further time on this statement, and be forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to misrepresent it as a civil society position. --MM From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 12:45 AM To: governance; Mawaki Chango Cc: Milton L Mueller; Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good Hi, I also came late to this round of exchanges, but now have a simple question. In the current version, there is no mention about the "free flow of information (and knowledge and/or ideas) nor freedom of speech/press/assembly. If there have already been good discussion about these values most civil society proponents subscribe to, then fine. But if not, I think we should address these in some way. izumi 2013/4/25 Mawaki Chango > Folks, let us not sound like WCIT deliberations... and be stuck on the order of words or their esthetics, if not their politics. I see nothing wrong with McTim's formulation and am not sure what positive difference the latest change proposed by Parminder (on this specific phrase) makes, while it slows down the rhythm of reading and maybe the comprehension. "through open, bottom-up, transparent, participatory democratic processes involving all stakeholders". [McTim] vs. "through due democratic processes, that are open and transparent, and involve all stakeholders." [Parminder] Or would the following satisfy all parties? "... through open, bottom-up, transparent, participatory and due democratic processes involving all stakeholders". If so please (Parminder) go ahead and add. Furthermore... The design principles and policies that constitute its governance ensure its stability, functionality and security, and aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet the combination of which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or [Milton L Mueller] yes, but they are also, and should be also, aim at preserving and enhancing the private good aspects of the Internet. As the success of the internet rests on a creative combination of both, why are we emphasizing only one aspect of this? proprietary online spaces, we urge that the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions [Milton L Mueller] what are these dimensions? Why not specify them? Why not also recognize that we should not interfere with the innovation and creativity that has come from affording entrepreneurs and individuals to experiment and innovate with new private services? I'm in violent agreement with Parminder's earlier response to the above. You know Milton, as well as. I do that once first movers settle in, they tend to foreclose the opportunities for potential newcomers by all sorts of tactics, whether directly or indirectly. Left to their own devices, things become naturally skewed towards entrenched interests while raising entry barriers and stifling the potential for innovations, etc. As has already been said, this is about re-adjusting the scale and striking again a healthy balance between the two ends in order to maintain and foster the creative combination you're talking about. As to the question about determining the global commons and global public good dimensions and for the sake of simplicity, I suggest we maintain the same expression to mean the same thing wherever that thing need to be expressed. So let's drop "dimensions" repeat again "global commons and global public good character". Re. the following proposition that has been dropped: "While the design principles and policies that constitute its governance should ensure its stability, functionality and security, they must also aim at..." the reason why I put this in earlier is that I remember one of us stating that, in a sense, the stability, functionality and security may be (some of) the salient dimensions of the public good-ness of the internet as opposed to the internet itself in the technical sense. That idea started generating some agreement and no opposition. Now I observe that the reason why it has been dropped was that we were hesitant using a prescriptive tense but instead used the indicative present tense, to which someone objected that the internet *is* not stable nor secure (or something along those lines.) Now that we have clarify the tense and the intent, and keeping in mind that that phrase is about the principles guiding the *governance* of the internet but not the internet itself, perhaps the basis for dropping that sentence should not hold any longer. If you think otherwise and believe that proposition does still not belong here, please do let us know. For now I will put it back in because I think that's the logical thing to do, but please be reassured, I'm not making a religion out of it. I have also added a variation of the same as option in square brackets in the version below (please not that ICANN always refers to their mandate, particularly the clauses mentioning the need to maintain stability and security, when making policy... so that's a fact.) And lastly, I feel there's something too vague about the last proposition: ... we urge the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions." Shouldn't we try to be specific at on one of the following two things: either who we are urging or at least the framework where the preservation and enhancement is being promoted or needs to take place. "We recognise the Internet to be a global, end-to-end, network of networks comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, and human intentionality enabling new kinds of social interactions and transactions, brought together by a common set of design principles. The design principles and policies that constitute Internet's governance should be derived through open, bottom-up, transparent, participatory democratic processes involving all stakeholders. Such principles and policies must aim at ensuring its stability, functionality and security as well as [or: While such principles and policies strive to ensure stability, functionality and security of the Internet, they must also aim at] preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet, the combination of which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces, we urge that the governance of the Internet promote the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good character." Mawaki On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Garth Graham > wrote: On 2013-04-24, at 12:10 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Governance of the epiphenomenon has always been primarily through the processes of parliamentary democracy that shape the laws that govern > democratic societies; Not quite. Inge Kaul finds the standard definition of public goods that assumes the sovereignty of nation states in regulation to be of "limited practical-political value:" "The shifts between private and public thus reflect greater shared concern for the public domain among all the main actors-the state, businesses, civil society organizations, and households-and for what others expect of them and how their private activities affect others. A wider arena, and probably a new era, of publicness have emerged." (1) She redefines the definition "to require public goods to be inclusive (public in consumption), based on participatory decision-making (public in provision) and offering a fair deal for all (public in the distribution of benefits)."(2). She sees that, in spite of their legislative and coercive powers, more than nation states are involved in addressing the problems of undersupply and market failure. She sees a need to develop, "a more systematic approach to public policy partnerships."(3). In her terms, Internet governance as a public good could be viewed as emerging "against the wishes of the state." (4). "Goods often become private or public as a result of deliberate policy choices. That is why consideration should be given to expanding the definition-to recognize that in many if not most cases, goods exist not in their original forms but as social constructs, largely determined by policies and other collective human actions. According to this revised definition, public goods are nonexclusive or, put differently, de facto public in consumption." (5) "Public goods are not just market failures, and they are not merely state-produced goods. The public and private domains exist on their own, beyond states and markets. .... It can even be argued that the state and the market are part of the public domain: they are both public goods." (6). Personally, I find that phrase "public policy partnerships," to be a bit more euphonious and helpful than the mouthful "multi-stakeholderism." GG (1). Inge Kaul and Ronald U.Mendoza. Advancing the Concept of Public Goods. In: Inge Kaul, Pedro Conceicao, Katell Le Goulven and Ronald U. Mendoza, editors. Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globalization. Oxford University Press, 2002. 88-89. P78. http://web.undp.org/globalpublicgoods/globalization/pdfs/KaulMendoza.pdf (2). Inge Kaul. Public Goods: Taking the Concept to the 21st Century. Paper prepared for the Auditing Public Domains Project, Robarts Centre for Canadian Studies, York University, Toronto, 2001. 3. http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf (3). Inge Kaul. 16 (4). Inge Kaul. 9. (5). Kaul - Mendoza. 80-81. (6). Kaul - Mendoza. 88. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Apr 25 09:02:05 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:02:05 -0300 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good Message-ID: This discussion thread reminds me of the Wgig effort to arrive at a "operational" definition of the Internet. I would not call it off as it provides plenty of arguments to help us in the upcoming WGEC. I have a feeling that a good summary of these arguments will serve as a good dos-and-donts synthesis for the WG. frt rgds --c.a. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: Milton L Mueller Date: 25/04/2013 09:29 (GMT-03:00) To: Izumi AIZU ,governance Subject: RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good Izumi’s comment clinches my feeling that this whole effort is misdirected and should be called off. First, there is obviously nothing near consensus on this; it is yet another attempt by one faction to impose their own peculiar ideological fixation on the rest of us, while ignoring more important and consensual values.   There is no well-defined problem that this statement addresses. There is a vague reference to “the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces.” I challenge the truth of this assertion. I think it’s just false. I see no such trend, no such danger. Proponents of that must provide evidence of a “growing” trend, and show how it constitutes something systemic and something that end users really don’t want.   Note that there IS a massive amount of evidence of a growing trend toward content regulation and censorship in many countries. But somehow, we don’t seem interested in addressing that. There is a growing danger of securitization. We don’t address that. By the way, how does this attack on closed online spaces relate to the agenda of privacy advocates? A lot of people WANT to close off some of the information shared on the internet (although this is not an agenda I share). No one seems to have given that problem a moment’s thought.   Finally, those who have chosen to prioritize “public good” concepts over everything else have shown a clear misunderstanding of the concept of public goods. They have inaccurately characterized the internet as a whole as a public good when it has clear that many features of it are private goods and that much of the value we associate with the internet comes from allowing private actors to create and maintain private spaces within the global internet. Any statement that fails to recognize this is both factually inaccurate and unlikely to get widespread support.   I hope IGC does not waste further time on this statement, and be forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to misrepresent it as a civil society position.   --MM   From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 12:45 AM To: governance; Mawaki Chango Cc: Milton L Mueller; Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good   Hi, I also came late to this round of exchanges, but now have a simple question.   In the current version, there is no mention about the "free flow of information (and knowledge and/or ideas) nor freedom of speech/press/assembly.   If there have already been good discussion about these values most civil society proponents subscribe to, then fine. But if not, I think we should address these in some way.   izumi           2013/4/25 Mawaki Chango Folks, let us not sound like WCIT deliberations... and be stuck on the order of words or their esthetics, if not their politics. I see nothing wrong with McTim's formulation and am not sure what positive difference the latest change proposed by Parminder (on this specific phrase) makes, while it slows down the rhythm of reading and maybe the comprehension. "through open, bottom-up, transparent, participatory democratic processes involving all stakeholders". [McTim] vs. "through due democratic processes, that are open and transparent, and involve all stakeholders." [Parminder] Or would the following satisfy all parties? "... through open, bottom-up, transparent, participatory and due democratic processes involving all stakeholders". If so please (Parminder) go ahead and add.   Furthermore... The design principles and policies that constitute its governance ensure its stability, functionality and security, and aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet the combination of which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or [Milton L Mueller] yes, but they are also, and should be also, aim at preserving and enhancing the private good aspects of the Internet. As the success of the  internet rests on a creative combination of both, why are we emphasizing only one aspect of this? proprietary online spaces, we urge that the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions [Milton L Mueller] what are these dimensions? Why not specify them? Why not also recognize that we should not interfere with the innovation and creativity that has come from affording entrepreneurs and individuals to experiment and innovate with new private services? I'm in violent agreement with Parminder's earlier response to the above. You know Milton, as well as. I do that once first movers settle in, they tend to foreclose the opportunities for potential newcomers by all sorts of tactics, whether directly or indirectly. Left to their own devices, things become naturally skewed towards entrenched interests while raising entry barriers and stifling the potential for innovations, etc. As has already been said, this is about re-adjusting the scale and striking again a healthy balance between the two ends in order to maintain and foster the creative combination you're talking about. As to the question about determining the global commons and global public good dimensions and for the sake of simplicity, I suggest we maintain the same expression to mean the same thing wherever that thing need to be expressed. So let's drop "dimensions" repeat again "global commons and global public good character". Re. the following proposition that has been dropped: "While the design principles and policies that constitute its governance should ensure its stability, functionality and security, they must also aim at..." the reason why I put this in earlier is that I remember one of us stating that, in a sense, the stability, functionality and security may be (some of) the salient dimensions of the public good-ness of the internet as opposed to the internet itself in the technical sense. That idea started generating some agreement and no opposition. Now I observe that the reason why it has been dropped was that we were hesitant using a prescriptive tense but instead used the indicative present tense, to which someone objected that the internet *is* not stable nor secure (or something along those lines.) Now that we have clarify the tense and the intent, and keeping in mind that that phrase is about the principles guiding the *governance* of the internet but not the internet itself, perhaps the basis for dropping that sentence should not hold any longer. If you think otherwise and believe that proposition does still not belong here, please do let us know. For now I will put it back in because I think that's the logical thing to do, but please be reassured, I'm not making a religion out of it.  I have also added a variation of the same as option in square brackets in the version below (please not that ICANN always refers to their mandate, particularly the clauses mentioning the need to maintain stability and security, when making policy... so that's a fact.)      And lastly, I feel there's something too vague about the last proposition: ... we urge the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions."    Shouldn't we try to be specific at on one of the following two things: either who we are urging or at least the framework where the preservation and enhancement is being promoted or needs to take place. "We recognise the Internet to be a global, end-to-end, network of networks comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, and human intentionality enabling new kinds of social interactions and transactions, brought together by a common set of design principles. The design principles and policies that constitute Internet's governance should be derived through open, bottom-up, transparent, participatory democratic processes involving all stakeholders. Such principles and policies must aim at ensuring its stability, functionality and security as well as [or: While such principles and policies strive to ensure stability, functionality and security of the Internet, they must also aim at] preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet, the combination of which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces, we urge that the governance of the Internet promote the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good character." Mawaki     On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Garth Graham wrote: On 2013-04-24, at 12:10 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Governance of the epiphenomenon has always been primarily through the processes of parliamentary democracy that shape the laws that govern > democratic societies; Not quite.  Inge Kaul finds the standard definition of public goods that assumes the sovereignty of nation states in regulation to be of “limited practical-political value:” “The shifts between private and public thus reflect greater shared concern for the public domain among all the main actors—the state, businesses, civil society organizations, and households—and for what others expect of them and how their private activities affect others. A wider arena, and probably a new era, of publicness have emerged.” (1) She redefines the definition “to require public goods to be inclusive (public in consumption), based on participatory decision-making (public in provision) and offering a fair deal for all (public in the distribution of benefits).”(2).  She sees that, in spite of their legislative and coercive powers, more than nation states are involved in addressing the problems of undersupply and market failure.  She sees a need to develop, “a more systematic approach to public policy partnerships.”(3).  In her terms, Internet governance as a public good could be viewed as emerging “against the wishes of the state.” (4). “Goods often become private or public as a result of deliberate policy choices. That is why consideration should be given to expanding the definition—to recognize that in many if not most cases, goods exist not in their original forms but as social constructs, largely determined by policies and other collective human actions. According to this revised definition, public goods are nonexclusive or, put differently, de facto public in consumption.” (5) “Public goods are not just market failures, and they are not merely state-produced goods. The public and private domains exist on their own, beyond states and markets. …. It can even be argued that the state and the market are part of the public domain: they are both public goods.” (6). Personally, I find that phrase “public policy partnerships,” to be a bit more euphonious and helpful than the mouthful “multi-stakeholderism." GG (1). Inge Kaul and Ronald U.Mendoza. Advancing the Concept of Public Goods. In: Inge Kaul, Pedro Conceicao, Katell Le Goulven and Ronald U. Mendoza, editors. Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globalization. Oxford University Press, 2002. 88-89. P78.  http://web.undp.org/globalpublicgoods/globalization/pdfs/KaulMendoza.pdf (2). Inge Kaul. Public Goods: Taking the Concept to the 21st Century. Paper prepared for the Auditing Public Domains Project, Robarts Centre for Canadian Studies, York University, Toronto, 2001. 3. http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf (3). Inge Kaul. 16 (4). Inge Kaul. 9. (5). Kaul – Mendoza. 80-81. (6). Kaul – Mendoza. 88. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t   ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t   --                      >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,           Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Thu Apr 25 09:06:45 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:06:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C67BC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Is this an attempt to “define what the internet is” or is it an attempt to force the internet into someone’s pre-conceived ideological mold as a ‘public good’? If it is the former, it might have some value for the WGEC. If the latter, it should be called off. From: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 9:02 AM To: Milton L Mueller; Izumi AIZU; governance Subject: RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good This discussion thread reminds me of the Wgig effort to arrive at a "operational" definition of the Internet. I would not call it off as it provides plenty of arguments to help us in the upcoming WGEC. I have a feeling that a good summary of these arguments will serve as a good dos-and-donts synthesis for the WG. frt rgds --c.a. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: Milton L Mueller > Date: 25/04/2013 09:29 (GMT-03:00) To: Izumi AIZU >,governance > Subject: RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good Izumi’s comment clinches my feeling that this whole effort is misdirected and should be called off. First, there is obviously nothing near consensus on this; it is yet another attempt by one faction to impose their own peculiar ideological fixation on the rest of us, while ignoring more important and consensual values. There is no well-defined problem that this statement addresses. There is a vague reference to “the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces.” I challenge the truth of this assertion. I think it’s just false. I see no such trend, no such danger. Proponents of that must provide evidence of a “growing” trend, and show how it constitutes something systemic and something that end users really don’t want. Note that there IS a massive amount of evidence of a growing trend toward content regulation and censorship in many countries. But somehow, we don’t seem interested in addressing that. There is a growing danger of securitization. We don’t address that. By the way, how does this attack on closed online spaces relate to the agenda of privacy advocates? A lot of people WANT to close off some of the information shared on the internet (although this is not an agenda I share). No one seems to have given that problem a moment’s thought. Finally, those who have chosen to prioritize “public good” concepts over everything else have shown a clear misunderstanding of the concept of public goods. They have inaccurately characterized the internet as a whole as a public good when it has clear that many features of it are private goods and that much of the value we associate with the internet comes from allowing private actors to create and maintain private spaces within the global internet. Any statement that fails to recognize this is both factually inaccurate and unlikely to get widespread support. I hope IGC does not waste further time on this statement, and be forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to misrepresent it as a civil society position. --MM From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 12:45 AM To: governance; Mawaki Chango Cc: Milton L Mueller; Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good Hi, I also came late to this round of exchanges, but now have a simple question. In the current version, there is no mention about the "free flow of information (and knowledge and/or ideas) nor freedom of speech/press/assembly. If there have already been good discussion about these values most civil society proponents subscribe to, then fine. But if not, I think we should address these in some way. izumi 2013/4/25 Mawaki Chango > Folks, let us not sound like WCIT deliberations... and be stuck on the order of words or their esthetics, if not their politics. I see nothing wrong with McTim's formulation and am not sure what positive difference the latest change proposed by Parminder (on this specific phrase) makes, while it slows down the rhythm of reading and maybe the comprehension. "through open, bottom-up, transparent, participatory democratic processes involving all stakeholders". [McTim] vs. "through due democratic processes, that are open and transparent, and involve all stakeholders." [Parminder] Or would the following satisfy all parties? "... through open, bottom-up, transparent, participatory and due democratic processes involving all stakeholders". If so please (Parminder) go ahead and add. Furthermore... The design principles and policies that constitute its governance ensure its stability, functionality and security, and aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet the combination of which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or [Milton L Mueller] yes, but they are also, and should be also, aim at preserving and enhancing the private good aspects of the Internet. As the success of the internet rests on a creative combination of both, why are we emphasizing only one aspect of this? proprietary online spaces, we urge that the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions [Milton L Mueller] what are these dimensions? Why not specify them? Why not also recognize that we should not interfere with the innovation and creativity that has come from affording entrepreneurs and individuals to experiment and innovate with new private services? I'm in violent agreement with Parminder's earlier response to the above. You know Milton, as well as. I do that once first movers settle in, they tend to foreclose the opportunities for potential newcomers by all sorts of tactics, whether directly or indirectly. Left to their own devices, things become naturally skewed towards entrenched interests while raising entry barriers and stifling the potential for innovations, etc. As has already been said, this is about re-adjusting the scale and striking again a healthy balance between the two ends in order to maintain and foster the creative combination you're talking about. As to the question about determining the global commons and global public good dimensions and for the sake of simplicity, I suggest we maintain the same expression to mean the same thing wherever that thing need to be expressed. So let's drop "dimensions" repeat again "global commons and global public good character". Re. the following proposition that has been dropped: "While the design principles and policies that constitute its governance should ensure its stability, functionality and security, they must also aim at..." the reason why I put this in earlier is that I remember one of us stating that, in a sense, the stability, functionality and security may be (some of) the salient dimensions of the public good-ness of the internet as opposed to the internet itself in the technical sense. That idea started generating some agreement and no opposition. Now I observe that the reason why it has been dropped was that we were hesitant using a prescriptive tense but instead used the indicative present tense, to which someone objected that the internet *is* not stable nor secure (or something along those lines.) Now that we have clarify the tense and the intent, and keeping in mind that that phrase is about the principles guiding the *governance* of the internet but not the internet itself, perhaps the basis for dropping that sentence should not hold any longer. If you think otherwise and believe that proposition does still not belong here, please do let us know. For now I will put it back in because I think that's the logical thing to do, but please be reassured, I'm not making a religion out of it. I have also added a variation of the same as option in square brackets in the version below (please not that ICANN always refers to their mandate, particularly the clauses mentioning the need to maintain stability and security, when making policy... so that's a fact.) And lastly, I feel there's something too vague about the last proposition: ... we urge the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions." Shouldn't we try to be specific at on one of the following two things: either who we are urging or at least the framework where the preservation and enhancement is being promoted or needs to take place. "We recognise the Internet to be a global, end-to-end, network of networks comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, and human intentionality enabling new kinds of social interactions and transactions, brought together by a common set of design principles. The design principles and policies that constitute Internet's governance should be derived through open, bottom-up, transparent, participatory democratic processes involving all stakeholders. Such principles and policies must aim at ensuring its stability, functionality and security as well as [or: While such principles and policies strive to ensure stability, functionality and security of the Internet, they must also aim at] preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet, the combination of which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces, we urge that the governance of the Internet promote the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good character." Mawaki On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Garth Graham > wrote: On 2013-04-24, at 12:10 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Governance of the epiphenomenon has always been primarily through the processes of parliamentary democracy that shape the laws that govern > democratic societies; Not quite. Inge Kaul finds the standard definition of public goods that assumes the sovereignty of nation states in regulation to be of “limited practical-political value:” “The shifts between private and public thus reflect greater shared concern for the public domain among all the main actors—the state, businesses, civil society organizations, and households—and for what others expect of them and how their private activities affect others. A wider arena, and probably a new era, of publicness have emerged.” (1) She redefines the definition “to require public goods to be inclusive (public in consumption), based on participatory decision-making (public in provision) and offering a fair deal for all (public in the distribution of benefits).”(2). She sees that, in spite of their legislative and coercive powers, more than nation states are involved in addressing the problems of undersupply and market failure. She sees a need to develop, “a more systematic approach to public policy partnerships.”(3). In her terms, Internet governance as a public good could be viewed as emerging “against the wishes of the state.” (4). “Goods often become private or public as a result of deliberate policy choices. That is why consideration should be given to expanding the definition—to recognize that in many if not most cases, goods exist not in their original forms but as social constructs, largely determined by policies and other collective human actions. According to this revised definition, public goods are nonexclusive or, put differently, de facto public in consumption.” (5) “Public goods are not just market failures, and they are not merely state-produced goods. The public and private domains exist on their own, beyond states and markets. …. It can even be argued that the state and the market are part of the public domain: they are both public goods.” (6). Personally, I find that phrase “public policy partnerships,” to be a bit more euphonious and helpful than the mouthful “multi-stakeholderism." GG (1). Inge Kaul and Ronald U.Mendoza. Advancing the Concept of Public Goods. In: Inge Kaul, Pedro Conceicao, Katell Le Goulven and Ronald U. Mendoza, editors. Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globalization. Oxford University Press, 2002. 88-89. P78. http://web.undp.org/globalpublicgoods/globalization/pdfs/KaulMendoza.pdf (2). Inge Kaul. Public Goods: Taking the Concept to the 21st Century. Paper prepared for the Auditing Public Domains Project, Robarts Centre for Canadian Studies, York University, Toronto, 2001. 3. http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf (3). Inge Kaul. 16 (4). Inge Kaul. 9. (5). Kaul – Mendoza. 80-81. (6). Kaul – Mendoza. 88. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Apr 25 09:49:31 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:49:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Posting rules reminder Message-ID: <20130425154931.57cb2b96@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Dear all, in the hope of thereby minimizing the unpleasant duty of sending formal warnings in regard to posting rules violations, I thought it might make sense to repost them as a reminder... The source for this is http://igcaucus.org/charter . --snip------------------------------------------------------------------ Posting Rules for the IGC Messages to any IGC list must be in line with the mission of the IGC, particularly its purpose to provide an open and effective forum for civil society to share opinion, policy options and expertise on Internet governance issues, and to provide a mechanism for coordination of advocacy, for agreed upon policies and to enhance the utilization and influence of Civil Society (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy processes of organizations or fora dealing with Internet Governance issues. Appropriate messages to an IGC list contribute to the objectives and tasks of the IGC, particularly: * To inform civil society and other progressive groups or actors on significant developments impacting on Internet governance policies. * To anticipate, identify and address emerging issues in the areas of Internet governance and help shape issues and perspectives in a manner that is informed by the stated vision of the IGC * To develop common positions on issues relating to Internet governance policies, and make outreach efforts both for informing and for creating broad-based support among other CS groups and individuals for such positions. The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including: * refrain from personal attacks, insults or slander * refrain from offensive or discriminating language * refrain from threats, including threats of legal action, on list or off list * refrain from excessive and repetitive posting Inappropriate postings to the IGC list include * Unsolicited bulk e-mail * Discussion of subjects unrelated to the IGC mission and objectives * Unprofessional or discourteous commentary, regardless of the general subject * Sequences of messages by one or more participants that cause an IGC list to become a hostile environment --snap------------------------------------------------------------------ Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 25 10:00:49 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:00:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C67FF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > Even if IETF's processes do not follow the traditional patterns of > democracy (in particular, they do not involve voting, and they make it > hard for non-techies to participate) really the only major hurdles to > effective participation in the decision-making processes that have been > shaping the Internet (in the sense of the communication network, not > talking about the broader sense of "Internet" right now that includes > the epiphenomenon) have been willingness to engage and having a > sufficient understanding of the subject matter under discussion to > actually understand the suggestions and the relevant arguments. > > The technical development of the Internet in its significant early > formative stage was not driven by special interest type business > interests, but by people who truly care about what I'd call the public > interest. [Milton L Mueller] So let's summarize your argument. There was nothing like "democracy" in the internet's early technical development, but the people who developed it were good people concerned with something you call "the public interest." It would be easy to challenge your romanticized version of early internet history, about which you clearly know very little, as well as to provide some evidence supporting it. But a more relevant question is, so what? A tiny, elite group of engineers did some good things in designing protocols and standardization processes. As a result, internetworking grew into a vast public infrastructure that transformed media and communication and created vast amounts of new wealth and challenged established forms of political authority. Once you've reached the point where there is political power, large amounts of money, and the entrenchment of certain interests, the whole game changes. Law, property rights, social conflict, political power, all start rushing in. Appealing to an idyllic past accomplishes little. Attaching broad, inaccurate labels ("Internet as commons") does nothing to resolve the problems in a way that responds to these new forces. > In my view, those processes have been democratic in a very strong sense. > Possibly even much more democratic than the processes of real-world > parliamentary democracy are on average. [Milton L Mueller] I'm sorry, but those processes were democratic only in relation to the very, very small group of men (about 95%) who participated in them. Who by the way were also about 95% American and European. The game is much bigger, many more people are involved, and now it is MORE democratic in that sense, and as a consequence of being more democratic, people bring their economic interests to the table. That is inevitable. It is part of democracy, you cannot insulate society from that. To a farmer, farm subsidies may be in the public interest, and certainly you cannot deny that farmers are part of the public. Any concept of democracy that has no role for the negotiation of economic interest is irrelevant. > I'm pretty sure that the Internet (again using the word in reference to > the communication network, not the epiphenomenon) couldn't possibly have > been developed in a totalitarian state. [Milton L Mueller] Yes, and it could also not have been developed without capitalism and specifically the economic liberalization of the telecommunications industry. It could not have grown to its current size without the self-interested efforts of businesses who were making money on it. Massive private investments in bandwidth, software, services and content are involved. This is why your "public goods" fixation is so out of touch with reality. The internet's openness succeeded in harnessing private investment into a globally compatible infrastructure. You can't just focus on one side of that equation. > Governance of the epiphenomenon has always been primarily through the [Milton L Mueller] A parenthetical. I have no idea what you mean by "the epiphenomenon." I suspect this dialogue will go better if you stop using idiosyncratic jargon. > processes of parliamentary democracy that shape the laws that govern > democratic societies; even if many of these laws do not explicitly > reference the Internet, more and more of the various processes related > to doing business and to living in a democratic society rely on the > Internet in some way. [Milton L Mueller] be careful of the fallacy that you can govern all of society by governing the internet. > Going forward, we need to make sure that these two forms of governance > will not become incompatible with each other and will not create > incompatible results. [Milton L Mueller] They already are creating incompatible results. Pay attention to the role of the GAC in ICANN, or the attempt by numerous nation-states to wall off the internet to enforce national content regulations. > And perhaps most importantly, we need to make sure to avoid a future in > which key aspects of the rules and principles that effectively govern > society are decided neither by processes of parliamentary democracy nor > by other processes that can also reasonably be accepted as democratic > (such as the typical processes of IETF, the RIRs, etc) but by the > business interests and economic power of a small number of global > companies. IMO one major cause for concern is that all too often, the [Milton L Mueller] You only see a threat from _business_ interests? No others? You need to check your eyesight. By the way, where does market-based governance figure in your world view? Granted that markets need to be checked (but so do democratic processes), they provide individual users and suppliers a great deal of freedom to interact in mutually acceptable ways. Why does this form of governance - which has played such a vital role in making the internet accessible and innovative and beneficial - NEVER show up in your discussions? > "principle of multistakeholder governance" is promoted in a way that is > not at all incompatible with the quite anti-democratic potential future > of giving economically powerful companies effectively a veto right on > all rules that would affect them. Such "multistakeholder principle" > based de-regulation of economically powerful Internet-based businesses > would given them the opportunity to reshape societies according to their > business interests, while effectively rendering even democratic > parliaments powerless to do anything about it. > > This is a human rights issue; specifically, the human right of the > peoples to democratic self-determination is endangered here. [Milton L Mueller] There are many ways in which you have to choose between Internet freedom and democratic self-determination. E.g., censorship laws such as the Communications Decency Act even in the U.S. are very popular. Repression of unpopular groups and views can be democratically popular. Law and order crackdowns that violate civil rights can be democratically approved. Etc., etc. In my view, individual rights to freedom of expression and association trump the right to "democratic self-determination." So there is more to this story than you seem to understand. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 25 10:11:15 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:11:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] abuse by the coordinator Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Dear colleagues: I forward this message to the list so that you can see your coordinator in action. In the message below, my substantive comments on a debate, and a proposal to stop working on a proposed statement that is going nowhere, are characterized as an attempt to "bully IGC" and as a "threat". But they are obviously nothing of the kind. I am arguing that the proposed statement does not address a well-defined problem, I am calling attention to the rather obvious fact that there is no consensus on the principles or definitions being debate, and I am suggesting that the whole endeavor is not worthwhile. My arguments were not insulting or ad hominem but quite substantive. Whether or not the caucus makes a statement is fair game for debate; the fact that the coordinator is an advocate of the proposed statement seems to have biased his judgment. This is an attempt to suppress discussion. It is Norbert who is acting as the bully here. This is unacceptable. I call upon members of this list to protest this arbitrary and biased action. --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 10:00 AM > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: IGC Coordinators > Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > Hi Milton > > This posting contains an attempt to bully IGC into not even trying to > work towards consensus or rough consensus on this matter; such bullying > is most uncalled for. > > Like personal attacks, also threats of any kind are absolutely > unwarranted und unacceptable on IGC mailing lists. (Your sentence that > starts with “I hope IGC does not waste further time on this statement, > and be forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to...” is an > example of a threat.) > > Please make sure from now on that your postings conform to the posting > rules. > > (This is a private warning in the sense of the process described in the > Charter.) > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:29:29 +0000 > schrieb Milton L Mueller : > > > Izumi's comment clinches my feeling that this whole effort is > > misdirected and should be called off. First, there is obviously > > nothing near consensus on this; it is yet another attempt by one > > faction to impose their own peculiar ideological fixation on the rest > > of us, while ignoring more important and consensual values. > > > > There is no well-defined problem that this statement addresses. There > > is a vague reference to "the growing danger for the Internet > > experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces." I > > challenge the truth of this assertion. I think it's just false. I see > > no such trend, no such danger. Proponents of that must provide > > evidence of a "growing" trend, and show how it constitutes something > > systemic and something that end users really don't want. > > > > Note that there IS a massive amount of evidence of a growing trend > > toward content regulation and censorship in many countries. But > > somehow, we don't seem interested in addressing that. There is a > > growing danger of securitization. We don't address that. By the way, > > how does this attack on closed online spaces relate to the agenda of > > privacy advocates? A lot of people WANT to close off some of the > > information shared on the internet (although this is not an agenda I > > share). No one seems to have given that problem a moment's thought. > > > > Finally, those who have chosen to prioritize "public good" concepts > > over everything else have shown a clear misunderstanding of the > > concept of public goods. They have inaccurately characterized the > > internet as a whole as a public good when it has clear that many > > features of it are private goods and that much of the value we > > associate with the internet comes from allowing private actors to > > create and maintain private spaces within the global internet. Any > > statement that fails to recognize this is both factually inaccurate > > and unlikely to get widespread support. > > > > I hope IGC does not waste further time on this statement, and be > > forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to misrepresent it > > as a civil society position. > > > > --MM > > > -- > Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Apr 25 10:31:39 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:31:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good: in an Hourglass Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F7D2D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, If I may wade back in, in spirit of Carlos's note that from a WGEC point of view some of this may be helpful. I have been reminded/and thought to remind IGCers of the Internet Hourglass. For example: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosenberg-internet-waist-hourglass-00 Or just google 'Internet hourglass' and you will get some variations and food for thought. Meaning: a narrow, stable, and rigorously vetted and maintained by the Internet technical and yes academic community layer that - makes the Internet possible. Tying that to current context: Internet -Protocol- (whether v4 or v6) IS a public good. An explicitly - no proprietary rights allowed - internetworking protocol, on which a few billion people's ability to intercommunicate hangs, would anyone's definition of a - global - public good. I presume we may all agree on this? Above that, and below that, traditionally were viewed to be spaces for private goods primarily. Innovation and change hinges on private actors being able to do what they want, and try new things, as long as they stay inter-connected, and don't mess with IP. By now of course noone even suggests taking on IP, except, possibly, as part of a 'Future Internet' redesign thought experiment/long-term research project. However, we may observe a trend over the past few decades of - some- emergent virtual public goods emerging above and below the (inter-)networking layer; typically coexisting alongside private goods. That is the Internet ecosystem. So now I turn to the graphic artists amongst us: If we may - refresh the hourglass - to capture what we are talking about, would be a good visual accompaniment to the paragraph. And could nicely dress up the WGEC report : ) Lee PS: I agree with Milton that of course - further research is required. Any aspiring doc students/newbie assistant professors lurking here - get to work collecting data. ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 9:06 AM To: Carlos A. Afonso; Izumi AIZU; governance Subject: RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good Is this an attempt to “define what the internet is” or is it an attempt to force the internet into someone’s pre-conceived ideological mold as a ‘public good’? If it is the former, it might have some value for the WGEC. If the latter, it should be called off. From: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca] Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 9:02 AM To: Milton L Mueller; Izumi AIZU; governance Subject: RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good This discussion thread reminds me of the Wgig effort to arrive at a "operational" definition of the Internet. I would not call it off as it provides plenty of arguments to help us in the upcoming WGEC. I have a feeling that a good summary of these arguments will serve as a good dos-and-donts synthesis for the WG. frt rgds --c.a. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: Milton L Mueller > Date: 25/04/2013 09:29 (GMT-03:00) To: Izumi AIZU >,governance > Subject: RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good Izumi’s comment clinches my feeling that this whole effort is misdirected and should be called off. First, there is obviously nothing near consensus on this; it is yet another attempt by one faction to impose their own peculiar ideological fixation on the rest of us, while ignoring more important and consensual values. There is no well-defined problem that this statement addresses. There is a vague reference to “the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces.” I challenge the truth of this assertion. I think it’s just false. I see no such trend, no such danger. Proponents of that must provide evidence of a “growing” trend, and show how it constitutes something systemic and something that end users really don’t want. Note that there IS a massive amount of evidence of a growing trend toward content regulation and censorship in many countries. But somehow, we don’t seem interested in addressing that. There is a growing danger of securitization. We don’t address that. By the way, how does this attack on closed online spaces relate to the agenda of privacy advocates? A lot of people WANT to close off some of the information shared on the internet (although this is not an agenda I share). No one seems to have given that problem a moment’s thought. Finally, those who have chosen to prioritize “public good” concepts over everything else have shown a clear misunderstanding of the concept of public goods. They have inaccurately characterized the internet as a whole as a public good when it has clear that many features of it are private goods and that much of the value we associate with the internet comes from allowing private actors to create and maintain private spaces within the global internet. Any statement that fails to recognize this is both factually inaccurate and unlikely to get widespread support. I hope IGC does not waste further time on this statement, and be forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to misrepresent it as a civil society position. --MM From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 12:45 AM To: governance; Mawaki Chango Cc: Milton L Mueller; Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good Hi, I also came late to this round of exchanges, but now have a simple question. In the current version, there is no mention about the "free flow of information (and knowledge and/or ideas) nor freedom of speech/press/assembly. If there have already been good discussion about these values most civil society proponents subscribe to, then fine. But if not, I think we should address these in some way. izumi 2013/4/25 Mawaki Chango > Folks, let us not sound like WCIT deliberations... and be stuck on the order of words or their esthetics, if not their politics. I see nothing wrong with McTim's formulation and am not sure what positive difference the latest change proposed by Parminder (on this specific phrase) makes, while it slows down the rhythm of reading and maybe the comprehension. "through open, bottom-up, transparent, participatory democratic processes involving all stakeholders". [McTim] vs. "through due democratic processes, that are open and transparent, and involve all stakeholders." [Parminder] Or would the following satisfy all parties? "... through open, bottom-up, transparent, participatory and due democratic processes involving all stakeholders". If so please (Parminder) go ahead and add. Furthermore... The design principles and policies that constitute its governance ensure its stability, functionality and security, and aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet the combination of which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or [Milton L Mueller] yes, but they are also, and should be also, aim at preserving and enhancing the private good aspects of the Internet. As the success of the internet rests on a creative combination of both, why are we emphasizing only one aspect of this? proprietary online spaces, we urge that the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions [Milton L Mueller] what are these dimensions? Why not specify them? Why not also recognize that we should not interfere with the innovation and creativity that has come from affording entrepreneurs and individuals to experiment and innovate with new private services? I'm in violent agreement with Parminder's earlier response to the above. You know Milton, as well as. I do that once first movers settle in, they tend to foreclose the opportunities for potential newcomers by all sorts of tactics, whether directly or indirectly. Left to their own devices, things become naturally skewed towards entrenched interests while raising entry barriers and stifling the potential for innovations, etc. As has already been said, this is about re-adjusting the scale and striking again a healthy balance between the two ends in order to maintain and foster the creative combination you're talking about. As to the question about determining the global commons and global public good dimensions and for the sake of simplicity, I suggest we maintain the same expression to mean the same thing wherever that thing need to be expressed. So let's drop "dimensions" repeat again "global commons and global public good character". Re. the following proposition that has been dropped: "While the design principles and policies that constitute its governance should ensure its stability, functionality and security, they must also aim at..." the reason why I put this in earlier is that I remember one of us stating that, in a sense, the stability, functionality and security may be (some of) the salient dimensions of the public good-ness of the internet as opposed to the internet itself in the technical sense. That idea started generating some agreement and no opposition. Now I observe that the reason why it has been dropped was that we were hesitant using a prescriptive tense but instead used the indicative present tense, to which someone objected that the internet *is* not stable nor secure (or something along those lines.) Now that we have clarify the tense and the intent, and keeping in mind that that phrase is about the principles guiding the *governance* of the internet but not the internet itself, perhaps the basis for dropping that sentence should not hold any longer. If you think otherwise and believe that proposition does still not belong here, please do let us know. For now I will put it back in because I think that's the logical thing to do, but please be reassured, I'm not making a religion out of it. I have also added a variation of the same as option in square brackets in the version below (please not that ICANN always refers to their mandate, particularly the clauses mentioning the need to maintain stability and security, when making policy... so that's a fact.) And lastly, I feel there's something too vague about the last proposition: ... we urge the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions." Shouldn't we try to be specific at on one of the following two things: either who we are urging or at least the framework where the preservation and enhancement is being promoted or needs to take place. "We recognise the Internet to be a global, end-to-end, network of networks comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, and human intentionality enabling new kinds of social interactions and transactions, brought together by a common set of design principles. The design principles and policies that constitute Internet's governance should be derived through open, bottom-up, transparent, participatory democratic processes involving all stakeholders. Such principles and policies must aim at ensuring its stability, functionality and security as well as [or: While such principles and policies strive to ensure stability, functionality and security of the Internet, they must also aim at] preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet, the combination of which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces, we urge that the governance of the Internet promote the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good character." Mawaki On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Garth Graham > wrote: On 2013-04-24, at 12:10 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Governance of the epiphenomenon has always been primarily through the processes of parliamentary democracy that shape the laws that govern > democratic societies; Not quite. Inge Kaul finds the standard definition of public goods that assumes the sovereignty of nation states in regulation to be of “limited practical-political value:” “The shifts between private and public thus reflect greater shared concern for the public domain among all the main actors—the state, businesses, civil society organizations, and households—and for what others expect of them and how their private activities affect others. A wider arena, and probably a new era, of publicness have emerged.” (1) She redefines the definition “to require public goods to be inclusive (public in consumption), based on participatory decision-making (public in provision) and offering a fair deal for all (public in the distribution of benefits).”(2). She sees that, in spite of their legislative and coercive powers, more than nation states are involved in addressing the problems of undersupply and market failure. She sees a need to develop, “a more systematic approach to public policy partnerships.”(3). In her terms, Internet governance as a public good could be viewed as emerging “against the wishes of the state.” (4). “Goods often become private or public as a result of deliberate policy choices. That is why consideration should be given to expanding the definition—to recognize that in many if not most cases, goods exist not in their original forms but as social constructs, largely determined by policies and other collective human actions. According to this revised definition, public goods are nonexclusive or, put differently, de facto public in consumption.” (5) “Public goods are not just market failures, and they are not merely state-produced goods. The public and private domains exist on their own, beyond states and markets. …. It can even be argued that the state and the market are part of the public domain: they are both public goods.” (6). Personally, I find that phrase “public policy partnerships,” to be a bit more euphonious and helpful than the mouthful “multi-stakeholderism." GG (1). Inge Kaul and Ronald U.Mendoza. Advancing the Concept of Public Goods. In: Inge Kaul, Pedro Conceicao, Katell Le Goulven and Ronald U. Mendoza, editors. Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globalization. Oxford University Press, 2002. 88-89. P78. http://web.undp.org/globalpublicgoods/globalization/pdfs/KaulMendoza.pdf (2). Inge Kaul. Public Goods: Taking the Concept to the 21st Century. Paper prepared for the Auditing Public Domains Project, Robarts Centre for Canadian Studies, York University, Toronto, 2001. 3. http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf (3). Inge Kaul. 16 (4). Inge Kaul. 9. (5). Kaul – Mendoza. 80-81. (6). Kaul – Mendoza. 88. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Apr 25 10:38:08 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:38:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] abuse by the coordinator In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Dear colleagues: > I forward this message to the list so that you can see your coordinator in action. > This is an attempt to suppress discussion. It is Norbert who is acting as the bully here. This is unacceptable. I call upon members of this list to protest this arbitrary and biased action. Agreed it is an unacceptable attempt to suppress a valid perspective. I note this is not the first instance of this in the last month or so. I am happy to protest. 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 25 10:51:51 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 09:51:51 -0500 Subject: [governance] abuse by the coordinator In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Oh my, after all the Bullying by the Politically Correct that this list has endured and the coordinators have winked at, they attack that last missive? sigh avri On 25 Apr 2013, at 09:11, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Dear colleagues: > I forward this message to the list so that you can see your coordinator in action. > > In the message below, my substantive comments on a debate, and a proposal to stop working on a proposed statement that is going nowhere, are characterized as an attempt to "bully IGC" and as a "threat". > > But they are obviously nothing of the kind. I am arguing that the proposed statement does not address a well-defined problem, I am calling attention to the rather obvious fact that there is no consensus on the principles or definitions being debate, and I am suggesting that the whole endeavor is not worthwhile. My arguments were not insulting or ad hominem but quite substantive. > > Whether or not the caucus makes a statement is fair game for debate; the fact that the coordinator is an advocate of the proposed statement seems to have biased his judgment. > > This is an attempt to suppress discussion. It is Norbert who is acting as the bully here. This is unacceptable. I call upon members of this list to protest this arbitrary and biased action. > > --MM > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] >> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 10:00 AM >> To: Milton L Mueller >> Cc: IGC Coordinators >> Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good >> >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> Hi Milton >> >> This posting contains an attempt to bully IGC into not even trying to >> work towards consensus or rough consensus on this matter; such bullying >> is most uncalled for. >> >> Like personal attacks, also threats of any kind are absolutely >> unwarranted und unacceptable on IGC mailing lists. (Your sentence that >> starts with “I hope IGC does not waste further time on this statement, >> and be forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to...” is an >> example of a threat.) >> >> Please make sure from now on that your postings conform to the posting >> rules. >> >> (This is a private warning in the sense of the process described in the >> Charter.) >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> Am Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:29:29 +0000 >> schrieb Milton L Mueller : >> >>> Izumi's comment clinches my feeling that this whole effort is >>> misdirected and should be called off. First, there is obviously >>> nothing near consensus on this; it is yet another attempt by one >>> faction to impose their own peculiar ideological fixation on the rest >>> of us, while ignoring more important and consensual values. >>> >>> There is no well-defined problem that this statement addresses. There >>> is a vague reference to "the growing danger for the Internet >>> experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces." I >>> challenge the truth of this assertion. I think it's just false. I see >>> no such trend, no such danger. Proponents of that must provide >>> evidence of a "growing" trend, and show how it constitutes something >>> systemic and something that end users really don't want. >>> >>> Note that there IS a massive amount of evidence of a growing trend >>> toward content regulation and censorship in many countries. But >>> somehow, we don't seem interested in addressing that. There is a >>> growing danger of securitization. We don't address that. By the way, >>> how does this attack on closed online spaces relate to the agenda of >>> privacy advocates? A lot of people WANT to close off some of the >>> information shared on the internet (although this is not an agenda I >>> share). No one seems to have given that problem a moment's thought. >>> >>> Finally, those who have chosen to prioritize "public good" concepts >>> over everything else have shown a clear misunderstanding of the >>> concept of public goods. They have inaccurately characterized the >>> internet as a whole as a public good when it has clear that many >>> features of it are private goods and that much of the value we >>> associate with the internet comes from allowing private actors to >>> create and maintain private spaces within the global internet. Any >>> statement that fails to recognize this is both factually inaccurate >>> and unlikely to get widespread support. >>> >>> I hope IGC does not waste further time on this statement, and be >>> forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to misrepresent it >>> as a civil society position. >>> >>> --MM >> >> >> -- >> Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: >> 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person >> 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Apr 25 11:00:58 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:00:58 +0000 Subject: [governance] abuse by the coordinator In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F7D78@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, As everyone just saw, Milton's advocacy for one position did not stop me from posting a different view. Hence Milton's expression demonstrably did not stop the ongoing list discussion. On the other hand, achieving the right balance of -coordinating - an IGC discussion; and asserting/inserting one's own views, is frankly something the current co-co's are still learning. In my my ever-humble opinion. (And of course I hope no offense is taken Norbert, since none is meant.) Personally, rather than elevating all this in to yet another instance of the IGC list discussion meandering into one more endless internal process discussion, I hope Norbert and Milton agree to virtually shake hands and say oops never mind. And then we can get back to our regularly scheduled random discussions. Hey I can dream right? : ) Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 10:38 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] abuse by the coordinator On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Dear colleagues: > I forward this message to the list so that you can see your coordinator in action. > This is an attempt to suppress discussion. It is Norbert who is acting as the bully here. This is unacceptable. I call upon members of this list to protest this arbitrary and biased action. Agreed it is an unacceptable attempt to suppress a valid perspective. I note this is not the first instance of this in the last month or so. I am happy to protest. 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 pouzin at well.com Thu Apr 25 11:18:37 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 17:18:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] U.S. gives big, secret push to Internet surveillance Message-ID: The Justice Department agreed to issue "2511 letters" immunizing AT&T and other companies participating in a cybersecurity program from criminal prosecution under the Wiretap Act, according to new documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center. Senior Obama administration officials have secretly authorized the interception of communications carried on portions of networks operated by AT&T and other Internet service providers, a practice that might otherwise be illegal under federal wiretapping laws. The secret legal authorization from the Justice Department originally applied to a cybersecurity pilot project in which the military monitored defense contractors' Internet links. Since then, however, the program has been expanded by President Obama to cover all critical infrastructure sectors including energy, healthcare, and finance starting June 12. "The Justice Department is helping private companies evade federal wiretap laws," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which obtained over 1,000 pages of internal government documents and provided them to CNET this week. "Alarm bells should be going off." [read on] http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57581161-38/u.s-gives-big-secret-push-to-internet-surveillance/ - - - Which is taking over the internet, USG or ITU ? LOL Louis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Apr 25 11:21:16 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 17:21:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] abuse by the coordinator In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20130425172116.2216568f@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] Milton L Mueller wrote: > I call upon members of this list to protest this arbitrary and biased > action. No quantity of informal protesting (in fact, nothing short of a formal decision by the Appeals Team to the contrary) will change the fact that I read your sentence “I hope IGC does not waste further time on this statement, and be forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to misrepresent it as a civil society position” as containing a threat, and hence a violation of the IGC posting rules. If you wish this assessment, and the decision to send a private warning (which was based on that assessment), to be reviewed by the Appeals Team, the process to achieve that starts by stating explicitly that you wish to appeal that decision. If at least three additional IGC members support the appeal request, the decision will be considered to be under appeal, and the Appeals Team will be requested to review it. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Apr 25 11:24:48 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 08:24:48 -0700 Subject: [governance] abuse by the coordinator In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F7D78@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F7D78@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <108901ce41c9$101e0d80$305a2880$@gmail.com> Milton of course has a long long history of over the top ad hominems, personal attacks, collective attacks etc.etc. Most of the time folks just shrug it off as Milton being Milton doing Miltonisms... Yes, for those new to the list, we on the IGC even have a (semi-affectionate/semi-derisive) name for them... Sometimes people object and react and the behaviours disappear for a while only to reimerge in later perhaps less guarded moments. And of course, he is a very valuable member of the discussion when he moderates his rhetoric and he clearly isn't a troll interfering with the flow of the discussion as some whose name we won't mention but whose absence has allowed for useful discussion to reemerge on this list. It is a wee bit po-faced for Milton to respond as though the admonition from the co-coordinator had to with his useful if contentious attack appended to the co-coordinator's message rather than to his earlier Miltonisms in responding in an over the top manner to Parminder's contributions concerning the definition issues (I believe it was... M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 8:01 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim; Milton L Mueller Subject: RE: [governance] abuse by the coordinator Hi, As everyone just saw, Milton's advocacy for one position did not stop me from posting a different view. Hence Milton's expression demonstrably did not stop the ongoing list discussion. On the other hand, achieving the right balance of -coordinating - an IGC discussion; and asserting/inserting one's own views, is frankly something the current co-co's are still learning. In my my ever-humble opinion. (And of course I hope no offense is taken Norbert, since none is meant.) Personally, rather than elevating all this in to yet another instance of the IGC list discussion meandering into one more endless internal process discussion, I hope Norbert and Milton agree to virtually shake hands and say oops never mind. And then we can get back to our regularly scheduled random discussions. Hey I can dream right? : ) Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 10:38 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] abuse by the coordinator On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Dear colleagues: > I forward this message to the list so that you can see your coordinator in action. > This is an attempt to suppress discussion. It is Norbert who is acting as the bully here. This is unacceptable. I call upon members of this list to protest this arbitrary and biased action. Agreed it is an unacceptable attempt to suppress a valid perspective. I note this is not the first instance of this in the last month or so. I am happy to protest. Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Thu Apr 25 11:33:29 2013 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 17:33:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] abuse by the coordinator In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear Milton, dear all, I am not entirely clear whether it is appropriate for me to enter in this debate, as I'm certainly not "part" of the Internet Governance Caucus but I simply read / try to participate to the discussions taking place on this list. So, if this message is not appropriate, please disregard it. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm expressing a personal position here. I read with great interest the exchanges on the notion of "public good", "commons" etc. Milton's substantive arguments are in my view rather correct, as it often (but not always :) happens, at least to the extent that they warn against under-emphasising the importance of private-sector initiative and consumers' choices in the past, current and future development of the Internet. However, I do find the way in which such arguments have been expressed rather troubling. To focus on one single example: it might well depend on cultural sensitivities (which are a reality in a global environment and although they should not result in self-censorship, they should at least produce more self-awareness) but I do find a sentence such as "be forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to misrepresent [the statement being discussed] as a civil society position" rather threatening. Milton, what does it mean that "you will not allow" this or that? Having the fortune to know you a little bit, I can imagine you refer to a (very :) vigorous use of your right to freedom of expression (which, by the way, is not an unbounded right). However, others who don't know you might interpret the sentence rather differently. In Italy (or at least, among the Italians I grew up with) telling someone "I will not allow you" to do this or that does carry with it an implicit promise of a threat. Maybe people in other parts of the world might also have similar interpretations of this kind of expression. (I also find this particular sentence rather arrogant, to the extent that it implies that if one single person disagrees with a statement, then it is not a "civil society position" - but this is besides the point). Frankly, it does not seem to me that Norbert's remarks are trying to suppress discussion, at least for a definition of "discussion" which might not be Milton's or others' preferred one, but is certainly mine and perhaps that of several others: i.e. a debate in which we all try to keep tones as polite as possible. I'm sorry to say that in the Internet governance environment there are quite a few persons - including, to be clear, Milton - whom I *very deeply *respect from an intellectual point of view, but who tend to express their ideas in ways which I find personally distasteful (not theirs, or anyone else's problem, of course) and, most importantly, do create a real problem when trying to disseminate such ideas with people (some of whom are key decision-makers you might want to influence...) who might have rather different standards of what constitutes acceptable ways to express yourself. Or, to be shorter: it's nice to be important (and you, Milton, as well as others, *are* important as part of the "intellectual avant-garde" of Internet governance discussions) but it's also important to be nice. Ciao, Andrea On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Dear colleagues: > I forward this message to the list so that you can see your coordinator in > action. > > In the message below, my substantive comments on a debate, and a proposal > to stop working on a proposed statement that is going nowhere, are > characterized as an attempt to "bully IGC" and as a "threat". > > But they are obviously nothing of the kind. I am arguing that the proposed > statement does not address a well-defined problem, I am calling attention > to the rather obvious fact that there is no consensus on the principles or > definitions being debate, and I am suggesting that the whole endeavor is > not worthwhile. My arguments were not insulting or ad hominem but quite > substantive. > > Whether or not the caucus makes a statement is fair game for debate; the > fact that the coordinator is an advocate of the proposed statement seems to > have biased his judgment. > > This is an attempt to suppress discussion. It is Norbert who is acting as > the bully here. This is unacceptable. I call upon members of this list to > protest this arbitrary and biased action. > > --MM > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] > > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 10:00 AM > > To: Milton L Mueller > > Cc: IGC Coordinators > > Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good > > > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > > > Hi Milton > > > > This posting contains an attempt to bully IGC into not even trying to > > work towards consensus or rough consensus on this matter; such bullying > > is most uncalled for. > > > > Like personal attacks, also threats of any kind are absolutely > > unwarranted und unacceptable on IGC mailing lists. (Your sentence that > > starts with “I hope IGC does not waste further time on this statement, > > and be forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to...” is an > > example of a threat.) > > > > Please make sure from now on that your postings conform to the posting > > rules. > > > > (This is a private warning in the sense of the process described in the > > Charter.) > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > Am Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:29:29 +0000 > > schrieb Milton L Mueller : > > > > > Izumi's comment clinches my feeling that this whole effort is > > > misdirected and should be called off. First, there is obviously > > > nothing near consensus on this; it is yet another attempt by one > > > faction to impose their own peculiar ideological fixation on the rest > > > of us, while ignoring more important and consensual values. > > > > > > There is no well-defined problem that this statement addresses. There > > > is a vague reference to "the growing danger for the Internet > > > experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces." I > > > challenge the truth of this assertion. I think it's just false. I see > > > no such trend, no such danger. Proponents of that must provide > > > evidence of a "growing" trend, and show how it constitutes something > > > systemic and something that end users really don't want. > > > > > > Note that there IS a massive amount of evidence of a growing trend > > > toward content regulation and censorship in many countries. But > > > somehow, we don't seem interested in addressing that. There is a > > > growing danger of securitization. We don't address that. By the way, > > > how does this attack on closed online spaces relate to the agenda of > > > privacy advocates? A lot of people WANT to close off some of the > > > information shared on the internet (although this is not an agenda I > > > share). No one seems to have given that problem a moment's thought. > > > > > > Finally, those who have chosen to prioritize "public good" concepts > > > over everything else have shown a clear misunderstanding of the > > > concept of public goods. They have inaccurately characterized the > > > internet as a whole as a public good when it has clear that many > > > features of it are private goods and that much of the value we > > > associate with the internet comes from allowing private actors to > > > create and maintain private spaces within the global internet. Any > > > statement that fails to recognize this is both factually inaccurate > > > and unlikely to get widespread support. > > > > > > I hope IGC does not waste further time on this statement, and be > > > forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to misrepresent it > > > as a civil society position. > > > > > > --MM > > > > > > -- > > Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: > > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Thu Apr 25 12:19:29 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:19:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good: in an Hourglass In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F7D2D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F7D2D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 25 Apr 2013, at 09:31, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Or just google 'Internet hourglass' and you will get some variations and food for thought. Meaning: a narrow, stable, and rigorously vetted and maintained by the Internet technical and yes academic community layer that - makes the Internet possible. Tying that to current context: > > Internet -Protocol- (whether v4 or v6) IS a public good. An explicitly - no proprietary rights allowed - internetworking protocol, on which a few billion people's ability to intercommunicate hangs, would anyone's definition of a - global - public good. > > I presume we may all agree on this? We may all agree that it is good, I certainly do, but this in more in mourning the fact that the waist of the hourglass has spread as badly as mine. We not only have IPv4 + IPv6, we have MPLS over IP, IP over MPLS, IP over MPLS over IP over who knows what, and all sort of other variations. We have separated control panes from transport and hidden the whole notion of the waist of the hourglass. We have NATs, we have QoS, we layer inversion ... If only there was a way to return to having a waist. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Apr 25 12:35:11 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:35:11 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good: in an Hourglass In-Reply-To: References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F7D2D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F9E8D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> All too true, speaking of my own waist only of course : ( But - there's hope the Internet may go on a diet, at least according to Steve Deering. http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/03/hourglass-london-ietf.pd Still whether or not the IPv6 - diet - is effective, doesn't change my observation/contention we may find public goods both above and below the IP layer, in the present Internet ecosystem. As well as, many private goods. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Avri Doria [avri at acm.org] Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 12:19 PM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good: in an Hourglass On 25 Apr 2013, at 09:31, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Or just google 'Internet hourglass' and you will get some variations and food for thought. Meaning: a narrow, stable, and rigorously vetted and maintained by the Internet technical and yes academic community layer that - makes the Internet possible. Tying that to current context: > > Internet -Protocol- (whether v4 or v6) IS a public good. An explicitly - no proprietary rights allowed - internetworking protocol, on which a few billion people's ability to intercommunicate hangs, would anyone's definition of a - global - public good. > > I presume we may all agree on this? We may all agree that it is good, I certainly do, but this in more in mourning the fact that the waist of the hourglass has spread as badly as mine. We not only have IPv4 + IPv6, we have MPLS over IP, IP over MPLS, IP over MPLS over IP over who knows what, and all sort of other variations. We have separated control panes from transport and hidden the whole notion of the waist of the hourglass. We have NATs, we have QoS, we layer inversion ... If only there was a way to return to having a waist. avri ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Apr 25 12:48:36 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:48:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good: in an Hourglass In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F9E8D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F7D2D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F9E8D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20130425184836.669664bc@quill.bollow.ch> Lee W McKnight wrote: > All too true, speaking of my own waist only of course : ( > > But - there's hope the Internet may go on a diet, at least according > to Steve Deering. > > http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/03/hourglass-london-ietf.pd > > Still whether or not the IPv6 - diet - is effective, doesn't change > my observation/contention we may find public goods both above and > below the IP layer, in the present Internet ecosystem. As well as, > many private goods. Apart from the typo (the correct link is http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/03/hourglass-london-ietf.pdf ) that's a really, really good read - not only really funny, but also very insightful - thanks a lot Lee for pointing us to that! Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Thu Apr 25 14:01:09 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:01:09 +0000 Subject: [governance] abuse by the coordinator In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: +1 I am far from being among the least fortunate among my fellow Africans and other people from the developing world. Yet, I am right now sitting in a cybercafe somewhere in West Africa, and this is my first internet session since my last post to IGC list yesterday -- because I don't have the luxury of a high speed internet connection at home or wherever I stay in this city -- and I have already spent 1 hour mostly reading this list posts (and not all of them). Under conditions like those and conditions like these, you say you want people around the world, for most of whom English is a foreign language --at least for those few who can read and write it -- to participate in these processes? You better get out of your bubble, folks! Mawaki On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > Dear Milton, dear all, > > I am not entirely clear whether it is appropriate for me to enter in this > debate, as I'm certainly not "part" of the Internet Governance Caucus but I > simply read / try to participate to the discussions taking place on this > list. So, if this message is not appropriate, please disregard it. > > For the avoidance of doubt, I'm expressing a personal position here. > > I read with great interest the exchanges on the notion of "public good", > "commons" etc. Milton's substantive arguments are in my view rather > correct, as it often (but not always :) happens, at least to the extent > that they warn against under-emphasising the importance of private-sector > initiative and consumers' choices in the past, current and future > development of the Internet. > > However, I do find the way in which such arguments have been expressed > rather troubling. To focus on one single example: it might well depend on > cultural sensitivities (which are a reality in a global environment and > although they should not result in self-censorship, they should at least > produce more self-awareness) but I do find a sentence such as "be > forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to misrepresent [the > statement being discussed] as a civil society position" rather threatening. > > Milton, what does it mean that "you will not allow" this or that? Having > the fortune to know you a little bit, I can imagine you refer to a (very :) > vigorous use of your right to freedom of expression (which, by the way, is > not an unbounded right). However, others who don't know you might interpret > the sentence rather differently. In Italy (or at least, among the Italians > I grew up with) telling someone "I will not allow you" to do this or that > does carry with it an implicit promise of a threat. Maybe people in other > parts of the world might also have similar interpretations of this kind of > expression. > > (I also find this particular sentence rather arrogant, to the extent that > it implies that if one single person disagrees with a statement, then it is > not a "civil society position" - but this is besides the point). > > Frankly, it does not seem to me that Norbert's remarks are trying to > suppress discussion, at least for a definition of "discussion" which might > not be Milton's or others' preferred one, but is certainly mine and perhaps > that of several others: i.e. a debate in which we all try to keep tones as > polite as possible. > > I'm sorry to say that in the Internet governance environment there are > quite a few persons - including, to be clear, Milton - whom I *very > deeply *respect from an intellectual point of view, but who tend to > express their ideas in ways which I find personally distasteful (not > theirs, or anyone else's problem, of course) and, most importantly, do > create a real problem when trying to disseminate such ideas with people > (some of whom are key decision-makers you might want to influence...) who > might have rather different standards of what constitutes acceptable ways > to express yourself. > > Or, to be shorter: it's nice to be important (and you, Milton, as well as > others, *are* important as part of the "intellectual avant-garde" of > Internet governance discussions) but it's also important to be nice. > > Ciao, > > Andrea > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Dear colleagues: >> I forward this message to the list so that you can see your coordinator >> in action. >> >> In the message below, my substantive comments on a debate, and a proposal >> to stop working on a proposed statement that is going nowhere, are >> characterized as an attempt to "bully IGC" and as a "threat". >> >> But they are obviously nothing of the kind. I am arguing that the >> proposed statement does not address a well-defined problem, I am calling >> attention to the rather obvious fact that there is no consensus on the >> principles or definitions being debate, and I am suggesting that the whole >> endeavor is not worthwhile. My arguments were not insulting or ad hominem >> but quite substantive. >> >> Whether or not the caucus makes a statement is fair game for debate; the >> fact that the coordinator is an advocate of the proposed statement seems to >> have biased his judgment. >> >> This is an attempt to suppress discussion. It is Norbert who is acting as >> the bully here. This is unacceptable. I call upon members of this list to >> protest this arbitrary and biased action. >> >> --MM >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] >> > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 10:00 AM >> > To: Milton L Mueller >> > Cc: IGC Coordinators >> > Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good >> > >> > [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> > >> > Hi Milton >> > >> > This posting contains an attempt to bully IGC into not even trying to >> > work towards consensus or rough consensus on this matter; such bullying >> > is most uncalled for. >> > >> > Like personal attacks, also threats of any kind are absolutely >> > unwarranted und unacceptable on IGC mailing lists. (Your sentence that >> > starts with “I hope IGC does not waste further time on this statement, >> > and be forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to...” is an >> > example of a threat.) >> > >> > Please make sure from now on that your postings conform to the posting >> > rules. >> > >> > (This is a private warning in the sense of the process described in the >> > Charter.) >> > >> > Greetings, >> > Norbert >> > >> > >> > Am Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:29:29 +0000 >> > schrieb Milton L Mueller : >> > >> > > Izumi's comment clinches my feeling that this whole effort is >> > > misdirected and should be called off. First, there is obviously >> > > nothing near consensus on this; it is yet another attempt by one >> > > faction to impose their own peculiar ideological fixation on the rest >> > > of us, while ignoring more important and consensual values. >> > > >> > > There is no well-defined problem that this statement addresses. There >> > > is a vague reference to "the growing danger for the Internet >> > > experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces." I >> > > challenge the truth of this assertion. I think it's just false. I see >> > > no such trend, no such danger. Proponents of that must provide >> > > evidence of a "growing" trend, and show how it constitutes something >> > > systemic and something that end users really don't want. >> > > >> > > Note that there IS a massive amount of evidence of a growing trend >> > > toward content regulation and censorship in many countries. But >> > > somehow, we don't seem interested in addressing that. There is a >> > > growing danger of securitization. We don't address that. By the way, >> > > how does this attack on closed online spaces relate to the agenda of >> > > privacy advocates? A lot of people WANT to close off some of the >> > > information shared on the internet (although this is not an agenda I >> > > share). No one seems to have given that problem a moment's thought. >> > > >> > > Finally, those who have chosen to prioritize "public good" concepts >> > > over everything else have shown a clear misunderstanding of the >> > > concept of public goods. They have inaccurately characterized the >> > > internet as a whole as a public good when it has clear that many >> > > features of it are private goods and that much of the value we >> > > associate with the internet comes from allowing private actors to >> > > create and maintain private spaces within the global internet. Any >> > > statement that fails to recognize this is both factually inaccurate >> > > and unlikely to get widespread support. >> > > >> > > I hope IGC does not waste further time on this statement, and be >> > > forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to misrepresent it >> > > as a civil society position. >> > > >> > > --MM >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: >> > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person >> > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > > -- > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep > it in mind. > Twitter: @andreaglorioso > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Thu Apr 25 14:08:06 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:08:06 +0000 Subject: [governance] abuse by the coordinator In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: BTW, instead of one individual asserting what he or she will or won't allow the Caucus to do, why don't we put forward the contentious statement (some version of it, whatever) for a consensus call (or some other relevant procedure of the kind) as to whether it is worth pursuing --as I believe parminder suggested? To that end, the initiators should clearly remind us of the main purpose and both should feature in the call. If that gets defeated then the Caucus drops it and move forward. My 2 cents. mawaki On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > +1 > > I am far from being among the least fortunate among my fellow Africans and > other people from the developing world. Yet, I am right now sitting in a > cybercafe somewhere in West Africa, and this is my first internet session > since my last post to IGC list yesterday -- because I don't have the luxury > of a high speed internet connection at home or wherever I stay in this city > -- and I have already spent 1 hour mostly reading this list posts (and not > all of them). > > Under conditions like those and conditions like these, you say you want > people around the world, for most of whom English is a foreign language > --at least for those few who can read and write it -- to participate in > these processes? You better get out of your bubble, folks! > > Mawaki > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > >> Dear Milton, dear all, >> >> I am not entirely clear whether it is appropriate for me to enter in this >> debate, as I'm certainly not "part" of the Internet Governance Caucus but I >> simply read / try to participate to the discussions taking place on this >> list. So, if this message is not appropriate, please disregard it. >> >> For the avoidance of doubt, I'm expressing a personal position here. >> >> I read with great interest the exchanges on the notion of "public good", >> "commons" etc. Milton's substantive arguments are in my view rather >> correct, as it often (but not always :) happens, at least to the extent >> that they warn against under-emphasising the importance of private-sector >> initiative and consumers' choices in the past, current and future >> development of the Internet. >> >> However, I do find the way in which such arguments have been expressed >> rather troubling. To focus on one single example: it might well depend on >> cultural sensitivities (which are a reality in a global environment and >> although they should not result in self-censorship, they should at least >> produce more self-awareness) but I do find a sentence such as "be >> forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to misrepresent [the >> statement being discussed] as a civil society position" rather threatening. >> >> Milton, what does it mean that "you will not allow" this or that? Having >> the fortune to know you a little bit, I can imagine you refer to a (very :) >> vigorous use of your right to freedom of expression (which, by the way, is >> not an unbounded right). However, others who don't know you might interpret >> the sentence rather differently. In Italy (or at least, among the Italians >> I grew up with) telling someone "I will not allow you" to do this or that >> does carry with it an implicit promise of a threat. Maybe people in other >> parts of the world might also have similar interpretations of this kind of >> expression. >> >> (I also find this particular sentence rather arrogant, to the extent that >> it implies that if one single person disagrees with a statement, then it is >> not a "civil society position" - but this is besides the point). >> >> Frankly, it does not seem to me that Norbert's remarks are trying to >> suppress discussion, at least for a definition of "discussion" which might >> not be Milton's or others' preferred one, but is certainly mine and perhaps >> that of several others: i.e. a debate in which we all try to keep tones as >> polite as possible. >> >> I'm sorry to say that in the Internet governance environment there are >> quite a few persons - including, to be clear, Milton - whom I *very >> deeply *respect from an intellectual point of view, but who tend to >> express their ideas in ways which I find personally distasteful (not >> theirs, or anyone else's problem, of course) and, most importantly, do >> create a real problem when trying to disseminate such ideas with people >> (some of whom are key decision-makers you might want to influence...) who >> might have rather different standards of what constitutes acceptable ways >> to express yourself. >> >> Or, to be shorter: it's nice to be important (and you, Milton, as well as >> others, *are* important as part of the "intellectual avant-garde" of >> Internet governance discussions) but it's also important to be nice. >> >> Ciao, >> >> Andrea >> >> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >>> Dear colleagues: >>> I forward this message to the list so that you can see your coordinator >>> in action. >>> >>> In the message below, my substantive comments on a debate, and a >>> proposal to stop working on a proposed statement that is going nowhere, are >>> characterized as an attempt to "bully IGC" and as a "threat". >>> >>> But they are obviously nothing of the kind. I am arguing that the >>> proposed statement does not address a well-defined problem, I am calling >>> attention to the rather obvious fact that there is no consensus on the >>> principles or definitions being debate, and I am suggesting that the whole >>> endeavor is not worthwhile. My arguments were not insulting or ad hominem >>> but quite substantive. >>> >>> Whether or not the caucus makes a statement is fair game for debate; the >>> fact that the coordinator is an advocate of the proposed statement seems to >>> have biased his judgment. >>> >>> This is an attempt to suppress discussion. It is Norbert who is acting >>> as the bully here. This is unacceptable. I call upon members of this list >>> to protest this arbitrary and biased action. >>> >>> --MM >>> >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] >>> > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 10:00 AM >>> > To: Milton L Mueller >>> > Cc: IGC Coordinators >>> > Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good >>> > >>> > [with IGC coordinator hat on] >>> > >>> > Hi Milton >>> > >>> > This posting contains an attempt to bully IGC into not even trying to >>> > work towards consensus or rough consensus on this matter; such bullying >>> > is most uncalled for. >>> > >>> > Like personal attacks, also threats of any kind are absolutely >>> > unwarranted und unacceptable on IGC mailing lists. (Your sentence that >>> > starts with “I hope IGC does not waste further time on this statement, >>> > and be forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to...” is an >>> > example of a threat.) >>> > >>> > Please make sure from now on that your postings conform to the posting >>> > rules. >>> > >>> > (This is a private warning in the sense of the process described in the >>> > Charter.) >>> > >>> > Greetings, >>> > Norbert >>> > >>> > >>> > Am Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:29:29 +0000 >>> > schrieb Milton L Mueller : >>> > >>> > > Izumi's comment clinches my feeling that this whole effort is >>> > > misdirected and should be called off. First, there is obviously >>> > > nothing near consensus on this; it is yet another attempt by one >>> > > faction to impose their own peculiar ideological fixation on the rest >>> > > of us, while ignoring more important and consensual values. >>> > > >>> > > There is no well-defined problem that this statement addresses. There >>> > > is a vague reference to "the growing danger for the Internet >>> > > experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces." I >>> > > challenge the truth of this assertion. I think it's just false. I see >>> > > no such trend, no such danger. Proponents of that must provide >>> > > evidence of a "growing" trend, and show how it constitutes something >>> > > systemic and something that end users really don't want. >>> > > >>> > > Note that there IS a massive amount of evidence of a growing trend >>> > > toward content regulation and censorship in many countries. But >>> > > somehow, we don't seem interested in addressing that. There is a >>> > > growing danger of securitization. We don't address that. By the way, >>> > > how does this attack on closed online spaces relate to the agenda of >>> > > privacy advocates? A lot of people WANT to close off some of the >>> > > information shared on the internet (although this is not an agenda I >>> > > share). No one seems to have given that problem a moment's thought. >>> > > >>> > > Finally, those who have chosen to prioritize "public good" concepts >>> > > over everything else have shown a clear misunderstanding of the >>> > > concept of public goods. They have inaccurately characterized the >>> > > internet as a whole as a public good when it has clear that many >>> > > features of it are private goods and that much of the value we >>> > > associate with the internet comes from allowing private actors to >>> > > create and maintain private spaces within the global internet. Any >>> > > statement that fails to recognize this is both factually inaccurate >>> > > and unlikely to get widespread support. >>> > > >>> > > I hope IGC does not waste further time on this statement, and be >>> > > forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to misrepresent it >>> > > as a civil society position. >>> > > >>> > > --MM >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: >>> > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the >>> person >>> > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep >> it in mind. >> Twitter: @andreaglorioso >> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Apr 25 14:22:11 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 03:22:11 +0900 Subject: [governance] abuse by the coordinator In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Before doing that, could we be reminded of the purpose of this draft definition? And how will it be used? And clearly the text is still very fluid. Lets just continue discussion until we know what we are doing and why. Calls for consensus give a dread feeling of a WCIT'ish call for temperature of the room. Adam On Friday, April 26, 2013, Mawaki Chango wrote: > BTW, instead of one individual asserting what he or she will or won't > allow the Caucus to do, why don't we put forward the contentious statement > (some version of it, whatever) for a consensus call (or some other relevant > procedure of the kind) as to whether it is worth pursuing --as I believe > parminder suggested? To that end, the initiators should clearly remind us > of the main purpose and both should feature in the call. If that gets > defeated then the Caucus drops it and move forward. > > My 2 cents. > mawaki > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > +1 > > I am far from being among the least fortunate among my fellow Africans and > other people from the developing world. Yet, I am right now sitting in a > cybercafe somewhere in West Africa, and this is my first internet session > since my last post to IGC list yesterday -- because I don't have the luxury > of a high speed internet connection at home or wherever I stay in this city > -- and I have already spent 1 hour mostly reading this list posts (and not > all of them). > > Under conditions like those and conditions like these, you say you want > people around the world, for most of whom English is a foreign language > --at least for those few who can read and write it -- to participate in > these processes? You better get out of your bubble, folks! > > Mawaki > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > Dear Milton, dear all, > > I am not entirely clear whether it is appropriate for me to enter in this > debate, as I'm certainly not "part" of the Internet Governance Caucus but I > simply read / try to participate to the discussions taking place on this > list. So, if this message is not appropriate, please disregard it. > > For the avoidance of doubt, I'm expressing a personal position here. > > I read with great interest the exchanges on the notion of "public good", > "commons" etc. Milton's substantive arguments are in my view rather > correct, as it often (but not always :) happens, at least to the extent > that they warn against under-emphasising the importance of private-sector > initiative and consumers' choices in the past, current and future > development of the Internet. > > However, I do find the way in which such arguments have been expressed > rather troubling. To focus on one single example: it might well depend on > cultural sensitivities (which are a reality in a global environment and > although they should not result in self-censorship, they should at least > produce more self-awareness) but I do find a sentence such as "be > forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to misrepresent [the > statement being discussed] as a civil society position" rather threatening. > > Milton, what does it mean that "you will not allow" this or that? Having > the fortune to know you a little bit, I can imagine you refer to a (very :) > vigorous use of your right to freedom of expression (which, by the way, is > not an unbounded right). However, others who don't know you might interpret > the sentence rather differently. In Italy (or at least, among the Italians > I grew up with) telling someone "I will not allow you" to do this or that > does carry with it an implicit promise of a threat. Maybe people in other > parts of the world might also have similar interpretations of this kind of > expression. > > (I also find this particular sentence rather arrogant, to the extent that > it implies that if one single person disagrees with a statement, then it is > not a "civil society position" - but this is besides the point). > > Frankly, it does not seem to me that Norbert's remarks are trying to > suppress discussion, at least for a definition of "discussion" which might > not be Milton's or others' preferred one, but is certainly mine and perhaps > that of several others: i.e. a debate in which we all try to keep tones as > polite as possible. > > I'm sorry to say that in the Internet governance environment there are > quite a few persons - including, to be clear, Milton - whom I *very > deeply *respect from an intellectual point of view, but who tend to > express their ideas in ways which I find personally distasteful (not > theirs, or anyone else's problem, of course) and, most importantly, do > create a real problem when trying to disseminate such ideas with people > (some of whom are key decision-makers you might want to influence...) who > might have rather different standards of what constitutes acceptable ways > to express yourself. > > Or, to be shorter: it's nice to be important > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Apr 25 15:59:24 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 05:59:24 +1000 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management n HTML standards In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> Many people here may wish to sign this petition. http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5 We call on the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and its member organizations to reject the Encrypted Media Extensions proposal (EME), which would incorporate support for Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) into HTML. EME would be an irreversible step backward for freedom on the Web. It would endorse and enable business models that unethically restrict users, and it would make subjugation to particular media companies a precondition for full Web citizenship. Just as Flash and Silverlight are finally dying off, we should not replace them with the media giants' latest control fantasy. Furthermore, EME contradicts the W3C's core values. It would hamper interoperability by encouraging the proliferation of DRM plugins. It would fly in the face of the W3C's principle of keeping the Web royalty-free — this is simply a back door for media companies to require proprietary player software. It is willful ignorance to pretend otherwise just because the proposal does not mention particular technologies or DRM schemes by name. W3C and member organizations: don't weave DRM into the fabric of the Web. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 25 19:03:30 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:03:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] new article: Protecting the Internet from Dictators: Technical and Policy Solutions to Ensure Online Freedoms Message-ID: http://innovation.cc/scholarly-style/warigia_camp_bowman5edits18vi1a3.pdf -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Apr 25 22:32:49 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:02:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] abuse by the coordinator In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <5179E751.8080006@itforchange.net> On Thursday 25 April 2013 11:52 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Before doing that, could we be reminded of the purpose of this draft > definition? And how will it be used? First of all, it is not (at least no longer) proposed as a 'definition'. It is an overarching principle that we wish Internet governance and Internet related public policies to be informed by... Many organisations/ bodies have developed Internet policy principles, and some of them have started to make a solid dent on global IG and Internet related public polices. IGC till now has almost exclusively made process related interventions and statements alone, which, well, does impact its credibility. The question is asked; but what is it that you substantially stand for, which way would you want to see the Internet evolve, and so on... Therefore what we are trying to evolve here is a larger advocacy position, about how we want to see the Internet evolve, and thus governed. This statement, if adopted, I understand wil be used to preface our inputs to processes like the WG on enhanced cooperation (on Internet related public policy issues) and, if the caucus so desires, the World Telecom/Internet Policy Forum (on Internet related public polices), and others. parminder > > And clearly the text is still very fluid. > > Lets just continue discussion until we know what we are doing and why. > Calls for consensus give a dread feeling of a WCIT'ish call for > temperature of the room. > > Adam > > > > On Friday, April 26, 2013, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > BTW, instead of one individual asserting what he or she will or > won't allow the Caucus to do, why don't we put forward the > contentious statement (some version of it, whatever) for a > consensus call (or some other relevant procedure of the kind) as > to whether it is worth pursuing --as I believe parminder > suggested? To that end, the initiators should clearly remind us of > the main purpose and both should feature in the call. If that gets > defeated then the Caucus drops it and move forward. > > My 2 cents. > mawaki > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Mawaki Chango > wrote: > > +1 > > I am far from being among the least fortunate among my fellow > Africans and other people from the developing world. Yet, I am > right now sitting in a cybercafe somewhere in West Africa, and > this is my first internet session since my last post to IGC > list yesterday -- because I don't have the luxury of a high > speed internet connection at home or wherever I stay in this > city -- and I have already spent 1 hour mostly reading this > list posts (and not all of them). > > Under conditions like those and conditions like these, you say > you want people around the world, for most of whom English is > a foreign language --at least for those few who can read and > write it -- to participate in these processes? You better get > out of your bubble, folks! > > Mawaki > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Andrea Glorioso > wrote: > > Dear Milton, dear all, > > I am not entirely clear whether it is appropriate for me > to enter in this debate, as I'm certainly not "part" of > the Internet Governance Caucus but I simply read / try to > participate to the discussions taking place on this list. > So, if this message is not appropriate, please disregard it. > > For the avoidance of doubt, I'm expressing a personal > position here. > > I read with great interest the exchanges on the notion of > "public good", "commons" etc. Milton's substantive > arguments are in my view rather correct, as it often (but > not always :) happens, at least to the extent that they > warn against under-emphasising the importance of > private-sector initiative and consumers' choices in the > past, current and future development of the Internet. > > However, I do find the way in which such arguments have > been expressed rather troubling. To focus on one single > example: it might well depend on cultural sensitivities > (which are a reality in a global environment and although > they should not result in self-censorship, they should at > least produce more self-awareness) but I do find a > sentence such as "be forewarned that if it does I will not > allow anyone to misrepresent [the statement being > discussed] as a civil society position" rather threatening. > > Milton, what does it mean that "you will not allow" this > or that? Having the fortune to know you a little bit, I > can imagine you refer to a (very :) vigorous use of your > right to freedom of expression (which, by the way, is not > an unbounded right). However, others who don't know you > might interpret the sentence rather differently. In Italy > (or at least, among the Italians I grew up with) telling > someone "I will not allow you" to do this or that does > carry with it an implicit promise of a threat. Maybe > people in other parts of the world might also have similar > interpretations of this kind of expression. > > (I also find this particular sentence rather arrogant, to > the extent that it implies that if one single person > disagrees with a statement, then it is not a "civil > society position" - but this is besides the point). > > Frankly, it does not seem to me that Norbert's remarks are > trying to suppress discussion, at least for a definition > of "discussion" which might not be Milton's or others' > preferred one, but is certainly mine and perhaps that of > several others: i.e. a debate in which we all try to keep > tones as polite as possible. > > I'm sorry to say that in the Internet governance > environment there are quite a few persons - including, to > be clear, Milton - whom I _very deeply _respect from an > intellectual point of view, but who tend to express their > ideas in ways which I find personally distasteful (not > theirs, or anyone else's problem, of course) and, most > importantly, do create a real problem when trying to > disseminate such ideas with people (some of whom are key > decision-makers you might want to influence...) who might > have rather different standards of what constitutes > acceptable ways to express yourself. > > Or, to be shorter: it's nice to be important > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 25 22:44:37 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 02:44:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] abuse by the coordinator In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C7E21@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Andrea, It's unfortunate to see you siding with those who would suppress dialogue and expel people from the list. Let me explain my position more clearly. Milton, what does it mean that "you will not allow" this or that? Having the fortune to know you a little bit, I can imagine you refer to a (very :) vigorous use of your right to freedom of expression [Milton L Mueller] Of course, that is what I meant. I made it clear that I will speak up against and challenge any attempt to force through a poorly-crafted statement as a "civil society" position or a position of this caucus. Anyone can and should have the right to object to the group doing a statement on a topic which does not seem to be well-defined or to represent a good use of our scarce collective deliberation capabilities. If those kinds of objections are defined unilaterally as "bullying" and used to silence people, our caucus is in a very bad position. Norbert's threat notwithstanding I will continue to say whatever I like about this proposed statement. If that means there is another casualty on the list, it is the list's loss and a great loss for this noble attempt to have a common forum for civil society in the IGF. However, others who don't know you might interpret the sentence rather differently. In Italy (or at least, among the Italians I grew up with) telling someone "I will not allow you" to do this or that does carry with it an implicit promise of a threat. Maybe people in other parts of the world might also have similar interpretations of this kind of expression. [Milton L Mueller] I don't take this argument seriously. Let others comment. How many felt physically threatened by that comment? Please let us know. I think you are coming up with lame rationalizations for your desired result, which is to shut me up. Anyway, if you are not sure what I mean, ask me. Don't threaten someone with suppression first, and ask questions later. Use the right to free expression, and believe in its use. Issuing a real threat before finding out is an abuse of the coordinator's position. (I also find this particular sentence rather arrogant, to the extent that it implies that if one single person disagrees with a statement, then it is not a "civil society position" - but this is besides the point). [Milton L Mueller] Do you consider this a polite comment? I ask because You are calling me names while scolding me about the need to be polite. Anyway, if you'd bother to attend to the facts in this case, you would see that many people have expressed disagreement with this proposed statement. Even if they stand alone, any individual who strongly disagrees with an IGC statement has a right to stand up and say they don't agree with it and will work against it in other contexts. And they have a right not to get kicked off the list, or threatened with such, when they do. Do you disagree? Frankly, it does not seem to me that Norbert's remarks are trying to suppress discussion, at least for a definition of "discussion" which might not be Milton's or others' preferred one, but is certainly mine and perhaps that of several others: i.e. a debate in which we all try to keep tones as polite as possible. Sorry, Andrea, threats to expel people do more to poison the dialogue here than any style of communication. I'm sorry to say that in the Internet governance environment there are quite a few persons - including, to be clear, Milton - whom I very deeply respect from an intellectual point of view, but who tend to express their ideas in ways which I find personally distasteful (not theirs, or anyone else's problem, of course) and, most importantly, do create a real problem when trying to disseminate such ideas with people (some of whom are key decision-makers you might want to influence...) who might have rather different standards of what constitutes acceptable ways to express yourself. [Milton L Mueller] So polite. This attempt to divert the issue to my communication style turns the whole thing into an ad hominem argument, literally. And as an Italian I am sure you can translate the Latin. If style were really the issue, Parminder and Gurstein would have been thrown off the list and publicly warned long ago. I suspect these attacks have more to do with what I say and who I am criticizing than with the "way I express my ideas." And to put a fine point on it, we both know, Andrea, that you and the EC have been the target of my criticism on several occasions, and I suspect that that has more to do with your intervention in this matter than the "distasteful" way of expressing ideas. Let me make it clear that I would never support threatening Parminder or Gurstein or Suresh - or you - with expulsion. It is obvious to me that almost all of our disagreements are based on substantive differences. People are getting heated here not because of their style of expression, but because they are debating fundamental principles, deeply held values and rights, with real consequences. I respect that in Parminder and Michael, even when I disagree with them; I am strong enough that I have no need to push them off the list or silence them. I would expect the same largeness of spirit of you. There are truly disruptive or insulting people with nothing to contribute; none of the issues or people we are discussing now fall into that category. This is about expelling people because they disagree with the coordinator, and with you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 25 23:00:31 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 03:00:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] abuse by the coordinator In-Reply-To: <5179E751.8080006@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5179E751.8080006@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C7E51@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> First of all, it is not (at least no longer) proposed as a 'definition'. It is an overarching principle that we wish Internet governance and Internet related public policies to be informed by... [Milton L Mueller] Right. That is exactly what I thought. And I have made it clear that I do not agree with your formulation of the principle. I have supported that opposition with reasoning, references to scholarly literature, facts, and history. I have also made it clear that the basic conceptual definitions on which you base this so-called principle are invalid. Others have supported some or all of my criticisms – only a few to be sure, but the overall number of people participating in this debate is tiny anyway, no more than 6 or 7 are regularly engaged. And instead of a serious and probing debate about principles and an attempt to find out how one might bridge those differences, we have a coordinator who unilaterally threatens to throw people off the list. Do you really think this is the way to “make a solid dent in global IG?” Many organisations/ bodies have developed Internet policy principles, and some of them have started to make a solid dent on global IG and Internet related public polices. IGC till now has almost exclusively made process related interventions and statements alone, which, well, does impact its credibility. The question is asked; but what is it that you substantially stand for, which way would you want to see the Internet evolve, and so on... Therefore what we are trying to evolve here is a larger advocacy position, about how we want to see the Internet evolve, and thus governed. This statement, if adopted, I understand wil be used to preface our inputs to processes like the WG on enhanced cooperation (on Internet related public policy issues) and, if the caucus so desires, the World Telecom/Internet Policy Forum (on Internet related public polices), and others. [Milton L Mueller] Exactly what I thought. And that is why I made the promise (not a threat) that if my and others’ valid criticisms are ignored and this statement is rammed through I will actively work to make it clear to the rest of the community that civil society as a whole does not support the statement and I will actively expose its flaws, and actively undermine any attempt to pretend that “this is the way “we” want the internet to evolve. So you can try to bridge that difference now, or have it come out later. parminder And clearly the text is still very fluid. Lets just continue discussion until we know what we are doing and why. Calls for consensus give a dread feeling of a WCIT'ish call for temperature of the room. Adam On Friday, April 26, 2013, Mawaki Chango wrote: BTW, instead of one individual asserting what he or she will or won't allow the Caucus to do, why don't we put forward the contentious statement (some version of it, whatever) for a consensus call (or some other relevant procedure of the kind) as to whether it is worth pursuing --as I believe parminder suggested? To that end, the initiators should clearly remind us of the main purpose and both should feature in the call. If that gets defeated then the Caucus drops it and move forward. My 2 cents. mawaki On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Mawaki Chango > wrote: +1 I am far from being among the least fortunate among my fellow Africans and other people from the developing world. Yet, I am right now sitting in a cybercafe somewhere in West Africa, and this is my first internet session since my last post to IGC list yesterday -- because I don't have the luxury of a high speed internet connection at home or wherever I stay in this city -- and I have already spent 1 hour mostly reading this list posts (and not all of them). Under conditions like those and conditions like these, you say you want people around the world, for most of whom English is a foreign language --at least for those few who can read and write it -- to participate in these processes? You better get out of your bubble, folks! Mawaki On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Andrea Glorioso > wrote: Dear Milton, dear all, I am not entirely clear whether it is appropriate for me to enter in this debate, as I'm certainly not "part" of the Internet Governance Caucus but I simply read / try to participate to the discussions taking place on this list. So, if this message is not appropriate, please disregard it. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm expressing a personal position here. I read with great interest the exchanges on the notion of "public good", "commons" etc. Milton's substantive arguments are in my view rather correct, as it often (but not always :) happens, at least to the extent that they warn against under-emphasising the importance of private-sector initiative and consumers' choices in the past, current and future development of the Internet. However, I do find the way in which such arguments have been expressed rather troubling. To focus on one single example: it might well depend on cultural sensitivities (which are a reality in a global environment and although they should not result in self-censorship, they should at least produce more self-awareness) but I do find a sentence such as "be forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to misrepresent [the statement being discussed] as a civil society position" rather threatening. Milton, what does it mean that "you will not allow" this or that? Having the fortune to know you a little bit, I can imagine you refer to a (very :) vigorous use of your right to freedom of expression (which, by the way, is not an unbounded right). However, others who don't know you might interpret the sentence rather differently. In Italy (or at least, among the Italians I grew up with) telling someone "I will not allow you" to do this or that does carry with it an implicit promise of a threat. Maybe people in other parts of the world might also have similar interpretations of this kind of expression. (I also find this particular sentence rather arrogant, to the extent that it implies that if one single person disagrees with a statement, then it is not a "civil society position" - but this is besides the point). Frankly, it does not seem to me that Norbert's remarks are trying to suppress discussion, at least for a definition of "discussion" which might not be Milton's or others' preferred one, but is certainly mine and perhaps that of several others: i.e. a debate in which we all try to keep tones as polite as possible. I'm sorry to say that in the Internet governance environment there are quite a few persons - including, to be clear, Milton - whom I very deeply respect from an intellectual point of view, but who tend to express their ideas in ways which I find personally distasteful (not theirs, or anyone else's problem, of course) and, most importantly, do create a real problem when trying to disseminate such ideas with people (some of whom are key decision-makers you might want to influence...) who might have rather different standards of what constitutes acceptable ways to express yourself. Or, to be shorter: it's nice to be important -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 26 00:01:59 2013 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:01:59 +0900 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C67BC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C67BC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Defining what the Internet is may be a good starting point, but may not be the final product. However, reaching one consensus for what the Internet ought to be may not be so easily reachable as we see very diverse views even among IGC members if not within CS at WSIS process. Still, I think trying to articulate what we want it to be and take notes to different views is a valuable exercise and so far so good or at least I am learning a lot. Let's not to be too pessimistic! Izumi 2013年4月25日木曜日 Milton L Mueller mueller at syr.edu: > Is this an attempt to “define what the internet is” or is it an attempt > to force the internet into someone’s pre-conceived ideological mold as a > ‘public good’? If it is the former, it might have some value for the WGEC. > If the latter, it should be called off.**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca 'ca at cafonso.ca');>] > *Sent:* Thursday, April 25, 2013 9:02 AM > *To:* Milton L Mueller; Izumi AIZU; governance > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good**** > > ** ** > > This discussion thread reminds me of the Wgig effort to arrive at a > "operational" definition of the Internet. I would not call it off as it > provides plenty of arguments to help us in the upcoming WGEC. I have a > feeling that a good summary of these arguments will serve as a good > dos-and-donts synthesis for the WG.**** > > ** ** > > frt rgds**** > > ** ** > > --c.a.**** > > ** ** > > ------------**** > > C. A. Afonso**** > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Milton L Mueller > Date: 25/04/2013 09:29 (GMT-03:00) > To: Izumi AIZU ,governance > Subject: RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good > > **** > > Izumi’s comment clinches my feeling that this whole effort is misdirected > and should be called off. First, there is obviously nothing near consensus > on this; it is yet another attempt by one faction to impose their own > peculiar ideological fixation on the rest of us, while ignoring more > important and consensual values. **** > > **** > > There is no well-defined problem that this statement addresses. There is a > vague reference to “the growing danger for the Internet experience to be > reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces.” I challenge the truth of > this assertion. I think it’s just false. I see no such trend, no such > danger. Proponents of that must provide evidence of a “growing” trend, and > show how it constitutes something systemic and something that end users > really don’t want. **** > > **** > > Note that there IS a massive amount of evidence of a growing trend toward > content regulation and censorship in many countries. But somehow, we don’t > seem interested in addressing that. There is a growing danger of > securitization. We don’t address that. By the way, how does this attack on > closed online spaces relate to the agenda of privacy advocates? A lot of > people WANT to close off some of the information shared on the internet > (although this is not an agenda I share). No one seems to have given that > problem a moment’s thought. **** > > **** > > Finally, those who have chosen to prioritize “public good” concepts over > everything else have shown a clear misunderstanding of the concept of > public goods. They have inaccurately characterized the internet as a whole > as a public good when it has clear that many features of it are private > goods and that much of the value we associate with the internet comes from > allowing private actors to create and maintain private spaces within the > global internet. Any statement that fails to recognize this is both > factually inaccurate and unlikely to get widespread support. **** > > **** > > I hope IGC does not waste further time on this statement, and be > forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to misrepresent it as a > civil society position. **** > > **** > > --MM**** > > **** > -- Izumi Aizu - sent from Mobile -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Apr 26 04:16:58 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:16:58 +0300 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C67BC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <517A37FA.2060609@gmail.com> Agree fully Izumi. The issue is simple, we can debate and discuss and sharpen our ideas here. If necessary 'factions' can be formed around particular ideas, something Third Worldists ought to have done to deal with the single rooters. Perhaps these different positions will allow groups within IGC to deepen their positions, and use it as a platform for consensus positions, but from a base that is at least well interrogated by the 'other side' so to speak. This will perhaps deepen the use of IGC for broadening, while at the same time allowing like minded people to deepen their analysis and views. Riaz On 2013/04/26 07:01 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Defining what the Internet is may be a good starting point, but may > not be the final product. > > However, reaching one consensus for what the Internet ought to be may > not be so easily reachable as we see very diverse views even among IGC > members if not within CS at WSIS process. > > Still, I think trying to articulate what we want it to be and take > notes to different views is a valuable exercise and so far so good or > at least I am learning a lot. > > Let's not to be too pessimistic! > > Izumi > > 2013年4月25日木曜日 Milton L Mueller mueller at syr.edu > : > > Is this an attempt to “define what the internet is” or is it an > attempt to force the internet into someone’s pre-conceived > ideological mold as a ‘public good’? If it is the former, it might > have some value for the WGEC. If the latter, it should be called off. > > *From:*Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca at cafonso.ca 'cvml', 'ca at cafonso.ca');>] > *Sent:* Thursday, April 25, 2013 9:02 AM > *To:* Milton L Mueller; Izumi AIZU; governance > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good > > This discussion thread reminds me of the Wgig effort to arrive at > a "operational" definition of the Internet. I would not call it > off as it provides plenty of arguments to help us in the upcoming > WGEC. I have a feeling that a good summary of these arguments will > serve as a good dos-and-donts synthesis for the WG. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > ------------ > > C. A. Afonso > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Milton L Mueller > Date: 25/04/2013 09:29 (GMT-03:00) > To: Izumi AIZU ,governance > > Subject: RE: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good > > Izumi’s comment clinches my feeling that this whole effort is > misdirected and should be called off. First, there is obviously > nothing near consensus on this; it is yet another attempt by one > faction to impose their own peculiar ideological fixation on the > rest of us, while ignoring more important and consensual values. > > There is no well-defined problem that this statement addresses. > There is a vague reference to “the growing danger for the Internet > experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces.” > I challenge the truth of this assertion. I think it’s just false. > I see no such trend, no such danger. Proponents of that must > provide evidence of a “growing” trend, and show how it constitutes > something systemic and something that end users really don’t want. > > Note that there IS a massive amount of evidence of a growing trend > toward content regulation and censorship in many countries. But > somehow, we don’t seem interested in addressing that. There is a > growing danger of securitization. We don’t address that. By the > way, how does this attack on closed online spaces relate to the > agenda of privacy advocates? A lot of people WANT to close off > some of the information shared on the internet (although this is > not an agenda I share). No one seems to have given that problem a > moment’s thought. > > Finally, those who have chosen to prioritize “public good” > concepts over everything else have shown a clear misunderstanding > of the concept of public goods. They have inaccurately > characterized the internet as a whole as a public good when it has > clear that many features of it are private goods and that much of > the value we associate with the internet comes from allowing > private actors to create and maintain private spaces within the > global internet. Any statement that fails to recognize this is > both factually inaccurate and unlikely to get widespread support. > > I hope IGC does not waste further time on this statement, and be > forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to misrepresent > it as a civil society position. > > --MM > > > > -- > Izumi Aizu - sent from Mobile > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Apr 26 05:57:21 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 21:57:21 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Webinar] The threat of cyber-attacks References: <89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d6d115c7879.20130426080234@mail64.wdc01.mcdlv.net> Message-ID: See details of webinar below: Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: > From: DiploMail > Date: April 26, 2013, 8:02:40 PM GMT+12:00 > To: > Subject: [Webinar] The threat of cyber-attacks > Reply-To: DiploMail > > > Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. > > April Internet governance webinar > The threat of cyber-attacks > Dear friends, > > We would like to invite you to our upcoming IG webinar, on The threat of cyber-attacks, on Tuesday 30th April at 10:00 GMT, hosted by Mr Vladimir Radunovic, Diplo's cybersecurity expert. > > The recent DDoS attack on Spamhaus, dubbed 'the biggest ever of such kind', shook the Internet community. Not only was it carried out on a very large scale, but the ripple effects created by this attack were similarly alarming. Many different aspects are involved: the costs to mitigate the attacks; the fact that an attack can affect millions of online users directly or indirectly; and the fact that attacks can target not only private entities but important structures like Internet eXchange Points (IXP). > > During the webinar, Mr Radunovic will discuss this attack in detail, as well as other aspects related to cyber-attacks and cyberwarfare: > > How big and real is the threat of cyber-attacks on a similarly large/larger scale? > Generally, what are the consequences of these attacks? > How concerned should states and institutions be about these attacks and threats of similar attacks? > Are there any preventive measures that can be taken by the online community? > Participants will be able to ask topic-related questions during the webinar. To participate, fill in this registration form. Participation is free; registration is required. > > > Looking forward to e-seeing you! > The IG webinars team > > Follow us on Twitter | Find us on Facebook | Forward to a friend > Copyright © 2013 DiploFoundation, All rights reserved. > You are receiving this email because you subscribed to our igwebinars mailing list. > > unsubscribe salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com from this list | update your subscription preferences > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 26 06:08:04 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:08:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] On the seriousness of threats (was Re: abuse...) In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C7E21@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C7E21@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20130426120804.14a9c882@quill.bollow.ch> (this posting is intentionally sent informally, without "coordinator hat") Milton L Mueller wrote: > [Milton L Mueller] Of course, that is what I meant. I made it clear > that I will speak up against and challenge any attempt to force > through a poorly-crafted statement as a "civil society" position or a > position of this caucus. You are of course the ultimate authority on what you meant, and I am personally glad to take note of the implied promise that you will not take other action, such as public humiliation or perhaps disruption of a young academic's career, if someone should proceed to promote, contrary to your desire, something that involves emphasis on public good aspects of the Internet as *a* civil society position. Getting back to the specific sentence that I reacted to in my private email to you, “I hope IGC does not waste further time on this statement, and be forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to misrepresent it as a civil society position” - that is a statement which can be reasonably read as much more than what you have described as its intended meaning. While I agree that in the present context it is not plausible to interpret it as a threat of physical violence, it can be plausibly interpreted as a threat of public humiliation by means of words in case the draft text proceeds to becoming a statement of some kind. I see two paths in which such *a* civil society position statement on this topic could plausibly be created: One is that even if full consensus of the IGC may not be realistically possible, the proponents of such a statement could eventually ask for a rough consensus call -- in which case, if the procedural requirements according to the Charter are satisfied, I would think that the coordinators would organize a poll in order to determine whether there is an overwhelming majority in support. The other plausible path is that someone --anyone, really-- could on the basis of the discussions that have been taking place here formulate a sign-on statement. I could easily imagine a well-formulated statement on this topic getting broad support, and it could in my opinion easily become an influential civil society position quite independently of whether it has “IGC statement” status. In view of the quite broad variety of viewpoints that are represented on the IGC list (which I view as a great strength of the IGC, it definitely isn't something that I would want to attempt to change), the reasonable role of the IGC in regard to substantive statements with some specific political thrust might be primarily in catalyzing processes of creating sign-on statements which would then be supported, for each particular statement, by those who agree with the political message as well as the substantive content of that particular statement. It is in the context such plausible development of the draft text into a civil society statement that I read the threat that was posted to the list. Again, the literal text of the threat that was posted was “I hope IGC does not waste further time on this statement, and be forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to misrepresent it as a civil society position”. It does not really matter whether the intended meaning of the threat was only in reference to preventing an IGC consensus process from being successful, or whether the intended meaning was broader (certainly the actual words used support interpretation in a broader sense.) It is quite possible for a threat, especially a vague threat, to take on a seriousness well beyond its intended meaning. For this reason I consider it very well justified that the posting rules of the IGC Charter [1] contain a very clear, very strong, and very explicit rule against threats. [1] http://igcaucus.org/charter Threats are disallowed on the IGC list even when the action that is being threatened is not in itself disallowed. For example, suppose that caucus member A posts something about caucus member B which goes so far beyond any reasonable exercise of free speech that B wants to take legal action against A over the issue. The steps of taking such legal action are not disallowed by the IGC Charter. However, *threatening* A with legal action is disallowed by the IGC Charter. So, please understand that IGC has a rule against threats. It was my intention, with that private message, to warn you about this fact, in private. It is one of the (rather unpleasant and thankless!!!) responsibilities of IGC coordinators to do this kind of thing. > Anyone can and should have the right to > object to the group doing a statement on a topic which does not seem > to be well-defined Yes, that is a valid ground to object - and a kind of objection that needs to be taken into account during consensus processes, with the goal of defining the topic better. > or to represent a good use of our scarce collective deliberation > capabilities. It is acceptable to express this as an opinion, but if others still want to go ahead, I don't think that there is any reasonable grounds to tell them not to do so. In the same way you, and everyone really, similarly have the ability to create discourses that others would consider noise and a waste of time. > This is about expelling people because they disagree with the > coordinator, and with you. No. It is about (trying to) have an environment of discourse in which it is possible for people to productively participate who (for whatever reasons) do not have the habit of metaphorically wearing the equivalent of a full-body asbestos suit in order to not have to worry about flames (in the sense of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_%28Internet%29 .) I personally don't worry about getting flamed, and since many years it doesn't personally hurt me anymore. I am capable of participating in online environments where ability to continue substantive work while getting flamed is a de-facto requirement for effective participation, and I'm also capable of participating in environments where the relevant social norms are what I would consider more civilized. IGC has clear rules (which I have not invented) that it is intended to be a place of civilized discourse, in which personal attacks and threats have no place. Please do whatever it takes to learn to express your opinions and arguments in ways that clearly do not violate the posting rules. The problem with your postings is not all about the substantive content of the opinions that you express; it is only about the ways in which you express them. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Apr 26 06:27:17 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 19:27:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] On the seriousness of threats (was Re: abuse...) In-Reply-To: <20130426120804.14a9c882@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C7E21@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130426120804.14a9c882@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Norbert On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > (this posting is intentionally sent informally, without "coordinator > hat") > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> [Milton L Mueller] Of course, that is what I meant. I made it clear >> that I will speak up against and challenge any attempt to force >> through a poorly-crafted statement as a "civil society" position or a >> position of this caucus. > > You are of course the ultimate authority on what you meant, and I am > personally glad to take note of the implied promise that you will not > take other action, such as public humiliation or perhaps disruption of > a young academic's career, if someone should proceed to promote, > contrary to your desire, something that involves emphasis on public > good aspects of the Internet as *a* civil society position. > there was no such suggestion in Milton's email. If you saw such a message rather than threaten him with a warning you should ask him what he meant, express your concern. You are clearly too quick with your hat and your warnings and it's troubling that you add your own interpretation and opinion. Your warning to me (yes, I've been warned...) was over the Michael Gurstein incident and what I saw as forum/stakeholder shopping to gain a seat in the CSTD WG (my fault for expressing annoyance that someone would attempt to manipulate longstanding and well understood process.) Fair enough if you thought I had gone to far. But you added a comment that I was in someway extra guilty because Michael was performing the function of whistle-blower, obviously a sacred role. As with Milton you added your own interpretation, got rather carried away. For someone who seems interested in human rights you are very quick to pass personal judgement and censor. Could you stop please. Adam > Getting back to the specific sentence that I reacted to in my private > email to you, “I hope IGC does not waste further time on this > statement, and be forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to > misrepresent it as a civil society position” - that is a statement > which can be reasonably read as much more than what you have described > as its intended meaning. While I agree that in the present context it is > not plausible to interpret it as a threat of physical violence, it can > be plausibly interpreted as a threat of public humiliation by means of > words in case the draft text proceeds to becoming a statement of some > kind. > > I see two paths in which such *a* civil society position statement on > this topic could plausibly be created: > > One is that even if full consensus of the IGC may not be realistically > possible, the proponents of such a statement could eventually ask for a > rough consensus call -- in which case, if the procedural requirements > according to the Charter are satisfied, I would think that the > coordinators would organize a poll in order to determine whether there > is an overwhelming majority in support. > > The other plausible path is that someone --anyone, really-- could on > the basis of the discussions that have been taking place here > formulate a sign-on statement. I could easily imagine a well-formulated > statement on this topic getting broad support, and it could in my > opinion easily become an influential civil society position quite > independently of whether it has “IGC statement” status. > > In view of the quite broad variety of viewpoints that are represented on > the IGC list (which I view as a great strength of the IGC, it > definitely isn't something that I would want to attempt to change), the > reasonable role of the IGC in regard to substantive statements with > some specific political thrust might be primarily in catalyzing > processes of creating sign-on statements which would then be supported, > for each particular statement, by those who agree with the political > message as well as the substantive content of that particular statement. > > It is in the context such plausible development of the draft text into > a civil society statement that I read the threat that was posted to the > list. > > Again, the literal text of the threat that was posted was “I hope IGC > does not waste further time on this statement, and be forewarned that > if it does I will not allow anyone to misrepresent it as a civil > society position”. > > It does not really matter whether the intended meaning of the threat > was only in reference to preventing an IGC consensus process from > being successful, or whether the intended meaning was broader > (certainly the actual words used support interpretation in a broader > sense.) > > It is quite possible for a threat, especially a vague threat, to take > on a seriousness well beyond its intended meaning. > > For this reason I consider it very well justified that the posting > rules of the IGC Charter [1] contain a very clear, very strong, and very > explicit rule against threats. > [1] http://igcaucus.org/charter > > Threats are disallowed on the IGC list even when the action that is > being threatened is not in itself disallowed. > > For example, suppose that caucus member A posts something about caucus > member B which goes so far beyond any reasonable exercise of free > speech that B wants to take legal action against A over the issue. The > steps of taking such legal action are not disallowed by the IGC Charter. > However, *threatening* A with legal action is disallowed by the IGC > Charter. > > So, please understand that IGC has a rule against threats. > > It was my intention, with that private message, to warn you about this > fact, in private. It is one of the (rather unpleasant and thankless!!!) > responsibilities of IGC coordinators to do this kind of thing. > >> Anyone can and should have the right to >> object to the group doing a statement on a topic which does not seem >> to be well-defined > > Yes, that is a valid ground to object - and a kind of objection that > needs to be taken into account during consensus processes, with the > goal of defining the topic better. > >> or to represent a good use of our scarce collective deliberation >> capabilities. > > It is acceptable to express this as an opinion, but if others still > want to go ahead, I don't think that there is any reasonable grounds > to tell them not to do so. In the same way you, and everyone really, > similarly have the ability to create discourses that others would > consider noise and a waste of time. > >> This is about expelling people because they disagree with the >> coordinator, and with you. > > No. It is about (trying to) have an environment of discourse in which > it is possible for people to productively participate who (for whatever > reasons) do not have the habit of metaphorically wearing the equivalent > of a full-body asbestos suit in order to not have to worry about flames > (in the sense of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_%28Internet%29 .) > > I personally don't worry about getting flamed, and since many years it > doesn't personally hurt me anymore. I am capable of participating in > online environments where ability to continue substantive work while > getting flamed is a de-facto requirement for effective participation, > and I'm also capable of participating in environments where the relevant > social norms are what I would consider more civilized. > > IGC has clear rules (which I have not invented) that it is intended to > be a place of civilized discourse, in which personal attacks and > threats have no place. > > Please do whatever it takes to learn to express your opinions and > arguments in ways that clearly do not violate the posting rules. The > problem with your postings is not all about the substantive content > of the opinions that you express; it is only about the ways in which > you express them. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Apr 26 06:35:45 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 06:35:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <517A37FA.2060609@gmail.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C67BC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517A37FA.2060609@gmail.com> Message-ID: Riaz, On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 4:16 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Agree fully Izumi. > > The issue is simple, we can debate and discuss and sharpen our ideas here. > > If necessary 'factions' can be formed around particular ideas, something > Third Worldists ought to have done to deal with the single rooters. I suspect that over 90% of the people on this list are "single-rooters". How would you propose to "deal" with that? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Apr 26 07:25:47 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 07:25:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] abuse by the coordinator In-Reply-To: <108901ce41c9$101e0d80$305a2880$@gmail.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F7D78@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <108901ce41c9$101e0d80$305a2880$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Micheal, On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:24 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Milton of course has a long long history of over the top ad hominems, and > he clearly isn't a troll interfering with the flow of the discussion as some > whose name we won't mention but whose absence has allowed for useful > discussion to reemerge on this list. I don't see how this is true by any stretch of the imagination. Adam is correct, our current co-cos are too quick to "hat-up" and censor. -- 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 Fri Apr 26 07:26:40 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 06:26:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C67BC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517A37FA.2060609@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 26 Apr 2013, at 05:35, McTim wrote: > I suspect that over 90% of the people on this list are "single-rooters". i'm not. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Fri Apr 26 07:30:00 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 06:30:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <517A37FA.2060609@gmail.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C67BC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517A37FA.2060609@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3C712558-32E7-4D81-B1A7-DAD388882132@ella.com> On 26 Apr 2013, at 03:16, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Third Worldists don't think I am one of those either. not sure i know what it is. are Third Worldists and One Rooters in opposition? Can someone explain that? do we have any 2nd Wayist or 4th Optionists in the mix? thanks avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Fri Apr 26 07:42:20 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 17:12:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <3C712558-32E7-4D81-B1A7-DAD388882132@ella.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C67BC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517A37FA.2060609@gmail.com> <3C712558-32E7-4D81-B1A7-DAD388882132@ella.com> Message-ID: Anyone want to explain (briefly) this jargon for the noobs? (like me) -C On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 26 Apr 2013, at 03:16, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > > Third Worldists > > > don't think I am one of those either. > not sure i know what it is. > > are Third Worldists and One Rooters in opposition? > Can someone explain that? > > do we have any 2nd Wayist > or 4th Optionists in the mix? > > thanks > > avri > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Apr 26 07:50:11 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 20:50:11 +0900 Subject: [governance] abuse by the coordinator In-Reply-To: <108901ce41c9$101e0d80$305a2880$@gmail.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F7D78@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <108901ce41c9$101e0d80$305a2880$@gmail.com> Message-ID: here we go... On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 12:24 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Milton of course has a long long history of over the top ad hominems, > personal attacks, collective attacks etc.etc. > > Most of the time folks just shrug it off as Milton being Milton doing > Miltonisms... Yes, for those new to the list, we on the IGC even have a > (semi-affectionate/semi-derisive) name for them... > > Sometimes people object and react and the behaviours disappear for a while > only to reimerge in later perhaps less guarded moments. And of course, he is > a very valuable member of the discussion when he moderates his rhetoric and > he clearly isn't a troll interfering with the flow of the discussion as some > whose name we won't mention but whose absence has allowed for useful > discussion to reemerge on this list. > Exactly the kind of mealy-mouthed cowardly attack that so divides this list. Adam > It is a wee bit po-faced for Milton to respond as though the admonition from > the co-coordinator had to with his useful if contentious attack appended to > the co-coordinator's message rather than to his earlier Miltonisms in > responding in an over the top manner to Parminder's contributions concerning > the definition issues (I believe it was... > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 8:01 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim; Milton L Mueller > Subject: RE: [governance] abuse by the coordinator > > Hi, > > As everyone just saw, Milton's advocacy for one position did not stop me > from posting a different view. Hence Milton's expression demonstrably did > not stop the ongoing list discussion. > > On the other hand, achieving the right balance of -coordinating - an IGC > discussion; and asserting/inserting one's own views, is frankly something > the current co-co's are still learning. In my my ever-humble opinion. (And > of course I hope no offense is taken Norbert, since none is meant.) > > Personally, rather than elevating all this in to yet another instance of the > IGC list discussion meandering into one more endless internal process > discussion, I hope Norbert and Milton agree to virtually shake hands and say > oops never mind. > > And then we can get back to our regularly scheduled random discussions. > > Hey I can dream right? : ) > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of McTim > [dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 10:38 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] abuse by the coordinator > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Dear colleagues: >> I forward this message to the list so that you can see your coordinator in > action. > > > >> This is an attempt to suppress discussion. It is Norbert who is acting as > the bully here. This is unacceptable. I call upon members of this list to > protest this arbitrary and biased action. > > > Agreed it is an unacceptable attempt to suppress a valid perspective. > > I note this is not the first instance of this in the last month or so. > > I am happy to protest. > > > 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 avri at acm.org Fri Apr 26 07:59:53 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 06:59:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C67BC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517A37FA.2060609@gmail.com> <3C712558-32E7-4D81-B1A7-DAD388882132@ella.com> Message-ID: <7D412841-1A2D-44F8-A7BA-AFEB8D0030B1@acm.org> Hi, Good questions. Even an old one like me isn't sure. I think one Rooters are people that believe in, above all (almost,) that the Internet must have a single unique root otherwise it will fail. I think Third Worldist might be defined as people who beleive that the Third World countries/people, for some definition of Third World, are being denied access to the Internet because of the action of coorporate greed. Or something like that. As for the other two that I asked about. I made those up, but if we are creating categories to drop people into, I felt we needed more categories. 2nd Wayist would be those who beleive that for just about any oppositional situation, there is another way to look at it, even though they may not know what it is yet. and 4th Optionists, after the 1 Rooters, the 2nd Wayeist, the 3rd Worders, they are people who would think they know the option that moves beyond the other 3. In this categorization, if we all had to move to our corner of the room, I would be a 2nd Wayist. There has got to be another way , but for the life of me I can't seem to define it. avri On 26 Apr 2013, at 06:42, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > Anyone want to explain (briefly) this jargon for the noobs? (like me) > > -C > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 26 Apr 2013, at 03:16, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > > Third Worldists > > > don't think I am one of those either. > not sure i know what it is. > > are Third Worldists and One Rooters in opposition? > Can someone explain that? > > do we have any 2nd Wayist > or 4th Optionists in the mix? > > thanks > > avri > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Apr 26 08:00:03 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:00:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C67BC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517A37FA.2060609@gmail.com> <3C712558-32E7-4D81-B1A7-DAD388882132@ella.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > Anyone want to explain (briefly) this jargon for the noobs? (like me) It's a pejorative term for those who like to have coherence in ther DNS resolution, that is the 90%+ I was talking about. It also seems to be used by Riaz to mean anyone who doesn't see the USG's root authorisation function as a gross human rights violation. -- 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 Fri Apr 26 08:07:29 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 17:37:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <7D412841-1A2D-44F8-A7BA-AFEB8D0030B1@acm.org> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C67BC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517A37FA.2060609@gmail.com> <3C712558-32E7-4D81-B1A7-DAD388882132@ella.com> <7D412841-1A2D-44F8-A7BA-AFEB8D0030B1@acm.org> Message-ID: Too good: "There has got to be another way , but for the life of me I can't seem to define it." You missed out "Status-Quo"ists, people... :P -C On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Good questions. > > Even an old one like me isn't sure. > > I think one Rooters are people that believe in, above all (almost,) that > the Internet must have a single unique root otherwise it will fail. > > I think Third Worldist might be defined as people who beleive that the > Third World countries/people, for some definition of Third World, are being > denied access to the Internet because of the action of coorporate greed. > Or something like that. > > As for the other two that I asked about. I made those up, but if we are > creating categories to drop people into, I felt we needed more categories. > > 2nd Wayist would be those who beleive that for just about any oppositional > situation, there is another way to look at it, even though they may not > know what it is yet. > > and > > 4th Optionists, after the 1 Rooters, the 2nd Wayeist, the 3rd Worders, > they are people who would think they know the option that moves beyond the > other 3. > > In this categorization, if we all had to move to our corner of the room, I > would be a 2nd Wayist. There has got to be another way , but for the life > of me I can't seem to define it. > > avri > > > > On 26 Apr 2013, at 06:42, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > > > Anyone want to explain (briefly) this jargon for the noobs? (like me) > > > > -C > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > On 26 Apr 2013, at 03:16, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > > > > Third Worldists > > > > > > don't think I am one of those either. > > not sure i know what it is. > > > > are Third Worldists and One Rooters in opposition? > > Can someone explain that? > > > > do we have any 2nd Wayist > > or 4th Optionists in the mix? > > > > thanks > > > > avri > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 26 08:13:09 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:13:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] On whistleblowing, mobbing and suppression (was Re: On the seriousness of threats) In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C7E21@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130426120804.14a9c882@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130426141309.514c45bd@quill.bollow.ch> Adam Peake wrote: > But you added a comment that I was in someway extra guilty because > Michael was performing the function of whistle-blower, obviously a > sacred role. As with Milton you added your own interpretation, got > rather carried away. In case someone is interested in reading up on why unfriendly remarks directed towards someone who has just acted as a whistle-blower (in the broad sense of pointing out that something is going wrong) are much more problematic than otherwise similar unfriendly remarks in different contexts (such as e.g. in a long-standing relationship of people who love to hate each other and who therefore insult each other occasionally), there is a lot on that in the literature on mobbing. Here's one quick link: Brian Martin and Florencia Peña Saint Martin: Mobbing and Suppression: Footprints of Their Relationships Social Medicine, Volume 6, Number 4, May 2012 http://www.socialmedicine.info/socialmedicine/index.php/socialmedicine/article/download/602/1255 Anyway, I think that we have now talked enough about talking, and about what can go wrong in talking. Let's get back to substantive discussions on topics that are more directly and more specifically about taking good care of the Internet. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 26 08:13:58 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 07:13:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C67BC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517A37FA.2060609@gmail.com> <3C712558-32E7-4D81-B1A7-DAD388882132@ella.com> <7D412841-1A2D-44F8-A7BA-AFEB8D0030B1@acm.org> Message-ID: <667B3FB6-570D-40D6-81DA-2F8597112FB0@acm.org> Hi, Oh you are right, keeping with the monotonic ordinality of this exercise, they would have to be the 0 Changers avri On 26 Apr 2013, at 07:07, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > Too good: "There has got to be another way , but for the life of me I can't seem to define it." > > You missed out "Status-Quo"ists, people... :P > > -C > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Good questions. > > Even an old one like me isn't sure. > > I think one Rooters are people that believe in, above all (almost,) that the Internet must have a single unique root otherwise it will fail. > > I think Third Worldist might be defined as people who beleive that the Third World countries/people, for some definition of Third World, are being denied access to the Internet because of the action of coorporate greed. Or something like that. > > As for the other two that I asked about. I made those up, but if we are creating categories to drop people into, I felt we needed more categories. > > 2nd Wayist would be those who beleive that for just about any oppositional situation, there is another way to look at it, even though they may not know what it is yet. > > and > > 4th Optionists, after the 1 Rooters, the 2nd Wayeist, the 3rd Worders, they are people who would think they know the option that moves beyond the other 3. > > In this categorization, if we all had to move to our corner of the room, I would be a 2nd Wayist. There has got to be another way , but for the life of me I can't seem to define it. > > avri > > > > On 26 Apr 2013, at 06:42, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > > > Anyone want to explain (briefly) this jargon for the noobs? (like me) > > > > -C > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > On 26 Apr 2013, at 03:16, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > > > > Third Worldists > > > > > > don't think I am one of those either. > > not sure i know what it is. > > > > are Third Worldists and One Rooters in opposition? > > Can someone explain that? > > > > do we have any 2nd Wayist > > or 4th Optionists in the mix? > > > > thanks > > > > avri > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Fri Apr 26 09:37:31 2013 From: admin at alkasir.com (Walid AL-SAQAF) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:37:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] On whistleblowing, mobbing and suppression (was Re: On the seriousness of threats) In-Reply-To: <20130426141309.514c45bd@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C7E21@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130426120804.14a9c882@quill.bollow.ch> <20130426141309.514c45bd@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Norbert Bollow wrote: > Anyway, I think that we have now talked enough about talking, and about > what can go wrong in talking. Let's get back to substantive discussions on > topics that are more directly and more specifically about taking good care > of the Internet. Greetings, Norbert I second that. It's about time to move on. Sincerely, Walid ----------------- Walid Al-Saqaf Founder & Administrator alkasir for mapping and circumventing cyber censorship https://alkasir.com PGP: https://alkasir.com/doc/admin_alkasir_pub_key.txt On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Adam Peake wrote: > > > But you added a comment that I was in someway extra guilty because > > Michael was performing the function of whistle-blower, obviously a > > sacred role. As with Milton you added your own interpretation, got > > rather carried away. > > In case someone is interested in reading up on why unfriendly remarks > directed towards someone who has just acted as a whistle-blower (in the > broad sense of pointing out that something is going wrong) are much > more problematic than otherwise similar unfriendly remarks in > different contexts (such as e.g. in a long-standing relationship of > people who love to hate each other and who therefore insult each other > occasionally), there is a lot on that in the literature on mobbing. > > Here's one quick link: > > Brian Martin and Florencia Peña Saint Martin: > Mobbing and Suppression: Footprints of Their Relationships > Social Medicine, Volume 6, Number 4, May 2012 > > http://www.socialmedicine.info/socialmedicine/index.php/socialmedicine/article/download/602/1255 > > > Anyway, I think that we have now talked enough about talking, and about > what can go wrong in talking. > > Let's get back to substantive discussions on topics that are more > directly and more specifically about taking good care of the Internet. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Apr 26 10:39:59 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 23:39:59 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: On whistleblowing, mobbing and suppression (was Re: On the seriousness of threats) In-Reply-To: <20130426141309.514c45bd@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C7E21@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130426120804.14a9c882@quill.bollow.ch> <20130426141309.514c45bd@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: you're doing it again Norbert -- not your place to interpret and base your censorship on opinion. btw - did you think before making those incredibly insulting comments about a professional educator, suggesting they might vindictively punish a junior over an unrelated disagreement. Shame on you. Put your hat on and ban yourself for a month. Adam On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Adam Peake wrote: > >> But you added a comment that I was in someway extra guilty because >> Michael was performing the function of whistle-blower, obviously a >> sacred role. As with Milton you added your own interpretation, got >> rather carried away. > > In case someone is interested in reading up on why unfriendly remarks > directed towards someone who has just acted as a whistle-blower (in the > broad sense of pointing out that something is going wrong) are much > more problematic than otherwise similar unfriendly remarks in > different contexts (such as e.g. in a long-standing relationship of > people who love to hate each other and who therefore insult each other > occasionally), there is a lot on that in the literature on mobbing. > > Here's one quick link: > > Brian Martin and Florencia Peña Saint Martin: > Mobbing and Suppression: Footprints of Their Relationships > Social Medicine, Volume 6, Number 4, May 2012 > http://www.socialmedicine.info/socialmedicine/index.php/socialmedicine/article/download/602/1255 > > > Anyway, I think that we have now talked enough about talking, and about > what can go wrong in talking. > > Let's get back to substantive discussions on topics that are more > directly and more specifically about taking good care of the Internet. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Fri Apr 26 10:51:34 2013 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:51:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] abuse by the coordinator In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C7E21@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C7E21@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: (I was initially reluctant to react to Milton on the list, as I'm not keen on diverting attention from what I found to be a rather welcome change towards more productive discussions. However, some assertions by Milton do deserve a public response, which might also be of broader value. I apologise in advance if this creates more tensions in this group, which is not my intention.) Dear Milton, On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > *Andrea, * > > *It’s unfortunate to see you siding with those who would suppress > dialogue and expel people from the list. Let me explain my position more > clearly.* > It is unfortunate that you characterise my message in the way you do, as in fact my goal is to help fostering more and better dialogue.I think this was rather clear from my words, but just as you are offering with your email, let me try to explain my position more clearly. And for what it's worth, IF I had to decide and/or vote on your expulsion from this list, I would certainly not do it on the basis of your behaviour so far. > *[Milton L Mueller] Of course, that is what I meant. I made it clear > that I will speak up against and challenge any attempt to force through a > poorly-crafted statement as a “civil society” position or a position of > this caucus. * > > *Anyone can and should have the right to object to the group doing a > statement on a topic which does not seem to be well-defined or to represent > a good use of our scarce collective deliberation capabilities. If those > kinds of objections are defined unilaterally as “bullying” and used to > silence people, our caucus is in a very bad position.* > > *Norbert’s threat notwithstanding I will continue to say whatever I like > about this proposed statement. If that means there is another casualty on > the list, it is the list’s loss and a great loss for this noble attempt to > have a common forum for civil society in the IGF. * > Thanks for clarifying what you meant with the statement you made - which, by the way, was just an example. As I clearly wrote, this is also what I had concluded on the basis of my knowledge of you. But my initial reaction reading those words was different and also led to me to ask myself whether other persons, who perhaps do not know you, come from different cultures and/or have simply a "thinner skin", might reasonably interpret them differently. My conclusion is yes, they reasonably could, which in my view is unfortunate. And I certainly do not object to your right to object or express your positions. However, I continue to believe that there is a difference between the "what" and the "how". I am questioning the latter, not the former. > ** > > *[Milton L Mueller] I don’t take this argument seriously. Let others > comment. How many felt physically threatened by that comment? Please let us > know. I think you are coming up with lame rationalizations for your desired > result, which is to shut me up. Anyway, if you are not sure what I mean, > ask me. Don’t threaten someone with suppression first, and ask questions > later. Use the right to free expression, and believe in its use. Issuing a > real threat before finding out is an abuse of the coordinator’s position. > * > I do not wish to focus this discussion on the behaviour of the co-coordinator, except to note that he explained on which basis he sent you a private warning. I note and accept that different people have different views on whether co-coordinators are too prone in sending such warnings; I also understand that the Charter of this list provides the means to address actions by the co-coordinators which you or others do not deem acceptable. While I can not and even do not wish to oblige you to take any of my arguments seriously, I think your characterisation of such argument as a "lame rationalisation for [my] desired result, which is to shut [you] up" is illogical, as (1) I have no power to do so, not even by making any formal requests as I'm not a member of the IGC; and, most importantly, (2) because, as I have stated several times, I actually agree with your substantive arguments and more in general I think you have much to offer to the discussions on this list, as well as more generally to debates concerning Internet governance. > ** > > (I also find this particular sentence rather arrogant, to the extent that > it implies that if one single person disagrees with a statement, then it is > not a "civil society position" - but this is besides the point).**** > > *[Milton L Mueller] Do you consider this a polite comment? I ask because > You are calling me names while scolding me about the need to be polite. > Anyway, if you’d bother to attend to the facts in this case, you would see > that many people have expressed disagreement with this proposed statement. > * > > *Even if they stand alone, any individual who strongly disagrees with an > IGC statement has a right to stand up and say they don’t agree with it and > will work against it in other contexts. And they have a right not to get > kicked off the list, or threatened with such, when they do. Do you disagree? > * > I must say that yes, I find my comment polite within the boundaries of my own understanding of what is polite and unpolite. More specifically, I made an assessment of a sentence and of the logic behind it, which I do found arrogant. It is not an assessment on you as a person, nor is "calling you names". Having said this, this just goes to prove that people have very different sensitivities. If you found my sentence offensive or unpolite to you, please accept my apologies - it was not intended as such. My judgement of your position however remains: while I believe it is fully within your right to privately or publicly disagree with a position taken by a group which can reasonably be defined as "civil society" (not necessarily the IGC, which I understand has its own rules to decide whether a statement is an "IGC statement" or not) I believe it is "bizarre" for a single person to claim that such position would *not* be an expression of "civil society" only because s/he disagrees with it. > ** > ** > > I'm sorry to say that in the Internet governance environment there are > quite a few persons - including, to be clear, Milton - whom I *very > deeply *respect from an intellectual point of view, but who tend to > express their ideas in ways which I find personally distasteful (not > theirs, or anyone else's problem, of course) and, most importantly, do > create a real problem when trying to disseminate such ideas with people > (some of whom are key decision-makers you might want to influence...) who > might have rather different standards of what constitutes acceptable ways > to express yourself.**** > > *[Milton L Mueller] So polite. This attempt to divert the issue to my > communication style turns the whole thing into an ad hominem argument, > literally. And as an Italian I am sure you can translate the Latin. If > style were really the issue, Parminder and Gurstein would have been thrown > off the list and publicly warned long ago. I suspect these attacks have > more to do with what I say and who I am criticizing than with the “way I > express my ideas.” And to put a fine point on it, we both know, Andrea, > that you and the EC have been the target of my criticism on several > occasions, and I suspect that that has more to do with your intervention in > this matter than the “distasteful” way of expressing ideas.* > Let me dispel this notion before it goes any further. First of all, if I had to (try to) silence / expel from discussions every single person who has ever criticised me or the European Commission, by this time I would be talking to an empty room. On the contrary, I happen to have plenty of satisfying conversations, both on a personal and on a professional level, with lots of people who disagree with my own positions or with the positions I express as an official of the European Commission (the two are not always the same). Secondly, while I cannot do much to change your suspicions, I want to put on the public record that I have been and continue to be one of the most vocal supporters (let me rephrase: at this stage, probably the *only*supporter) of your intellectual contributions to the IG debate within the European Commission and other EU Institutions (as well as elsewhere, but since you mention the European Commission, I'll stick to it). Not because I agree with all of them, but because I think your opinions are (mostly) well researched, well argued, forward looking and intellectually stimulating. Sadly and frustratingly, it is increasingly difficult for me to convince colleagues and superiors to differentiate between the "how" and the "what". I think this is a net loss for everyone, including you. > *Let me make it clear that I would never support threatening Parminder or > Gurstein or Suresh – or you - with expulsion. It is obvious to me that > almost all of our disagreements are based on substantive differences. > People are getting heated here not because of their style of expression, > but because they are debating fundamental principles, deeply held values > and rights, with real consequences. I respect that in Parminder and > Michael, even when I disagree with them; I am strong enough that I have no > need to push them off the list or silence them. I would expect the same > largeness of spirit of you. * > I agree that much of the heat of the discussion comes from differences of opinions on substantive issues. However, I also believe, perhaps naively, that it is almost always possible to express such opinions in a way which helps finding common ground. And I really, really cannot see how stating that a person's communication style tends to obscure that person's substantive contributions can be seen as a "ad hominem" attack (they are a comment on the message, not necessarily on the originator of the message) or an attempt at censorship, expulsion or any other nefarious activity. > *There are truly disruptive or insulting people with nothing to > contribute; none of the issues or people we are discussing now fall into > that category. This is about expelling people because they disagree with > the coordinator, and with you.* > Since I said that I actually agree (mostly) with your substantive positions on the specific debate of the "public good" or "commons" nature of the Internet, the logic of this last sentence completely escapes me. I think I have said everything I needed to. Unless your or others feel that there are issues of public relevance, I'll be happy to continue this particular conversation in private. Best, Andrea -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Apr 26 11:02:44 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:02:44 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: On whistleblowing, mobbing and suppression (was Re: On the seriousness of threats) Message-ID: Interesting... this anthropophagic fight of big egos (by a bunch of mostly old-timers of the group, mind you) will lead to nowhere -- and certainly scare off any newcomer. As dr Fritz would  say to the cowboy at the beginning of "Django Unchained": "Calm down! Calm down!" --c.a. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: Adam Peake Date: 26/04/2013 11:39 (GMT-03:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Re: On whistleblowing, mobbing and suppression (was Re: On the seriousness of threats) you're doing it again Norbert -- not your place to interpret and base your censorship on opinion. btw - did you think before making those incredibly insulting comments about a professional educator, suggesting they might vindictively punish a junior over an unrelated disagreement.  Shame on you.  Put your hat on and ban yourself for a month. Adam On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Adam Peake wrote: > >> But you added a comment that I was in someway extra guilty because >> Michael was performing the function of whistle-blower, obviously a >> sacred role.  As with Milton you added your own interpretation, got >> rather carried away. > > In case someone is interested in reading up on why unfriendly remarks > directed towards someone who has just acted as a whistle-blower (in the > broad sense of pointing out that something is going wrong) are much > more problematic than otherwise similar unfriendly remarks in > different contexts (such as e.g. in a long-standing relationship of > people who love to hate each other and who therefore insult each other > occasionally), there is a lot on that in the literature on mobbing. > > Here's one quick link: > > Brian Martin and Florencia Peña Saint Martin: >   Mobbing and Suppression: Footprints of Their Relationships > Social Medicine, Volume 6, Number 4, May 2012 > http://www.socialmedicine.info/socialmedicine/index.php/socialmedicine/article/download/602/1255 > > > Anyway, I think that we have now talked enough about talking, and about > what can go wrong in talking. > > Let's get back to substantive discussions on topics that are more > directly and more specifically about taking good care of the Internet. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 26 11:04:44 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:04:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <7D412841-1A2D-44F8-A7BA-AFEB8D0030B1@acm.org> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C67BC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517A37FA.2060609@gmail.com> <3C712558-32E7-4D81-B1A7-DAD388882132@ella.com> <7D412841-1A2D-44F8-A7BA-AFEB8D0030B1@acm.org> Message-ID: In message <7D412841-1A2D-44F8-A7BA-AFEB8D0030B1 at acm.org>, at 06:59:53 on Fri, 26 Apr 2013, Avri Doria writes >I think one Rooters are people that believe in, above all (almost,) >that the Internet must have a single unique root otherwise it will fail. A proposition which is both absurd and self-evident, depending on where you are standing. There's no reason why (and let's just talk about DNS - arguably IP addresses are already multi-rooted[3]) there needs to be 'only one ICANN'. All that would happen is that ICANN2 would have its own DNS tree (hopefully unique in terms of entries, compared to ICANN, otherwise things *will* start to go pear-shaped[1]), and there would be a new[2] 'unique' root pointing at both ICANN and ICANN2, which everyone would use in order to know the location of both of the DNS trees they need to query. We seem to cope quite well without a single root for email addresses. If I want to email Avri then I'll probably see if she's on Facebook, failing that Linked-In, and failing that Twitter/Skype/etc. Eventually I'll find somewhere that says "yes, I know to get hold of her..." (and if I don't, I'll simply conclude she doesn't want to be contacted, which is debatably more her loss than mine). [1] That's UK-English for "break". [2] And with only two entries, it's not especially complex to maintain, you could just chalk it on a wall somewhere and have people take notes from time to time, in much the same way that the ICANN-world root-server IP addresses don't change that often either. [3] You can easily poll round all five RIRs until one of them admits the address you are seeking is one of theirs. No real need to ask IANA first. Some of the RIRs will do that for you already "I don't know about this address, but I know a man(/RIR) who does". -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Fri Apr 26 11:23:22 2013 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 17:23:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <905BDC29-6D93-4885-9A87-6714FA87DB2D@istaff.org> References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <0880A8A4-7CEB-4E45-9D3E-A0DA5B52A8BA@istaff.org> <905BDC29-6D93-4885-9A87-6714FA87DB2D@istaff.org> Message-ID: Dear John, dear all, apologies for the belated reaction - I hope you can remember the context of our discussion. On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:27 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Apr 17, 2013, at 9:18 AM, Andrea Glorioso > wrote: > > The reason why I'm mentioning the above is not to do some sterile showing > off (which I'm anyway not entitled to, as I'm not an international law > scholar or practictioner and there plenty of people more knowledgeable than > me on these matters) but because it strikes me that the logical passage, > according to which the ability / legitimacy of a "government" to adopt and > enforce laws nationally is somehow "lost" when moving to the international > level or when dealing with cross-border phenomena (of which the Internet is > one, but certainly not the only example - and I do think that when > discussing global Internet governance matters we might well keep this in > mind, to avoid "Internet exceptionalism") is based more on an aspirational > approach than on the current realities of international law and relations. > > > Agreed - I was not actually attempting to alter the current realities of > international law and > relations, but suggesting that the enforcement of one country's public > policies should not > _automatically_ be assumed (i.e. simply because of Internet-based > communication to > those in other countries) to be applicable to the other end of the > communications. > (i.e. no more so then it would be today.) > > That is a statement that actually is not accepted by some when it comes > to the Internet, > in particular those who would put obligations on entities in other > countries to meet their > own policy objectives... > In order to help me better understand, could you provide me with some examples of "enforcement of one country's public policy [which, in order to be effective, needs to be applied] to the other end of the communication" and/or of "obligations on entities in other countries [which are necessary for countries] to meet their own policy objectives"? Thanks, -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fatimacambronero at gmail.com Fri Apr 26 11:50:23 2013 From: fatimacambronero at gmail.com (Fatima Cambronero) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:50:23 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: On whistleblowing, mobbing and suppression (was Re: On the seriousness of threats) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2013/4/26 Carlos A. Afonso > Interesting... this anthropophagic fight of big egos (by a bunch of mostly > old-timers of the group, mind you) will lead to nowhere -- and certainly > scare off any newcomer. > +1 Fatima > > As dr Fritz would say to the cowboy at the beginning of "Django > Unchained": "Calm down! Calm down!" > > --c.a. > > ------------ > C. A. Afonso > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Adam Peake > Date: 26/04/2013 11:39 (GMT-03:00) > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] Re: On whistleblowing, mobbing and suppression (was > Re: On the seriousness of threats) > > > you're doing it again Norbert -- not your place to interpret and base > your censorship on opinion. > > btw - did you think before making those incredibly insulting comments > about a professional educator, suggesting they might vindictively > punish a junior over an unrelated disagreement. Shame on you. Put > your hat on and ban yourself for a month. > > Adam > > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Adam Peake wrote: > > > >> But you added a comment that I was in someway extra guilty because > >> Michael was performing the function of whistle-blower, obviously a > >> sacred role. As with Milton you added your own interpretation, got > >> rather carried away. > > > > In case someone is interested in reading up on why unfriendly remarks > > directed towards someone who has just acted as a whistle-blower (in the > > broad sense of pointing out that something is going wrong) are much > > more problematic than otherwise similar unfriendly remarks in > > different contexts (such as e.g. in a long-standing relationship of > > people who love to hate each other and who therefore insult each other > > occasionally), there is a lot on that in the literature on mobbing. > > > > Here's one quick link: > > > > Brian Martin and Florencia Peña Saint Martin: > > Mobbing and Suppression: Footprints of Their Relationships > > Social Medicine, Volume 6, Number 4, May 2012 > > > http://www.socialmedicine.info/socialmedicine/index.php/socialmedicine/article/download/602/1255 > > > > > > Anyway, I think that we have now talked enough about talking, and about > > what can go wrong in talking. > > > > Let's get back to substantive discussions on topics that are more > > directly and more specifically about taking good care of the Internet. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > -- > > Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: > > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Fatima Cambronero* Abogada-Argentina Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 Twitter: @facambronero Skype: fatima.cambronero *Join the LACRALO/ICANN discussions:* https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-es *Join the Diplo Internet Governance Community discussions:* http://www.diplointernetgovernance.org/ *Join to the Internet Society (ISOC): *http://www.internetsociety.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Apr 26 13:28:58 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 18:28:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <0880A8A4-7CEB-4E45-9D3E-A0DA5B52A8BA@istaff.org> <905BDC29-6D93-4885-9A87-6714FA87DB2D@istaff.org> Message-ID: In message , at 17:23:22 on Fri, 26 Apr 2013, Andrea Glorioso writes >In order to help me better understand, could you provide me with some >examples of "enforcement of one country's public policy [which, in >order to be effective, needs to be applied] to the other end of the >communication" and/or of "obligations on entities in other countries >[which are necessary for countries] to meet their own policy objectives" Echelon? -- 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 kichango at gmail.com Fri Apr 26 13:32:11 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 17:32:11 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: On whistleblowing, mobbing and suppression (was Re: On the seriousness of threats) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Interesting... this anthropophagic fight of big egos (by a bunch of mostly > old-timers of the group, mind you) will lead to nowhere -- and certainly > scare off any newcomer. > Oh don't worry... it's scarring off some old-timers, too, who, I'm afraid, may just not have enough brain (and other) resources to waste on such things mawaki > > As dr Fritz would say to the cowboy at the beginning of "Django > Unchained": "Calm down! Calm down!" > > --c.a. > > ------------ > C. A. Afonso > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Adam Peake > Date: 26/04/2013 11:39 (GMT-03:00) > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] Re: On whistleblowing, mobbing and suppression (was > Re: On the seriousness of threats) > > > you're doing it again Norbert -- not your place to interpret and base > your censorship on opinion. > > btw - did you think before making those incredibly insulting comments > about a professional educator, suggesting they might vindictively > punish a junior over an unrelated disagreement. Shame on you. Put > your hat on and ban yourself for a month. > > Adam > > > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Adam Peake wrote: > > > >> But you added a comment that I was in someway extra guilty because > >> Michael was performing the function of whistle-blower, obviously a > >> sacred role. As with Milton you added your own interpretation, got > >> rather carried away. > > > > In case someone is interested in reading up on why unfriendly remarks > > directed towards someone who has just acted as a whistle-blower (in the > > broad sense of pointing out that something is going wrong) are much > > more problematic than otherwise similar unfriendly remarks in > > different contexts (such as e.g. in a long-standing relationship of > > people who love to hate each other and who therefore insult each other > > occasionally), there is a lot on that in the literature on mobbing. > > > > Here's one quick link: > > > > Brian Martin and Florencia Peña Saint Martin: > > Mobbing and Suppression: Footprints of Their Relationships > > Social Medicine, Volume 6, Number 4, May 2012 > > > http://www.socialmedicine.info/socialmedicine/index.php/socialmedicine/article/download/602/1255 > > > > > > Anyway, I think that we have now talked enough about talking, and about > > what can go wrong in talking. > > > > Let's get back to substantive discussions on topics that are more > > directly and more specifically about taking good care of the Internet. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > -- > > Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: > > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 26 13:55:03 2013 From: avri at ella.com (=?utf-8?B?QXZyaSBEb3JpYQ==?=) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 12:55:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: On whistleblowing, mobbing and suppression (was Re: On the seriousness of threats) Message-ID: <201304261755.r3QHt1fN027847@atl4mhob14.myregisteredsite.com> hi, not sure what anthropophagic means. i understand anthro. i understand po. and i understand phagic. not sure what you get when put them together. i would argue that an email list has plenty of bandwidth for multiple threads. both those on substantive issues and those on coco judgements and those on process and ... i know that some list members live at the end of narrow expensive pipes. i don't want to seem insensitive to this, but the number of people who include the whole trail of every thread in every message waste even more bandwidth than this thread has. i would also recommend using email apps that only download a few lines of every message before the user requests the rest. if you were doing that, you could have deleted this message as soon as you noticed it was just about process. avri ps. i am calm ----- Reply message ----- From: "Carlos A. Afonso" To: "Adam Peake" , Subject: [governance] Re: On whistleblowing, mobbing and suppression (was Re: On the seriousness of threats) Date: Fri, Apr 26, 2013 10:02 Interesting... this anthropophagic fight of big egos (by a bunch of mostly old-timers of the group, mind you) will lead to nowhere -- and certainly scare off any newcomer. As dr Fritz would say to the cowboy at the beginning of "Django Unchained": "Calm down! Calm down!" --c.a. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Apr 26 14:12:29 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:12:29 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: On whistleblowing, mobbing and suppression (was Re: On the seriousness of threats) Message-ID: Anthropophagic = cannibalistic :) --c.a. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: Avri Doria Date: 26/04/2013 14:55 (GMT-03:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: On whistleblowing, mobbing and suppression (was Re: On the seriousness of threats) hi, not sure what anthropophagic means. i understand anthro.  i understand po. and i understand phagic. not sure what you get when put them together. i would argue that an email list has plenty of bandwidth for multiple threads.  both those on substantive issues and those on coco judgements and those on process and ... i know that some list members live at the end of narrow expensive pipes.  i don't want to seem insensitive to this,  but the number of people who include the whole trail of every thread in every message waste even more bandwidth than this thread has. i would also recommend using email apps  that only download a few lines of every message before the user requests the rest.  if you were doing that,  you could have deleted this message as soon as you noticed it was just about process. avri ps. i am calm ----- Reply message ----- From: "Carlos A. Afonso" To: "Adam Peake" , Subject: [governance] Re: On whistleblowing, mobbing and suppression (was Re: On the seriousness of threats) Date: Fri, Apr 26, 2013 10:02 Interesting... this anthropophagic fight of big egos (by a bunch of mostly old-timers of the group, mind you) will lead to nowhere -- and certainly scare off any newcomer. As dr Fritz would  say to the cowboy at the beginning of "Django Unchained": "Calm down! Calm down!" --c.a. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Apr 26 14:48:16 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:48:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: On whistleblowing, mobbing and suppression (was Re: On the seriousness of threats) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Herodotus first wrote of*andropophagi* in his *Histories*, where he described them as one of several tribes near Scythia. An extra note indicates that the *andropophagi* are cannibals, as reflected in their name: “The manners of the Anthropophagi are more savage than those of any other race. They neither observe justice, nor are governed, by any laws. They are nomads, and their dress is Scythian; but the language which they speak is peculiar to themselves. Unlike any other nation in these parts, they are cannibals. ” — *Histories*, Book 4 (*Melpomene*), trans. George Rawlinson, 1858-1860 From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropophage Deirdre On 26 April 2013 14:12, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Anthropophagic = cannibalistic :) > > --c.a. > > ------------ > C. A. Afonso > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Avri Doria > Date: 26/04/2013 14:55 (GMT-03:00) > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: On whistleblowing, mobbing and suppression > (was Re: On the seriousness of threats) > > > hi, > > not sure what anthropophagic means. i understand anthro. i understand po. > and i understand phagic. not sure what you get when put them together. > > i would argue that an email list has plenty of bandwidth for multiple > threads. both those on substantive issues and those on coco judgements and > those on process and ... > > i know that some list members live at the end of narrow expensive pipes. > i don't want to seem insensitive to this, but the number of people who > include the whole trail of every thread in every message waste even more > bandwidth than this thread has. > > i would also recommend using email apps that only download a few lines of > every message before the user requests the rest. if you were doing that, > you could have deleted this message as soon as you noticed it was just > about process. > > avri > > ps. i am calm > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Carlos A. Afonso" > To: "Adam Peake" , > Subject: [governance] Re: On whistleblowing, mobbing and suppression (was > Re: On the seriousness of threats) > Date: Fri, Apr 26, 2013 10:02 > > > > Interesting... this anthropophagic fight of big egos (by a bunch of mostly old-timers of the group, mind you) will lead to nowhere -- and certainly scare off any newcomer. > > As dr Fritz would say to the cowboy at the beginning of "Django Unchained": "Calm down! Calm down!" > > --c.a. > > ------------ > C. A. Afonso > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Apr 26 15:04:52 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:04:52 +0300 Subject: [governance] On the seriousness of threats (was Re: abuse...) In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C7E21@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130426120804.14a9c882@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <517ACFD4.7030702@gmail.com> On 2013/04/26 01:27 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Your > warning to me (yes, I've been warned...) was over the Michael Gurstein > incident and what I saw as forum/stakeholder shopping to gain a seat > in the CSTD WG (my fault for expressing annoyance that someone would > attempt to manipulate longstanding and well understood process.) This goes to motive. At least one such post attributed this incident to actions taken on this list. To me, this is an interpretation, whatever do you mean by this? -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Fri Apr 26 15:06:15 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 14:06:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] On whistleblowing, mobbing and suppression (was Re: On the seriousness of threats) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <21FFF6E3-D73C-426B-B0CC-50B4EB0F710F@ella.com> On 26 Apr 2013, at 13:48, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Herodotus first wrote of andropophagi in his Histories, Now we are showing some culture. Quoting Herodotus on IGC. i am impressed. Thanks to the many on list and off who explained the term and its usage to me. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Apr 26 15:09:20 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:09:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] On whistleblowing, mobbing and suppression (was Re: On the seriousness of threats) In-Reply-To: <21FFF6E3-D73C-426B-B0CC-50B4EB0F710F@ella.com> References: <21FFF6E3-D73C-426B-B0CC-50B4EB0F710F@ella.com> Message-ID: You almost got Shakespeare :-) On 26 April 2013 15:06, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 26 Apr 2013, at 13:48, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > > Herodotus first wrote of andropophagi in his Histories, > > Now we are showing some culture. > Quoting Herodotus on IGC. > i am impressed. > > Thanks to the many on list and off who explained the term and its usage to > me. > > avri > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Apr 26 15:10:36 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:10:36 +0300 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C67BC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517A37FA.2060609@gmail.com> Message-ID: <517AD12C.2060601@gmail.com> On 2013/04/26 01:35 PM, McTim wrote: > I suspect that over 90% of the people on this list are "single-rooters". > > How would you propose to "deal" with that? To insist upon issues of governmental legitimacy, to reserve the right (within procedures and accepted practice) to define the terms of the terms of engagement, to ensure that 'our' interests are represented, work to ensure compliance to countermajoritarian principles of democracy (avoiding the tyranny of the majority so to speak) and not to have single rooters have the monopoly of definition of issues (in postie terms, voice and representation) while ensuring values convergence with like-minded allies. But you of all people don't need a gameplan for political economy issues :) Practically it has ranged from eye for an eye through to robust reasoned discourse. With a healthy serving of everything in between. And meeting some wonderful people on this list. Bon. Riaz -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Apr 26 15:31:30 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:31:30 +0300 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C67BC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517A37FA.2060609@gmail.com> <3C712558-32E7-4D81-B1A7-DAD388882132@ella.com> <7D412841-1A2D-44F8-A7BA-AFEB8D0030B1@acm.org> Message-ID: <517AD612.3080603@gmail.com> Thanks for this. I seem to recall a different political spin put on this. This clarity is welcome as it allows for reasoned engagement, whatever the merits. How refreshing. On 2013/04/26 06:04 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <7D412841-1A2D-44F8-A7BA-AFEB8D0030B1 at acm.org>, at 06:59:53 > on Fri, 26 Apr 2013, Avri Doria writes > >> I think one Rooters are people that believe in, above all (almost,) >> that the Internet must have a single unique root otherwise it will fail. > > A proposition which is both absurd and self-evident, depending on > where you are standing. > > There's no reason why (and let's just talk about DNS - arguably IP > addresses are already multi-rooted[3]) there needs to be 'only one > ICANN'. > > All that would happen is that ICANN2 would have its own DNS tree > (hopefully unique in terms of entries, compared to ICANN, otherwise > things *will* start to go pear-shaped[1]), and there would be a new[2] > 'unique' root pointing at both ICANN and ICANN2, which everyone would > use in order to know the location of both of the DNS trees they need > to query. > > We seem to cope quite well without a single root for email addresses. > If I want to email Avri then I'll probably see if she's on Facebook, > failing that Linked-In, and failing that Twitter/Skype/etc. Eventually > I'll find somewhere that says "yes, I know to get hold of her..." (and > if I don't, I'll simply conclude she doesn't want to be contacted, > which is debatably more her loss than mine). > > [1] That's UK-English for "break". > [2] And with only two entries, it's not especially complex to maintain, > you could just chalk it on a wall somewhere and have people take > notes from time to time, in much the same way that the ICANN-world > root-server IP addresses don't change that often either. > [3] You can easily poll round all five RIRs until one of them admits the > address you are seeking is one of theirs. No real need to ask > IANA first. Some of the RIRs will do that for you already "I don't > know about this address, but I know a man(/RIR) who does". -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Apr 26 15:27:08 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:27:08 +0300 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C67BC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517A37FA.2060609@gmail.com> <3C712558-32E7-4D81-B1A7-DAD388882132@ella.com> Message-ID: <517AD50C.8010708@gmail.com> Legitimacy is of the same character as human rights, but here it is more about a grundnorm, like torture. No internet regulation without representation as intimated previously. Does anyone else sense a re-run of issues here? On 2013/04/26 03:00 PM, McTim wrote: > It also seems to be used by Riaz to mean anyone who doesn't see > the USG's root authorisation function as a gross human rights violation. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Apr 26 15:23:43 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:23:43 +0300 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <3C712558-32E7-4D81-B1A7-DAD388882132@ella.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C67BC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517A37FA.2060609@gmail.com> <3C712558-32E7-4D81-B1A7-DAD388882132@ella.com> Message-ID: <517AD43F.3000106@gmail.com> So glad someone asked :) There are many types of Third Worldists, but there is a movement/network, rough ilk bandying together who variously have the method and analytic that 1) the categorisation is valid because it correctly describes the dialectic relationship of the violence (structuralist and otherwise) of the relationship between the first and third worlds (including now much of the second world), 2) historical understanding of the current situation, and the need to seek a Just World Under Law (as opposed to a World Under Law) - hence 'full spectrum engagement' ( radical and reform, that may seem contradictory to the untrained eye); and 3) serves as an organising principle. It is not to be dogmatically affirmed in all circumstances, and does not preclude other forms of analytic categories such as gender, sexual orientation, class. Its limitations are well known, not least the collaboration of people from the third world with that of the first - but that is a truism, because when has domination been sustained without collaboration, eh? From my rough assessment yes the Third Worldist groups I link with take legitimacy issues very seriously, especially since the post-colonial condition has not meant independence and suffers from major international constraints that influence 'rough' local politics. Not sure what you mean by 2nd of 4th wayists... the ebb and tide of currents on this list changes, but over years it is possible to discern some trends, but these are so fluid it is hard to keep track as circumstances change also. It would be so nice to have some alternatives instead of the lowest common denominator consensus building... it has been a torrid relationship and Norbert has at least set a tone for some further exploration, not least helped by Curran, Roland, and others who weigh in in ways that enable some greater scope for discussion... So, like a ladder, its up and down... On 2013/04/26 02:30 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 26 Apr 2013, at 03:16, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > >> Third Worldists > > don't think I am one of those either. > not sure i know what it is. > > are Third Worldists and One Rooters in opposition? > Can someone explain that? > > do we have any 2nd Wayist > or 4th Optionists in the mix? > > thanks > > avri > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Apr 26 15:33:22 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:33:22 +0300 Subject: [governance] On whistleblowing, mobbing and suppression (was Re: On the seriousness of threats) In-Reply-To: References: <21FFF6E3-D73C-426B-B0CC-50B4EB0F710F@ella.com> Message-ID: <517AD682.4090408@gmail.com> But your Robert Bolt was superb! On 2013/04/26 10:09 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > You almost got Shakespeare :-) > > > On 26 April 2013 15:06, Avri Doria > wrote: > > > On 26 Apr 2013, at 13:48, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > > Herodotus first wrote of andropophagi in his Histories, > > Now we are showing some culture. > Quoting Herodotus on IGC. > i am impressed. > > Thanks to the many on list and off who explained the term and its > usage to me. > > avri > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir > William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Apr 26 15:37:43 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:37:43 +0300 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <667B3FB6-570D-40D6-81DA-2F8597112FB0@acm.org> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C67BC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517A37FA.2060609@gmail.com> <3C712558-32E7-4D81-B1A7-DAD388882132@ella.com> <7D412841-1A2D-44F8-A7BA-AFEB8D0030B1@acm.org> <667B3FB6-570D-40D6-81DA-2F8597112FB0@acm.org> Message-ID: <517AD787.8000208@gmail.com> Yes. To recall how I put when our list was 'cowboy wild west' discourse, in order to be succinct, ICANN seems to be more adaptable to demand than our civil society status quo-ists. So much about categories, hope there is greater understanding due to this precision, as they say in America corporate speak, going forward. Riaz On 2013/04/26 03:13 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Oh you are right, keeping with the monotonic ordinality of this exercise, they would have to be the 0 Changers > > avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Apr 26 15:56:21 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:56:21 +0300 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C67BC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517A37FA.2060609@gmail.com> <3C712558-32E7-4D81-B1A7-DAD388882132@ella.com> <7D412841-1A2D-44F8-A7BA-AFEB8D0030B1@acm.org> Message-ID: <517ADBE5.5060108@gmail.com> And 'going forward', I forgot to mention one more category (fuzzy, subject to Sobiret's paradox) to give more clarity, 'minimal accommodationists' are those from the third world who seek accommodation/fit/consensus with the dominant/first world view without articulating a political or substantive position that strengthens the third world on the first/third world dialectic. These are not to be dogmatically affirmed (particularly since judgements of these nature, particularly in hindsight are 20/20), often matters of degree and position. May as well get this out of the way. Riaz On 2013/04/26 03:07 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > Too good: "There has got to be another way , but for the life of me I > can't seem to define it." > You missed out "Status-Quo"ists, people... :P > -C > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Apr 26 16:06:49 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:06:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Is this over-posting? Message-ID: <1367006809.91427.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>  Seeking opinion of listers.  I have attached a screen shot. Thanks Nnenna Nnenna  Nwakanma |  Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG  |  Consultants Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax  224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Riaz.png Type: image/png Size: 35088 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Apr 26 16:30:17 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 06:30:17 +1000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <517ADBE5.5060108@gmail.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C67BC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517A37FA.2060609@gmail.com> <3C712558-32E7-4D81-B1A7-DAD388882132@ella.com> <7D412841-1A2D-44F8-A7BA-AFEB8D0030B1@acm.org> <517ADBE5.5060108@gmail.com> Message-ID: epiphenomonalists, third-worlders, one rooters, andropophagists, is this Lewis Carroll's Mad Hatter's Party? -----Original Message----- From: Riaz K Tayob Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 5:56 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good And 'going forward', I forgot to mention one more category (fuzzy, subject to Sobiret's paradox) to give more clarity, 'minimal accommodationists' are those from the third world who seek accommodation/fit/consensus with the dominant/first world view without articulating a political or substantive position that strengthens the third world on the first/third world dialectic. These are not to be dogmatically affirmed (particularly since judgements of these nature, particularly in hindsight are 20/20), often matters of degree and position. May as well get this out of the way. Riaz On 2013/04/26 03:07 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > Too good: "There has got to be another way , but for the life of me I > can't seem to define it." > You missed out "Status-Quo"ists, people... :P > -C > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Apr 26 18:16:30 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:16:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C67BC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517A37FA.2060609@gmail.com> <3C712558-32E7-4D81-B1A7-DAD388882132@ella.com> <7D412841-1A2D-44F8-A7BA-AFEB8D0030B1@acm.org> <517ADBE5.5060108@gmail.com>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1FB46A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> As I recall, the line is... "epiphenomonalists, third-worlders, one rooters, andropophagists, oh my!*" *Since we are not in Kansas. And some igcers are alleged to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 4:30 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good epiphenomonalists, third-worlders, one rooters, andropophagists, is this Lewis Carroll's Mad Hatter's Party? -----Original Message----- From: Riaz K Tayob Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 5:56 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good And 'going forward', I forgot to mention one more category (fuzzy, subject to Sobiret's paradox) to give more clarity, 'minimal accommodationists' are those from the third world who seek accommodation/fit/consensus with the dominant/first world view without articulating a political or substantive position that strengthens the third world on the first/third world dialectic. These are not to be dogmatically affirmed (particularly since judgements of these nature, particularly in hindsight are 20/20), often matters of degree and position. May as well get this out of the way. Riaz On 2013/04/26 03:07 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > Too good: "There has got to be another way , but for the life of me I > can't seem to define it." > You missed out "Status-Quo"ists, people... :P > -C > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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 Fri Apr 26 18:37:42 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:37:42 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: On the seriousness of threats (was Re: abuse...) In-Reply-To: <20130426120804.14a9c882@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C7E21@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130426120804.14a9c882@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C96B5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> OK, now your initial reaction seems clearer to me. It was based on a rather lurid misinterpretation of my message, but if you interpreted my words in the way you said you did below, at least I can understand better your reaction. Read on.... > -----Original Message----- So you do me the favor of quoting my own words accurately: > “I hope IGC does not waste further time on this > statement, and be forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to > misrepresent it as a civil society position” Here I express a "hope" (not a demand or a threat) that we do not waste more time on the proposed statement. I then say that if we do (thereby recognizing that anyone can continue to discuss it) I will not allow a statement that defines the internet in a way that excludes all private initiative, private ownership and market relations to be "misrepresent[ed] as a civil society position." Here is where I made an error. I meant, and should have said, "THE civil society position." To be even more accurate, and more in accord with what I meant at the time, I should have said "the IGC position." I thought it would be clear from the context, since we were discussing an IGC statement. The broader statement is not as "threatening" as you have made it out to be, but it is broader than I intended when read out of context. I apologize for the use of the wrong article in that statement ("a" vs. "the"). > which can be reasonably read as much more than what you have described > as its intended meaning. While I agree that in the present context it is > not plausible to interpret it as a threat of physical violence, it can > be plausibly interpreted as a threat of public humiliation by means of > words in case the draft text proceeds to becoming a statement of some > kind. Public humiliation? Huh? I am just talking about how I would contradict false claims that a divisive and contested statement represents all of our views. No one is going to be humiliated unless they try to spread false claims and have the decency to be embarrassed when they are exposed as false in public. Norbert. Surely you are politically experienced enough to know that small but determined factions often succeed in pushing statements through larger groups, and then use that success to claim that some larger category of actors (e.g., "civil society" or "the CS IGC" or "the people united...") all support their narrow ideology and are forever bound by it. This is the game Parminder is playing, in my opinion. It would be very easy for him and others to modify the statement in ways that take account of my critique. There has been no attempt to do so. None. The only recourse I have, therefore, is to make it clear that if this proceeds I will publicly contradict any claims that I, as a member of the caucus, am represented by such a statement. I still think you overreacted - you could and should have clarified, with your coordinator hat OFF. It also poisons the dialogue to be constantly threatened with expulsion from the list. Those rules were not meant to prevent the kind of exchange we are having. They were meant to prevent disruptive and deliberately insulting dialogue, not intense disagreements about the nature of policy statements from this group. One more point. (This quote is taken out of its original order). You said: > You are of course the ultimate authority on what you meant, and I am > personally glad to take note of the implied promise that you will not > take other action, such as public humiliation or perhaps disruption of > a young academic's career, if someone should proceed to promote, > contrary to your desire, something that involves emphasis on public > good aspects of the Internet as *a* civil society position. Whatever could have prompted this kind of fear on your part? First, if anyone would bother to actually read it, my own work calls attention to the public good aspects of the Internet. It has just identified them more precisely as in the standards/protocols. My work has, since 2004, made it very clear that the open, nonproprietary and neutral nature of the basic internet standards should be safeguarded. I am just calling for equal time for the private goods aspect of the internet - and I sincerely believe that the internet has succeeded precisely because it creatively combines the private and public aspects. As I said before, it would be very easy for Parminder and Gurstein and others to take a few steps in my direction and recognize the important, essential role played by private goods, private ownership and private initiative in making the internet work. They never do. Why don't you give it a try? So that leads to the rest of your message: > One is that even if full consensus of the IGC may not be realistically > possible, the proponents of such a statement could eventually ask for a > rough consensus call -- in which case, if the procedural requirements > according to the Charter are satisfied, I would think that the > coordinators would organize a poll in order to determine whether there > is an overwhelming majority in support. Even if there is an overwhelming majority, let's say 15 - 3, I would not in any way be bound by such a statement. (I could explain why such a vote does not represent rough consensus by IETF norms, but simply outvoting someone, but I don't have time.) I would be fully within my rights to argue against it in public. Given the small size of this group and the even smaller number who are likely to vote, I would even feel free to challenge the extent to which it represents this caucus. > The other plausible path is that someone --anyone, really-- could on > the basis of the discussions that have been taking place here > formulate a sign-on statement. I could easily imagine a well-formulated > statement on this topic getting broad support, and it could in my > opinion easily become an influential civil society position quite > independently of whether it has “IGC statement” status. Sure. That kind of a sign-on would not provoke any adverse reaction from me. However, a sign-on also means that the proponents of the statement have abandoned any attempt to modify it in a way that gains a broader consensus. And again I ask, why not? Is this really a statement of a group position, or an attempt by one group to ram its own ideology down the throat of the rest of us? > It is quite possible for a threat, especially a vague threat, to take > on a seriousness well beyond its intended meaning. Not in this case. AFAICT, the only threats are coming from you. Understand the intent and spirit of the list rules. The discussion we are having is substantive and important. The list rules are not meant to interfere in these kinds of exchanges. The message I sent was a constructive one on the whole. It is your attempt to over-police the dialogue that is causing the problem. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Apr 26 21:59:32 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 22:59:32 -0300 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good Message-ID: <3lf0emuwvcr49ccyfkqvhgt9.1367026728895@email.android.com> I particularly like the "one-rooters", although I do not necessarily belong to that tribe. ;) Note that one other tribe is the anthropophagists -- literally from Greek, the ones who practice the eating ("phagia") of human beings ("anthropos"). :) fraternal rgds --c.a. ------------ C. A. Afonso -------- Original message -------- From: Ian Peter Date: 26/04/2013 17:30 (GMT-03:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good epiphenomonalists, third-worlders, one rooters, andropophagists, is this Lewis Carroll's Mad Hatter's Party? -----Original Message----- From: Riaz K Tayob Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 5:56 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good And 'going forward', I forgot to mention one more category (fuzzy, subject to Sobiret's paradox) to give more clarity, 'minimal accommodationists' are those from the third world who seek accommodation/fit/consensus with the dominant/first world view without articulating a political or substantive position that strengthens the third world on the first/third world dialectic. These are not to be dogmatically affirmed (particularly since judgements of these nature, particularly in hindsight are 20/20), often matters of degree and position. May as well get this out of the way. Riaz On 2013/04/26 03:07 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > Too good: "There has got to be another way , but for the life of me I > can't seem to define it." > You missed out "Status-Quo"ists, people...  :P > -C > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Sat Apr 27 01:50:21 2013 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:50:21 +0900 Subject: [governance] May IGF consultation and MAG meeting Message-ID: IGF secretariat just posted the notice on the website for the May Open consultation and MAG meeting with Registration and Draft Agenda. There is no mention of contributions from stakeholders and I asked them if they plan to accept these (which should be the case). I think it's important to prepare our contribution/statement. Could someone take a lead? izumi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Apr 27 02:51:11 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 09:51:11 +0300 Subject: [governance] RE: On the seriousness of threats (was Re: abuse...) In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C96B5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C7E21@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130426120804.14a9c882@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C96B5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <517B755F.6020302@gmail.com> On 2013/04/27 01:37 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Norbert. Surely you are politically experienced enough to know that small but determined factions often succeed in pushing statements through larger groups, and then use that success to claim that some larger category of actors (e.g., "civil society" or "the CS IGC" or "the people united...") all support their narrow ideology and are forever bound by it. This is the game Parminder is playing, in my opinion. What do you mean by this "game" Milton? I only ask because I think process and this fora as a discussion platform is precisely indicated for what Parminder is trying to do. Persuade. If there are first principle differences, and these cannot be worked out, then so be it. It must stand or fail on its merits. But then the default position, given their inputs and views, likewise would not mean yours necessarily prevails. Pending your response, it seems at first glance, something quite normal is cast in an unfairly negative light. Once again, using that single most important issue, single rooters and CIR as an example, what Parminder is doing is not more 'unreasonable' (i.e. where civil society uses reason as its ticket for entry). This is not to say you can't use labels or put Parminder in a "box" or label or category, but these sense I get, subject to correction of course, is that the motive makes Parminder less than credible, as well questions his good standing as a participant on this list. Now, to be liberal in what I interpret (as Norbert's email suffix indicates), I presume this is not the case, so ask for clarity... but provide you with the dominant impression your mail suggests. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Apr 27 02:57:05 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 09:57:05 +0300 Subject: [governance] Is this over-posting? In-Reply-To: <1367006809.91427.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1367006809.91427.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <517B76C1.1060604@gmail.com> No, specific responses to issues of interest. Not having computer access all the time. But, happy to be guided - formally or informally. IMHO these are issues that needed to be clarified, for various reasons including clarity and seeking to debunk the view that the Third World (with its terminology, and world view) is not some made up fantasy, but a real category even in respected academic discourse. Of course I had to be succinct, as others can read up on it. So the essentialia were put forward. Riaz On 2013/04/26 11:06 PM, Nnenna wrote: > > Seeking opinion of listers. I have attached a screen shot. > > > Thanks > > Nnenna > > > Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants > Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development > Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 > Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org > nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Apr 27 05:28:29 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:28:29 +1300 Subject: [governance] May IGF consultation and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Izumi, We had involved the community in developing submissions to the MAG late last year which was sent through earlier this year. Are you suggesting additional submissions? Kind Regards, Sala On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > IGF secretariat just posted the notice on the website for the May Open > consultation and MAG meeting with Registration and Draft Agenda. > There is no mention of contributions from stakeholders and I asked them if > they plan to accept these (which should be the case). > > I think it's important to prepare our contribution/statement. Could > someone take a lead? > > 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 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Sat Apr 27 08:41:48 2013 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 21:41:48 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: May IGF consultation and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, if IGC wants to make comments on the way IGF is prepared this year, why not? Izumi 2013年4月27日土曜日 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com: > Hi Izumi, > > We had involved the community in developing submissions to the MAG late > last year which was sent through earlier this year. Are you suggesting > additional submissions? > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > > On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Izumi AIZU > > wrote: > >> IGF secretariat just posted the notice on the website for the May Open >> consultation and MAG meeting with Registration and Draft Agenda. >> There is no mention of contributions from stakeholders and I asked them >> if they plan to accept these (which should be the case). >> >> I think it's important to prepare our contribution/statement. Could >> someone take a lead? >> >> izumi >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org');> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > -- Izumi Aizu - sent from Mobile -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Apr 27 10:10:51 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:10:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6736@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <018f01ce3abf$882195b0$9864c110$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23BA280@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <05f401ce3b80$528da3f0$f7a8ebd0$@gmail.com> <516FE83F.20800@itforchange.net> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6736@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I need reply to the questioning of some language which I specifically put in the statement that is being objected to. Hopefully, my last word on this issue. On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Izumi’s comment clinches my feeling that this whole effort is > misdirected and should be called off. First, there is obviously nothing > near consensus on this; it is yet another attempt by one faction to impose > their own peculiar ideological fixation on the rest of us, while ignoring > more important and consensual values. **** > > ** ** > > There is no well-defined problem that this statement addresses. There is a > vague reference to “the growing danger for the Internet experience to be > reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces.” I challenge the truth of > this assertion. I think it’s just false. I see no such trend, no such > danger. Proponents of that must provide evidence of a “growing” trend, and > show how it constitutes something systemic and something that end users > really don’t want. > It is too easy to give the end user 2 or 3 options and expect that they by themselves will come up with the design of the, e.g., dozen of options that may be possible and even feasible. The notion that the user, or more precisely user choice, is a fully significant variable (by lack of a better phrase) in the equation to assess the realm of possibilities and feasible solutions is a fallacy --and the large field of advocacy is that realm of possibilities with, *possibly*, a pragmatic inflection towards solutions that are perceived at a given point in time as feasible. To make a comparison with something you already stated yourself, it's like saying IETF decision-making processes (or early IG processes in general) are democratic as opposed to saying they are democratic ONLY AMONG a restricted group (a technical elite) while there is a much much larger group of people who will be impacted by the outcomes but are not involved, etc. That may be necessary but that is a kind of "democracy" (if one absolutely wants to call it that) one would need to qualify, to say the least. So I'm using here the same mental process in your own sound reasoning on that: Users can only chose between the 2 or 3 options availed to them, and user choice only says something really significant about those available options --and nothing beyond that, particularly in a field where users massively lack the capability to design new solutions by themselves. This is where I personally deplore the fact that "computer literacy" (or "computeracy" if you will), including writing codes, is not yet a fixture that it must become in all basic education programs across the world. I like what techies do and produce, but it seems to me most of them are lame when it comes to talking in an understandable manner to non-techies and as a consequence, I don't see them as the most qualified to speak on behalf of users (no wonder user guides are most of the time useless! or they seem to require a learning curve for themselves before the user can even tackle what they are supposed to be guided about). That's also why it is crucial that the "computer language" becomes part of everybody language. Ok, that was a little bit of a digression but I wanted to make that point because, as I was thinking about the issue, I felt IMHO that it is relevant. Now, about the "attack" on the closed and proprietary online spaces... I think I read on this very a while ago posts related to the fact that the internet experience of more and more users --maybe the younger ones-- is becoming limited to particular apps, notably those of social media such as Facebook (FB). Or was that a nightmare of my own? If not, and if there is indeed some notable trend toward such state of affairs, and furthermore noting that I have experienced more and more people sending FB inbox messages that had nothing to do with my or their FB activities; that SMTP and IMAP are more open and universal standards than the non-standards underlining and enabling access & access of the FB silo; and that once huge commercial interests are entrenched they tend to have a ripple effects on what may remain a possible choice in the future or not (*); etc. I thought that clause in the draft statement was justified. Now you may say we need to come up with a research proposal and "scientifically" show that there is a systematic evidence before we can make an assertion for CS advocacy purposes, but I don't think that has always been the standard. BTW, do you know that it now happens that FB tells people that they are restricted from posting (inbox messages for x number of days), just as they have been doing for limiting friend requests? While one can understand the reason for the latter, the reason for the former escapes me. And no, it wasn't a person spamming other people: so far he was mostly engaged in two-way conversations and that restriction message prompted when he tried to post an inbox message to a culinary page after asking a question on the page's wall, which was not attended to (and no record of offensive contents, etc.) I personally consider this as a violation of an individual's right to communicate. And if you thing that (on top of all the practices that seem to claim for FB the status of the online identity authority) should not be cause for concern, you find me really surprised. (*) You may want to note that it is the commercial/popular success of platforms such as FB that has led their authentication and data sharing feature (such as F-Connect) to defeat the then on-going efforts from the rest of the industry to launch digital identity technologies that give more capabilities to the users to manage and possibly control their identity information and related transactions. > **** > > ** ** > > Note that there IS a massive amount of evidence of a growing trend toward > content regulation and censorship in many countries. But somehow, we don’t > seem interested in addressing that. There is a growing danger of > securitization. We don’t address that. By the way, how does this attack on > closed online spaces relate to the agenda of privacy advocates? A lot of > people WANT to close off some of the information shared on the internet > (although this is not an agenda I share). No one seems to have given that > problem a moment’s thought. > You can see above how what you call an "attack" can relate to privacy, which I've been hearing a lot about, including from myself :), just as I have been hearing a lot about freedom of expression and censorship. Maybe we have seen as much progress on those issues as we would have liked and we would still like. But that is not reason not to advocate on other issues. Unless I stated something above that proves to be inaccurate, which I might need to respond to if called out, I wish to leave it at that --which should not prevent you from acknowledging it in case the above has helped in any way clarify some arguments for you :) Mawaki > **** > > ** ** > > Finally, those who have chosen to prioritize “public good” concepts over > everything else have shown a clear misunderstanding of the concept of > public goods. They have inaccurately characterized the internet as a whole > as a public good when it has clear that many features of it are private > goods and that much of the value we associate with the internet comes from > allowing private actors to create and maintain private spaces within the > global internet. Any statement that fails to recognize this is both > factually inaccurate and unlikely to get widespread support. **** > > ** ** > > I hope IGC does not waste further time on this statement, and be > forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to misrepresent it as a > civil society position. **** > > ** ** > > --MM**** > > ** ** > > *From:* izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Izumi > AIZU > *Sent:* Thursday, April 25, 2013 12:45 AM > *To:* governance; Mawaki Chango > *Cc:* Milton L Mueller; Parminder > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good**** > > ** ** > > Hi, I also came late to this round of exchanges, but now have a simple > question.**** > > ** ** > > In the current version, there is no mention about the "free flow of > information**** > > (and knowledge and/or ideas) nor freedom of speech/press/assembly.**** > > ** ** > > If there have already been good discussion about these values most civil** > ** > > society proponents subscribe to, then fine. But if not, I think we should > address**** > > these in some way.**** > > ** ** > > izumi**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > **** > > ** ** > > 2013/4/25 Mawaki Chango **** > > Folks, let us not sound like WCIT deliberations... and be stuck on the > order of words or their esthetics, if not their politics.**** > > I see nothing wrong with McTim's formulation and am not sure what positive > difference the latest change proposed by Parminder (on this specific > phrase) makes, while it slows down the rhythm of reading and maybe the > comprehension. > > "through open, bottom-up, transparent, participatory democratic processes > involving all stakeholders". [McTim]**** > > vs. > > "through due democratic processes, that are open and transparent, and > involve all stakeholders." [Parminder]**** > > Or would the following satisfy all parties? "... through open, bottom-up, > transparent, participatory and due democratic processes involving all > stakeholders". If so please (Parminder) go ahead and add.**** > > ** ** > > Furthermore...**** > > *The design principles and policies that constitute its governance ensure > its stability, functionality and security, and aim at preserving and > enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the > Internet the combination of which has made previous innovations possible. > Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to > be reduced to closed or ***** > > *[Milton L Mueller] yes, but they are also, and should be also, aim at > preserving and enhancing the private good aspects of the Internet. As the > success of the internet rests on a creative combination of both, why are > we emphasizing only one aspect of this? ***** > > *proprietary online spaces, we urge that the preservation and enhancement > of the Internet's global commons and public good dimensions***** > > *[Milton L Mueller] what are these dimensions? Why not specify them? Why > not also recognize that we should not interfere with the innovation and > creativity that has come from affording entrepreneurs and individuals to > experiment and innovate with new private services? ***** > > I'm in violent agreement with Parminder's earlier response to the above. > You know Milton, as well as. I do that once first movers settle in, they > tend to foreclose the opportunities for potential newcomers by all sorts of > tactics, whether directly or indirectly. Left to their own devices, things > become naturally skewed towards entrenched interests while raising entry > barriers and stifling the potential for innovations, etc. As has already > been said, this is about re-adjusting the scale and striking again a > healthy balance between the two ends in order to maintain and foster the > creative combination you're talking about.**** > > As to the question about determining the global commons and global public > good dimensions and for the sake of simplicity, I suggest we maintain the > same expression to mean the same thing wherever that thing need to be > expressed. So let's drop "dimensions" repeat again "global commons and > global public good character".**** > > Re. the following proposition that has been dropped: "While the design > principles and policies that constitute its governance should ensure its > stability, functionality and security, they must also aim at..." the reason > why I put this in earlier is that I remember one of us stating that, in a > sense, the stability, functionality and security may be (some of) the > salient dimensions of the public good-ness of the internet as opposed to > the internet itself in the technical sense. That idea started generating > some agreement and no opposition. Now I observe that the reason why it has > been dropped was that we were hesitant using a prescriptive tense but > instead used the indicative present tense, to which someone objected that > the internet *is* not stable nor secure (or something along those lines.) > Now that we have clarify the tense and the intent, and keeping in mind that > that phrase is about the principles guiding the *governance* of the > internet but not the internet itself, perhaps the basis for dropping that > sentence should not hold any longer. If you think otherwise and believe > that proposition does still not belong here, please do let us know. For now > I will put it back in because I think that's the logical thing to do, but > please be reassured, I'm not making a religion out of it. I have also > added a variation of the same as option in square brackets in the version > below (please not that ICANN always refers to their mandate, particularly > the clauses mentioning the need to maintain stability and security, when > making policy... so that's a fact.) **** > > ** ** > > And lastly, I feel there's something too vague about the last proposition: > > *... we urge the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global > commons and public good dimensions."* > **** > > Shouldn't we try to be specific at on one of the following two things: > either who we are urging or at least the framework where the preservation > and enhancement is being promoted or needs to take place. > > > *"We recognise the Internet to be a global, end-to-end, network of > networks comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and > emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of > hardware, software, protocols, and human intentionality enabling new kinds > of social interactions and transactions, brought together by a common set > of design principles. The design principles and policies that constitute > Internet's governance should be derived through open, bottom-up, > transparent, participatory democratic processes involving all stakeholders. > Such principles and policies must aim at ensuring its stability, > functionality and security as well as [or: While such principles and > policies strive to ensure stability, functionality and security of the > Internet, they must also aim at] preserving and enhancing the global > commons and global public good character of the Internet, the combination > of which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of > the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or > proprietary online spaces, we urge that the governance of the Internet > promote the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons > and public good character."***** > > Mawaki**** > > > > **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Garth Graham > wrote:**** > > On 2013-04-24, at 12:10 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Governance of the epiphenomenon has always been primarily through the > processes of parliamentary democracy that shape the laws that govern > > democratic societies; > > **** > > Not quite. Inge Kaul finds the standard definition of public goods that > assumes the sovereignty of nation states in regulation to be of “limited > practical-political value:” > > “The shifts between private and public thus reflect greater shared concern > for the public domain among all the main actors—the state, businesses, > civil society organizations, and households—and for what others expect of > them and how their private activities affect others. A wider arena, and > probably a new era, of publicness have emerged.” (1) > > She redefines the definition “to require public goods to be inclusive > (public in consumption), based on participatory decision-making (public in > provision) and offering a fair deal for all (public in the distribution of > benefits).”(2). She sees that, in spite of their legislative and coercive > powers, more than nation states are involved in addressing the problems of > undersupply and market failure. She sees a need to develop, “a more > systematic approach to public policy partnerships.”(3). In her terms, > Internet governance as a public good could be viewed as emerging “against > the wishes of the state.” (4). > > “Goods often become private or public as a result of deliberate policy > choices. That is why consideration should be given to expanding the > definition—to recognize that in many if not most cases, goods exist not in > their original forms but as social constructs, largely determined by > policies and other collective human actions. According to this revised > definition, public goods are nonexclusive or, put differently, de facto > public in consumption.” (5) > > “Public goods are not just market failures, and they are not merely > state-produced goods. The public and private domains exist on their own, > beyond states and markets. …. It can even be argued that the state and the > market are part of the public domain: they are both public goods.” (6). > > Personally, I find that phrase “public policy partnerships,” to be a bit > more euphonious and helpful than the mouthful “multi-stakeholderism." > > GG > > (1). Inge Kaul and Ronald U.Mendoza. Advancing the Concept of Public > Goods. In: Inge Kaul, Pedro Conceicao, Katell Le Goulven and Ronald U. > Mendoza, editors. Providing Global Public Goods: Managing Globalization. > Oxford University Press, 2002. 88-89. P78. > http://web.undp.org/globalpublicgoods/globalization/pdfs/KaulMendoza.pdf > > (2). Inge Kaul. Public Goods: Taking the Concept to the 21st Century. > Paper prepared for the Auditing Public Domains Project, Robarts Centre for > Canadian Studies, York University, Toronto, 2001. 3. > http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf > > (3). Inge Kaul. 16 > > (4). Inge Kaul. 9. > > (5). Kaul – Mendoza. 80-81. > > (6). Kaul – Mendoza. 88.**** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t**** > > ** ** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t**** > > > > **** > > ** ** > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org**** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Apr 27 11:46:11 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 00:46:11 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: May IGF consultation and MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A lot of the issues we tried to comment on for the February meeting are still live: main session themes, number and type of main sessions I think even the number of workshops and parallel tracks. Would be good to look at that document again and see if we can get some agreement, it was very confused/contradictory in places. Suggest working in email rather the than the wiki. Sala can you coordinate this? Adam On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Yes, if IGC wants to make comments on the way IGF is prepared this year, why > not? > > Izumi > > 2013年4月27日土曜日 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com: > >> Hi Izumi, >> >> We had involved the community in developing submissions to the MAG late >> last year which was sent through earlier this year. Are you suggesting >> additional submissions? >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 6:50 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >>> >>> IGF secretariat just posted the notice on the website for the May Open >>> consultation and MAG meeting with Registration and Draft Agenda. >>> There is no mention of contributions from stakeholders and I asked them >>> if they plan to accept these (which should be the case). >>> >>> I think it's important to prepare our contribution/statement. Could >>> someone take a lead? >>> >>> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >> >> > > > -- > Izumi Aizu - sent from Mobile > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Sat Apr 27 11:51:52 2013 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 17:51:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] On the seriousness of threats (was Re: abuse...) In-Reply-To: <1228809652.41378.1367054320039.open-xchange@oxbagw17> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C7E21@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130426120804.14a9c882@quill.bollow.ch> <1228809652.41378.1367054320039.open-xchange@oxbagw17> Message-ID: <139491907.51397.1367077912355.open-xchange@oxbagw17> Adam, amongst those who received a private warning am also I, following my recent reply to Parminder. The coordinator is obviously very quick with his hat on. ;-) Best Peter Peter H. Hellmonds +49 (160) 360-2852 On 26.04.2013, at 12:27, "Adam Peake" wrote: Norbert On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > (this posting is intentionally sent informally, without "coordinator > hat") > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> [Milton L Mueller] Of course, that is what I meant. I made it clear >> that I will speak up against and challenge any attempt to force >> through a poorly-crafted statement as a "civil society" position or a >> position of this caucus. > > You are of course the ultimate authority on what you meant, and I am > personally glad to take note of the implied promise that you will not > take other action, such as public humiliation or perhaps disruption of > a young academic's career, if someone should proceed to promote, > contrary to your desire, something that involves emphasis on public > good aspects of the Internet as *a* civil society position. there was no such suggestion in Milton's email. If you saw such a message rather than threaten him with a warning you should ask him what he meant, express your concern. You are clearly too quick with your hat and your warnings and it's troubling that you add your own interpretation and opinion. Your warning to me (yes, I've been warned...) was over the Michael Gurstein incident and what I saw as forum/stakeholder shopping to gain a seat in the CSTD WG (my fault for expressing annoyance that someone would attempt to manipulate longstanding and well understood process.) Fair enough if you thought I had gone to far. But you added a comment that I was in someway extra guilty because Michael was performing the function of whistle-blower, obviously a sacred role. As with Milton you added your own interpretation, got rather carried away. For someone who seems interested in human rights you are very quick to pass personal judgement and censor. Could you stop please. Adam > Getting back to the specific sentence that I reacted to in my private > email to you, “I hope IGC does not waste further time on this > statement, and be forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to > misrepresent it as a civil society position” - that is a statement > which can be reasonably read as much more than what you have described > as its intended meaning. While I agree that in the present context it is > not plausible to interpret it as a threat of physical violence, it can > be plausibly interpreted as a threat of public humiliation by means of > words in case the draft text proceeds to becoming a statement of some > kind. > > I see two paths in which such *a* civil society position statement on > this topic could plausibly be created: > > One is that even if full consensus of the IGC may not be realistically > possible, the proponents of such a statement could eventually ask for a > rough consensus call -- in which case, if the procedural requirements > according to the Charter are satisfied, I would think that the > coordinators would organize a poll in order to determine whether there > is an overwhelming majority in support. > > The other plausible path is that someone --anyone, really-- could on > the basis of the discussions that have been taking place here > formulate a sign-on statement. I could easily imagine a well-formulated > statement on this topic getting broad support, and it could in my > opinion easily become an influential civil society position quite > independently of whether it has “IGC statement” status. > > In view of the quite broad variety of viewpoints that are represented on > the IGC list (which I view as a great strength of the IGC, it > definitely isn't something that I would want to attempt to change), the > reasonable role of the IGC in regard to substantive statements with > some specific political thrust might be primarily in catalyzing > processes of creating sign-on statements which would then be supported, > for each particular statement, by those who agree with the political > message as well as the substantive content of that particular statement. > > It is in the context such plausible development of the draft text into > a civil society statement that I read the threat that was posted to the > list. > > Again, the literal text of the threat that was posted was “I hope IGC > does not waste further time on this statement, and be forewarned that > if it does I will not allow anyone to misrepresent it as a civil > society position”. > > It does not really matter whether the intended meaning of the threat > was only in reference to preventing an IGC consensus process from > being successful, or whether the intended meaning was broader > (certainly the actual words used support interpretation in a broader > sense.) > > It is quite possible for a threat, especially a vague threat, to take > on a seriousness well beyond its intended meaning. > > For this reason I consider it very well justified that the posting > rules of the IGC Charter [1] contain a very clear, very strong, and very > explicit rule against threats. > [1] http://igcaucus.org/charter > > Threats are disallowed on the IGC list even when the action that is > being threatened is not in itself disallowed. > > For example, suppose that caucus member A posts something about caucus > member B which goes so far beyond any reasonable exercise of free > speech that B wants to take legal action against A over the issue. The > steps of taking such legal action are not disallowed by the IGC Charter. > However, *threatening* A with legal action is disallowed by the IGC > Charter. > > So, please understand that IGC has a rule against threats. > > It was my intention, with that private message, to warn you about this > fact, in private. It is one of the (rather unpleasant and thankless!!!) > responsibilities of IGC coordinators to do this kind of thing. > >> Anyone can and should have the right to >> object to the group doing a statement on a topic which does not seem >> to be well-defined > > Yes, that is a valid ground to object - and a kind of objection that > needs to be taken into account during consensus processes, with the > goal of defining the topic better. > >> or to represent a good use of our scarce collective deliberation >> capabilities. > > It is acceptable to express this as an opinion, but if others still > want to go ahead, I don't think that there is any reasonable grounds > to tell them not to do so. In the same way you, and everyone really, > similarly have the ability to create discourses that others would > consider noise and a waste of time. > >> This is about expelling people because they disagree with the >> coordinator, and with you. > > No. It is about (trying to) have an environment of discourse in which > it is possible for people to productively participate who (for whatever > reasons) do not have the habit of metaphorically wearing the equivalent > of a full-body asbestos suit in order to not have to worry about flames > (in the sense of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming_%28Internet%29 .) > > I personally don't worry about getting flamed, and since many years it > doesn't personally hurt me anymore. I am capable of participating in > online environments where ability to continue substantive work while > getting flamed is a de-facto requirement for effective participation, > and I'm also capable of participating in environments where the relevant > social norms are what I would consider more civilized. > > IGC has clear rules (which I have not invented) that it is intended to > be a place of civilized discourse, in which personal attacks and > threats have no place. > > Please do whatever it takes to learn to express your opinions and > arguments in ways that clearly do not violate the posting rules. The > problem with your postings is not all about the substantive content > of the opinions that you express; it is only about the ways in which > you express them. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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 Sat Apr 27 12:22:32 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 16:22:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: On the seriousness of threats (was Re: abuse...) In-Reply-To: <517B755F.6020302@gmail.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C7E21@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130426120804.14a9c882@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C96B5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517B755F.6020302@gmail.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C987D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > What do you mean by this "game" Milton? I only ask because I think > process and this fora as a discussion platform is precisely indicated > for what Parminder is trying to do. Persuade. [Milton L Mueller] If there were real efforts to persuade and build consensus, you would be right. That is the way to do it. That is not what is happening here. As I said in my last message, I have raised numerous well-founded objections to definitions of the internet as a commons or public good. I simply pointed out that this issue has been discussed for nearly a decade, and that there were more nuanced ways of looking at it. No need to repeat myself for the third time here. The point is, my observations were not followed by ANY attempt to modify the statement in a way that would resolve our differences. If you are interested in persuasion, start trying to persuade. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 27 12:50:17 2013 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:50:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: On the seriousness of threats (was Re: abuse...) In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C987D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C7E21@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130426120804.14a9c882@quill.bollow.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C96B5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517B755F.6020302@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C987D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <517C01C9.3070601@panamo.eu> Hi, Sorry to disturb you. I propose a new game for the week end. Let's imagine: Parminder and Milton (just as examples) both alone on an isolated island, without any witness. And they try to define what was the Internet, where they met in a past life. My own imagination is: neither of them would try to have the other one losing face. Because it's unpleasant to dine with a faceless man. Even they could find an agreement, because they have to hunt together. @+, Kind regards, Dom -- Dominique Lacroix http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 Le 27/04/13 18:22, Milton L Mueller a écrit : > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> What do you mean by this "game" Milton? I only ask because I think >> process and this fora as a discussion platform is precisely indicated >> for what Parminder is trying to do. Persuade. > [Milton L Mueller] > If there were real efforts to persuade and build consensus, you would be right. That is the way to do it. That is not what is happening here. > > As I said in my last message, I have raised numerous well-founded objections to definitions of the internet as a commons or public good. I simply pointed out that this issue has been discussed for nearly a decade, and that there were more nuanced ways of looking at it. No need to repeat myself for the third time here. > > The point is, my observations were not followed by ANY attempt to modify the statement in a way that would resolve our differences. > > If you are interested in persuasion, start trying to persuade. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Apr 27 13:29:27 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:59:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6736@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <517C0AF7.1080703@itforchange.net> Milton/ All As as been mentioned a few times earlier, we are not developing a definition of the Internet. We are making an advocacy statement, whereby there is an identified context - a recognition of a growing problem in this regard, and a recommendation about the directions that IG should therefore take. You say that the statement of the problem is not true. I believe that most people here agree with the problem statement of “the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces.” but, well, that can be tested out. Having stated the problem, the proposed statement seeks that the "preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good character". Advocacy statement are made in a particular context (the recognition of a problem here) and have a particular intent (further evolution of IG to move *more* in a particular direction rather than the other). You are proposing that we add to the statement the need to save and promote its private (property) character as well. Now, advocacy statements are not made like this. For instance, most global civil society networks will accept an advocacy statement like "we should promote the commons character of knowledge". Almost all of them will scoff at the demand to add to this something like "we do recognise the need to privatise knowledge to provide enough incentives for its further creation and so on", while admittedly, there is some truth in this possible addition. But if you add this, it is not worth making a statement at all. The purpose which was intended is not served. Meanwhile, it is possible to make another advocacy statement on the issue related to the private (property) nature of the Internet, but for that you will need to frame the problem which you have not yet done. Please make your case how the private property nature of the Internet is threatened and what do you think should be done about it. Lets discuss it here, and if there seems to be good support go to a consensus seeking process. Meanwhile, I propose that the coordinators put the current text of the proposed statement to a consensus seeking process. It will either get consensus or rough consensus or it will not. and we can get onto to other things. However, too much energy has been spent by a lot of people here to just leave it like that. Moreover, the content of the statement is close to the heart of many of us here and we have the right to know what the caucus thinks of it. I think the current text stands as follows (Mawaki/ others, correct me if I am wrong) *"We recognise the Internet to be a global, end-to-end, network of networks comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, and human intentionality enabling new kinds of social interactions and transactions, brought together by a common set of design principles. The design principles and policies that constitute Internet's governance should be derived through open and transparent, participatory democratic processes involving all stakeholders. While such principles and policies strive to ensure stability, functionality and security of the Internet, they must also aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet, the combination of which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces, we urge that the governance of the Internet promote the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good character. "* parminder On Saturday 27 April 2013 07:40 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > I need reply to the questioning of some language which I specifically > put in the statement that is being objected to. Hopefully, my last > word on this issue. > > > On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: > > Izumi’s comment clinches my feeling that this whole effort is > misdirected and should be called off. First, there is obviously > nothing near consensus on this; it is yet another attempt by one > faction to impose their own peculiar ideological fixation on the > rest of us, while ignoring more important and consensual values. > > There is no well-defined problem that this statement addresses. > There is a vague reference to “the growing danger for the Internet > experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces.” > I challenge the truth of this assertion. I think it’s just false. > I see no such trend, no such danger. Proponents of that must > provide evidence of a “growing” trend, and show how it constitutes > something systemic and something that end users really don’t want. > > > It is too easy to give the end user 2 or 3 options and expect that > they by themselves will come up with the design of the, e.g., dozen of > options that may be possible and even feasible. The notion that the > user, or more precisely user choice, is a fully significant variable > (by lack of a better phrase) in the equation to assess the realm of > possibilities and feasible solutions is a fallacy --and the large > field of advocacy is that realm of possibilities with, *possibly*, a > pragmatic inflection towards solutions that are perceived at a given > point in time as feasible. To make a comparison with something you > already stated yourself, it's like saying IETF decision-making > processes (or early IG processes in general) are democratic as opposed > to saying they are democratic ONLY AMONG a restricted group (a > technical elite) while there is a much much larger group of people who > will be impacted by the outcomes but are not involved, etc. That may > be necessary but that is a kind of "democracy" (if one absolutely > wants to call it that) one would need to qualify, to say the least. So > I'm using here the same mental process in your own sound reasoning on > that: Users can only chose between the 2 or 3 options availed to them, > and user choice only says something really significant about those > available options --and nothing beyond that, particularly in a field > where users massively lack the capability to design new solutions by > themselves. This is where I personally deplore the fact that "computer > literacy" (or "computeracy" if you will), including writing codes, is > not yet a fixture that it must become in all basic education programs > across the world. I like what techies do and produce, but it seems to > me most of them are lame when it comes to talking in an understandable > manner to non-techies and as a consequence, I don't see them as the > most qualified to speak on behalf of users (no wonder user guides are > most of the time useless! or they seem to require a learning curve for > themselves before the user can even tackle what they are supposed to > be guided about). That's also why it is crucial that the "computer > language" becomes part of everybody language. > > Ok, that was a little bit of a digression but I wanted to make that > point because, as I was thinking about the issue, I felt IMHO that it > is relevant. Now, about the "attack" on the closed and proprietary > online spaces... I think I read on this very a while ago posts related > to the fact that the internet experience of more and more users > --maybe the younger ones-- is becoming limited to particular apps, > notably those of social media such as Facebook (FB). Or was that a > nightmare of my own? If not, and if there is indeed some notable trend > toward such state of affairs, and furthermore noting that I have > experienced more and more people sending FB inbox messages that had > nothing to do with my or their FB activities; that SMTP and IMAP are > more open and universal standards than the non-standards underlining > and enabling access & access of the FB silo; and that once huge > commercial interests are entrenched they tend to have a ripple effects > on what may remain a possible choice in the future or not (*); etc. I > thought that clause in the draft statement was justified. Now you may > say we need to come up with a research proposal and "scientifically" > show that there is a systematic evidence before we can make an > assertion for CS advocacy purposes, but I don't think that has always > been the standard. > > BTW, do you know that it now happens that FB tells people that they > are restricted from posting (inbox messages for x number of days), > just as they have been doing for limiting friend requests? While one > can understand the reason for the latter, the reason for the former > escapes me. And no, it wasn't a person spamming other people: so far > he was mostly engaged in two-way conversations and that restriction > message prompted when he tried to post an inbox message to a culinary > page after asking a question on the page's wall, which was not > attended to (and no record of offensive contents, etc.) I personally > consider this as a violation of an individual's right to communicate. > And if you thing that (on top of all the practices that seem to claim > for FB the status of the online identity authority) should not be > cause for concern, you find me really surprised. > > (*) You may want to note that it is the commercial/popular success of > platforms such as FB that has led their authentication and data > sharing feature (such as F-Connect) to defeat the then on-going > efforts from the rest of the industry to launch digital identity > technologies that give more capabilities to the users to manage and > possibly control their identity information and related transactions. > > Note that there IS a massive amount of evidence of a growing trend > toward content regulation and censorship in many countries. But > somehow, we don’t seem interested in addressing that. There is a > growing danger of securitization. We don’t address that. By the > way, how does this attack on closed online spaces relate to the > agenda of privacy advocates? A lot of people WANT to close off > some of the information shared on the internet (although this is > not an agenda I share). No one seems to have given that problem a > moment’s thought. > > > You can see above how what you call an "attack" can relate to privacy, > which I've been hearing a lot about, including from myself :), just as > I have been hearing a lot about freedom of expression and censorship. > Maybe we have seen as much progress on those issues as we would have > liked and we would still like. But that is not reason not to advocate > on other issues. > > Unless I stated something above that proves to be inaccurate, which I > might need to respond to if called out, I wish to leave it at that > --which should not prevent you from acknowledging it in case the above > has helped in any way clarify some arguments for you :) > > Mawaki > > Finally, those who have chosen to prioritize “public good” > concepts over everything else have shown a clear misunderstanding > of the concept of public goods. They have inaccurately > characterized the internet as a whole as a public good when it has > clear that many features of it are private goods and that much of > the value we associate with the internet comes from allowing > private actors to create and maintain private spaces within the > global internet. Any statement that fails to recognize this is > both factually inaccurate and unlikely to get widespread support. > > I hope IGC does not waste further time on this statement, and be > forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to misrepresent > it as a civil society position. > > --MM > > *From:*izumiaizu at gmail.com > [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com ] *On > Behalf Of *Izumi AIZU > *Sent:* Thursday, April 25, 2013 12:45 AM > *To:* governance; Mawaki Chango > *Cc:* Milton L Mueller; Parminder > > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good > > Hi, I also came late to this round of exchanges, but now have a > simple question. > > In the current version, there is no mention about the "free flow > of information > > (and knowledge and/or ideas) nor freedom of speech/press/assembly. > > If there have already been good discussion about these values most > civil > > society proponents subscribe to, then fine. But if not, I think we > should address > > these in some way. > > izumi > > 2013/4/25 Mawaki Chango > > > Folks, let us not sound like WCIT deliberations... and be stuck on > the order of words or their esthetics, if not their politics. > > I see nothing wrong with McTim's formulation and am not sure what > positive difference the latest change proposed by Parminder (on > this specific phrase) makes, while it slows down the rhythm of > reading and maybe the comprehension. > > "through open, bottom-up, transparent, participatory democratic > processes involving all stakeholders". [McTim] > > vs. > > "through due democratic processes, that are open and transparent, > and involve all stakeholders." [Parminder] > > Or would the following satisfy all parties? "... through open, > bottom-up, transparent, participatory and due democratic processes > involving all stakeholders". If so please (Parminder) go ahead and > add. > > Furthermore... > > *The design principles and policies that constitute its governance > ensure its stability, functionality and security, and aim at > preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good > character of the Internet the combination of which has made > previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the > growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed > or * > > */[Milton L Mueller] yes, but they are also, and should be also, > aim at preserving and enhancing the private good aspects of the > Internet. As the success of the internet rests on a creative > combination of both, why are we emphasizing only one aspect of > this? /* > > *proprietary online spaces, we urge that the preservation and > enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good > dimensions* > > */[Milton L Mueller] what are these dimensions? Why not specify > them? Why not also recognize that we should not interfere with the > innovation and creativity that has come from affording > entrepreneurs and individuals to experiment and innovate with new > private services? /* > > I'm in violent agreement with Parminder's earlier response to the > above. You know Milton, as well as. I do that once first movers > settle in, they tend to foreclose the opportunities for potential > newcomers by all sorts of tactics, whether directly or indirectly. > Left to their own devices, things become naturally skewed towards > entrenched interests while raising entry barriers and stifling the > potential for innovations, etc. As has already been said, this is > about re-adjusting the scale and striking again a healthy balance > between the two ends in order to maintain and foster the creative > combination you're talking about. > > As to the question about determining the global commons and global > public good dimensions and for the sake of simplicity, I suggest > we maintain the same expression to mean the same thing wherever > that thing need to be expressed. So let's drop "dimensions" repeat > again "global commons and global public good character". > > Re. the following proposition that has been dropped: "While the > design principles and policies that constitute its governance > should ensure its stability, functionality and security, they must > also aim at..." the reason why I put this in earlier is that I > remember one of us stating that, in a sense, the stability, > functionality and security may be (some of) the salient dimensions > of the public good-ness of the internet as opposed to the internet > itself in the technical sense. That idea started generating some > agreement and no opposition. Now I observe that the reason why it > has been dropped was that we were hesitant using a prescriptive > tense but instead used the indicative present tense, to which > someone objected that the internet *is* not stable nor secure (or > something along those lines.) Now that we have clarify the tense > and the intent, and keeping in mind that that phrase is about the > principles guiding the *governance* of the internet but not the > internet itself, perhaps the basis for dropping that sentence > should not hold any longer. If you think otherwise and believe > that proposition does still not belong here, please do let us > know. For now I will put it back in because I think that's the > logical thing to do, but please be reassured, I'm not making a > religion out of it. I have also added a variation of the same as > option in square brackets in the version below (please not that > ICANN always refers to their mandate, particularly the clauses > mentioning the need to maintain stability and security, when > making policy... so that's a fact.) > > And lastly, I feel there's something too vague about the last > proposition: > > *... we urge the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's > global commons and public good dimensions."* > > Shouldn't we try to be specific at on one of the following two > things: either who we are urging or at least the framework where > the preservation and enhancement is being promoted or needs to > take place. > > > *"We recognise the Internet to be a global, end-to-end, network of > networks comprised of computing devices and processes, and an > emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an > intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, and human > intentionality enabling new kinds of social interactions and > transactions, brought together by a common set of design > principles. The design principles and policies that constitute > Internet's governance should be derived through open, bottom-up, > transparent, participatory democratic processes involving all > stakeholders. Such principles and policies must aim at ensuring > its stability, functionality and security as well as [or: While > such principles and policies strive to ensure stability, > functionality and security of the Internet, they must also aim at] > preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good > character of the Internet, the combination of which has made > previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the > growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed > or proprietary online spaces, we urge that the governance of the > Internet promote the preservation and enhancement of the > Internet's global commons and public good character."* > > Mawaki > > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Garth Graham > > wrote: > > On 2013-04-24, at 12:10 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Governance of the epiphenomenon has always been primarily > through the processes of parliamentary democracy that shape > the laws that govern > > democratic societies; > > Not quite. Inge Kaul finds the standard definition of public > goods that assumes the sovereignty of nation states in > regulation to be of “limited practical-political value:” > > “The shifts between private and public thus reflect greater > shared concern for the public domain among all the main > actors—the state, businesses, civil society organizations, and > households—and for what others expect of them and how their > private activities affect others. A wider arena, and probably > a new era, of publicness have emerged.” (1) > > She redefines the definition “to require public goods to be > inclusive (public in consumption), based on participatory > decision-making (public in provision) and offering a fair deal > for all (public in the distribution of benefits).”(2). She > sees that, in spite of their legislative and coercive powers, > more than nation states are involved in addressing the > problems of undersupply and market failure. She sees a need > to develop, “a more systematic approach to public policy > partnerships.”(3). In her terms, Internet governance as a > public good could be viewed as emerging “against the wishes of > the state.” (4). > > “Goods often become private or public as a result of > deliberate policy choices. That is why consideration should be > given to expanding the definition—to recognize that in many if > not most cases, goods exist not in their original forms but as > social constructs, largely determined by policies and other > collective human actions. According to this revised > definition, public goods are nonexclusive or, put differently, > de facto public in consumption.” (5) > > “Public goods are not just market failures, and they are not > merely state-produced goods. The public and private domains > exist on their own, beyond states and markets. …. It can even > be argued that the state and the market are part of the public > domain: they are both public goods.” (6). > > Personally, I find that phrase “public policy partnerships,” > to be a bit more euphonious and helpful than the mouthful > “multi-stakeholderism." > > GG > > (1). Inge Kaul and Ronald U.Mendoza. Advancing the Concept of > Public Goods. In: Inge Kaul, Pedro Conceicao, Katell Le > Goulven and Ronald U. Mendoza, editors. Providing Global > Public Goods: Managing Globalization. Oxford University Press, > 2002. 88-89. P78. > http://web.undp.org/globalpublicgoods/globalization/pdfs/KaulMendoza.pdf > > (2). Inge Kaul. Public Goods: Taking the Concept to the 21st > Century. Paper prepared for the Auditing Public Domains > Project, Robarts Centre for Canadian Studies, York University, > Toronto, 2001. 3. > http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf > > (3). Inge Kaul. 16 > > (4). Inge Kaul. 9. > > (5). Kaul – Mendoza. 80-81. > > (6). Kaul – Mendoza. 88. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sat Apr 27 15:43:29 2013 From: avri at ella.com (=?utf-8?B?QXZyaSBEb3JpYQ==?=) Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:43:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] On the seriousness of threats (was Re: abuse...) Message-ID: <201304271943.r3RJhVbk019061@atl4mhob05.myregisteredsite.com> all the cool kids are getting warnings. pretty soon if you haven't gotten a warning you will have wonder what is wrong with you. avri ----- Reply message ----- From: "Peter H. Hellmonds" To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Adam Peake" Subject: [governance] On the seriousness of threats (was Re: abuse...) Date: Sat, Apr 27, 2013 10:51 Adam, amongst those who received a private warning am also I, following my recent reply to Parminder. The coordinator is obviously very quick with his hat on. ;-) Best Peter Peter H. Hellmonds +49 (160) 360-2852 On 26.04.2013, at 12:27, "Adam Peake" wrote: Norbert On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > (this posting is intentionally sent informally, without "coordinator > hat") > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> [Milton L Mueller] Of course, that is what I meant. I made it clear >> that I will speak up against and challenge any attempt to force >> through a poorly-crafted statement as a "civil society" position or a >> position of this caucus. > > You are of course the ultimate authority on what you meant, and I am > personally glad to take note of the implied promise that you will not > take other action, such as public humiliation or perhaps disruption of > a young academic's career, if someone should proceed to promote, > contrary to your desire, something that involves emphasis on public > good aspects of the Internet as *a* civil society position. there was no such suggestion in Milton's email. If you saw such a message rather than threaten him with a warning you should ask him what he meant, express your concern. You are clearly too quick with your hat and your warnings and it's troubling that you add your own interpretation and opinion. Your warning to me (yes, I've been warned...) was over the Michael Gurstein incident and what I saw as forum/stakeholder shopping to gain a seat in the CSTD WG (my fault for expressing annoyance that someone would attempt to manipulate longstanding and well understood process.) Fair enough if you thought I had gone to far. But you added a comment that I was in someway extra guilty because Michael was performing the function of whistle-blower, obviously a sacred role. As with Milton you added your own interpretation, got rather carried away. For someone who seems interested in human rights you are very quick to pass personal judgement and censor. Could you stop please. Adam > Getting back to the specific sentence that I reacted to in my private > email to you, “I hope IGC does not waste further time on this > statement, and be forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to > misrepresent it as a civil society position” - that is a statement > which can be reasonably read as much more than what you have described > as its intended meaning. While I agree that in the present context it is > not plausible to interpret it as a threat of physical violence, it can > be pl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 28 08:38:25 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 07:38:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <517C0AF7.1080703@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6736@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517C0AF7.1080703@itforc hange.net> Message-ID: Hi, I swore I was going to stay out of this particular substantive issue.* But as usual I am breaking another promise to myself. Sometimes, I really can't stand the irresponsibility of a person who can't even keep her commitments to herself. I should be ashamed. On 27 Apr 2013, at 12:29, parminder wrote: > I think the current text stands as follows (Mawaki/ others, correct me if I am wrong) > "We recognise the Internet to be a global, end-to-end, network of networks comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, and human intentionality enabling new kinds of social interactions and transactions, brought together by a common set of design principles. The design principles and policies that constitute Internet's governance should be derived through open and transparent, participatory democratic processes involving all stakeholders. While such principles and policies strive to ensure stability, functionality and security of the Internet, they must also aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet, the combination of which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces, we urge that the governance of the Internet promote the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good character. " > In any case, in terms of this. I actually think it is a very good aspirational statement. To some extent I can say it gives me the warm and fuzzies. It touches on some of my most emotional political aspirations. But I could _not_ support it as either - a definition (which is what I thought the exercise had been about) or - an IGC's advocacy statement. (Notice I will avoid, without comment, discussing the issue of whether the IGC is a representative of Civil society and has legitimacy as the voice of Civil society on Internet governance issues. I will not, therefore, discuss the statement as Civil Society aspirations) As an advocacy statement, which I did not know we were working on, i see no strategy discussed in this. What does this statement claim we want done? What are we planning to advocate? And that is where my problem with this aspirational statement really comes in. Like the working definition of Internet governance this is wonderfully ambiguous. But the devils are in the definitions of the things referenced. For example, "closed or proprietary online spaces" could mean: 1. The single root controlled by a single technology. 2. That certain names within that single root are so precious (the refer to sacred objects, national sovereignty or cultural sensistivity) they must be protected as part of the commons 3. That the environment created by FB, Google or Linkedin (3 i use) isn't a private space to be used in whatever way the voluntary participants allow (aka voting with their fingers) 4. That one has to pay to gain access to a 4g network 5. That the NYTimes on line should be available free to anyone who wishes 6. That Circleid makes me log on to comment in its web site 7. That all repositories of academic article produced with the assistance of public moneys aren't open 8. .... i agree with some of these, to some extent, but not all to every extent. And I read that as an indication we should be working on opening new spaces. And supporting the open spaces that are out there. Not controlling old ones. There are similar question sets for almost every phrase in this wonderful aspirational document. Which of these specific issues do we need action on? My fear* is that if we agree to this statement, for every cause of everyone with an agenda in the IGC, and I expect most of us have an agenda though some may not, they will be able to point to the aspirations on which the IGC has agreed and say: "But you agreed that this was our advocacy goal!" Hell, I can even see an argument-opportunist like myself doing so. Or would here keynote talks where some one sys: "The IGC, representative of Civil Society in Internet governance we are against proprietary online spaces and thus we say ..." I gott to admit, I can't see myself saying this one, but I can imagine others who might. Nope, I could not agree to this advocacy statement. And there is no tweaking of the words that could convince me to agree as the problem is not in the words but the baggage. avri * substantive issue - aka rat's nest fear -- did anyone see the marvelous cartoon on kinds of fear, I can find it, but it is out there) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Sun Apr 28 08:49:37 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 08:49:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <1DCD1D49-37B6-4981-A332-78514CF1054C@ciroap.org> <0880A8A4-7CEB-4E45-9D3E-A0DA5B52A8BA@istaff.org> <905BDC29-6D93-4885-9A87-6714FA87DB2D@istaff.org> Message-ID: <26FE6A86-3D22-41BF-B601-EB0D6674892F@istaff.org> On Apr 26, 2013, at 11:23 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:27 PM, John Curran wrote: > Agreed - I was not actually attempting to alter the current realities of international law and > relations, but suggesting that the enforcement of one country's public policies should not > _automatically_ be assumed (i.e. simply because of Internet-based communication to > those in other countries) to be applicable to the other end of the communications. > (i.e. no more so then it would be today.) > > That is a statement that actually is not accepted by some when it comes to the Internet, > in particular those who would put obligations on entities in other countries to meet their > own policy objectives... > > In order to help me better understand, could you provide me with some examples of "enforcement of one country's public policy [which, in order to be effective, needs to be applied] to the other end of the communication" and/or of "obligations on entities in other countries [which are necessary for countries] to meet their own policy objectives"? FYI, /John -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 28 12:31:09 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 22:01:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6736@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517C0AF7.1080703@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <517D4ECD.7060109@itforchange.net> Avri Thanks for the detailed analysis. A few points (even as I understand that fears are irrational and cant be rationally argued against). Yes, closed and proprietary spaces could be a lot of things, among those, a few that you list below (although not all, but that is not important for the sake of this argument). However, you must notice that the statement does not say, 'we are against closed and proprietary spaces on the Internet' which perhaps you 'seem' to suggest it says. The statement says we fear "the growing danger for the Internet experience to be *reduced to* (emphasis added) closed or proprietary online spaces" Now, you may not agree that there is any such growing danger, as Milton refuses to agree.... However to clear any misunderstandings, in case there be any, the statement in no way threatens revenue models for 4 G nor it intends to be push for NY to open its online version to everyone. (In fact, inter alia, Mawaki in his last email to Milton gave a good indication of what kind of issues are implicated and sought to be addressed by the statement) You say that you fear that someone may say something like, and I quote "The IGC, representative of Civil Society in Internet governance we are against proprietary online spaces and thus we say ..." Now, unless one just decides to say whatever he or she wishes, this kind of representation of the statement is simply not possible, because the statement nowhere says "we are against proprietary online spaces". But as I said, fears are irrational, and if you have the fears you have them. On the other hand, just to illustrate my point; someone may develop fears about, say, an IGC advocacy statement promoting freedom of expression on the Internet citing a hundred possibilities of, well, how someone may claim he or she is entitled to this or that because IGC has clearly and firmly stated that it is for freedom of expression... Fears being irrational and not subject to rationality, such a thing I can see is entirely possible. Thanks however for going into so much detail on why you do not support this statement. And thanks for saying that it is indeed a very good aspirational statement. That is what we largely wanted it to be (using I think Anriette's words). Civil society lives by its aspirations, some of them sometimes a bit too high, but that is our staple. parminder > Hi, > > I swore I was going to stay out of this particular substantive issue.* > But as usual I am breaking another promise to myself. > Sometimes, I really can't stand the irresponsibility of a person who can't even keep her commitments to herself. > I should be ashamed. > > On 27 Apr 2013, at 12:29, parminder wrote: > >> I think the current text stands as follows (Mawaki/ others, correct me if I am wrong) >> "We recognise the Internet to be a global, end-to-end, network of networks comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, and human intentionality enabling new kinds of social interactions and transactions, brought together by a common set of design principles. The design principles and policies that constitute Internet's governance should be derived through open and transparent, participatory democratic processes involving all stakeholders. While such principles and policies strive to ensure stability, functionality and security of the Internet, they must also aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet, the combination of which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces, we urge that >> the governance of the Internet promote the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good character. " >> > In any case, in terms of this. > I actually think it is a very good aspirational statement. > To some extent I can say it gives me the warm and fuzzies. > It touches on some of my most emotional political aspirations. > > But I could _not_ support it as either > - a definition (which is what I thought the exercise had been about) or > - an IGC's advocacy statement. > > (Notice I will avoid, without comment, discussing the issue of whether the IGC is a representative of Civil society and has legitimacy as the voice of Civil society on Internet governance issues. I will not, therefore, discuss the statement as Civil Society aspirations) > > As an advocacy statement, which I did not know we were working on, i see no strategy discussed in this. What does this statement claim we want done? What are we planning to advocate? > > And that is where my problem with this aspirational statement really comes in. > Like the working definition of Internet governance this is wonderfully ambiguous. > But the devils are in the definitions of the things referenced. > > For example, "closed or proprietary online spaces" could mean: > > 1. The single root controlled by a single technology. > 2. That certain names within that single root are so precious (the refer to sacred objects, national sovereignty or cultural sensistivity) they must be protected as part of the commons > 3. That the environment created by FB, Google or Linkedin (3 i use) isn't a private space to be used in whatever way the voluntary participants allow (aka voting with their fingers) > 4. That one has to pay to gain access to a 4g network > 5. That the NYTimes on line should be available free to anyone who wishes > 6. That Circleid makes me log on to comment in its web site > 7. That all repositories of academic article produced with the assistance of public moneys aren't open > 8. .... > > i agree with some of these, to some extent, but not all to every extent. > And I read that as an indication we should be working on opening new spaces. > And supporting the open spaces that are out there. > Not controlling old ones. > > There are similar question sets for almost every phrase in this wonderful aspirational document. > > Which of these specific issues do we need action on? > > My fear* is that if we agree to this statement, for every cause of everyone with an agenda in the IGC, and I expect most of us have an agenda though some may not, they will be able to point to the aspirations on which the IGC has agreed and say: > > "But you agreed that this was our advocacy goal!" > > Hell, I can even see an argument-opportunist like myself doing so. > > Or would here keynote talks where some one sys: > > "The IGC, representative of Civil Society in Internet governance we are against proprietary online spaces and thus we say ..." > > I gott to admit, I can't see myself saying this one, but I can imagine others who might. > > Nope, I could not agree to this advocacy statement. > And there is no tweaking of the words that could convince me to agree as the problem is not in the words but the baggage. > > > avri > > * > substantive issue - aka rat's nest > fear -- did anyone see the marvelous cartoon on kinds of fear, I can find it, but it is out there) > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 28 13:00:41 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 12:00:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <517D4ECD.7060109@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6736@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517C0AF7.1080703@itforchange.net> <517D4ECD.! 7060109@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <67A20EB8-61E6-4253-823C-C774BB9EAEA5@ella.com> On 28 Apr 2013, at 11:31, parminder wrote: > (even as I understand that fears are irrational and cant be rationally argued against) (-; -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jaryn56 at gmail.com Sun Apr 28 14:37:10 2013 From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 13:37:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <3lf0emuwvcr49ccyfkqvhgt9.1367026728895@email.android.com> References: <3lf0emuwvcr49ccyfkqvhgt9.1367026728895@email.android.com> Message-ID: Para las personas que vivimos en el tercer mundo o sub-desarrollados, el termino de: tercermundista; es el de “clasificarnos cómo personas que no tienen ni voz ni voto por su condición, por su escasa cultura o desarrollo”. No me arrepiento ni me amilano de vivir en un país en desarrollo o tercermundista, como ustedes nos llaman. No estoy lejos de ser uno de los menos afortunados entre mis compañeros de América Latina y el Caribe y de otras personas de países en desarrollo. En las condiciones en la que ahora me encuentro leyendo los mensajes de esta lista, en una Internet de barrio, porque no tengo el lujo de una conexión a Internet de alta velocidad en casa o donde sea y tratando de entender y traducir los mensajes en ingles. Solo pido que los que integren y debaten en esta lista lo hagan con altura y invitando a los demás a participar en este proceso, porque de lo contrario esta lista se vera (o ya se esta viendo) como de gente de “élite cerrada”, que solamente le interesa lo suyo, su posición, sin solidaridad con los demás compañeros que no tienen el privilegio de tener conexión de internet en su casa y menos una laptop *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* 2013/4/26 Carlos A. Afonso > I particularly like the "one-rooters", although I do not necessarily > belong to that tribe. ;) Note that one other tribe is the anthropophagists > -- literally from Greek, the ones who practice the eating ("phagia") of > human beings ("anthropos"). :) > > fraternal rgds > > --c.a. > > ------------ > C. A. Afonso > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Ian Peter > Date: 26/04/2013 17:30 (GMT-03:00) > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good > > > epiphenomonalists, third-worlders, one rooters, andropophagists, > > is this Lewis Carroll's Mad Hatter's Party? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Riaz K Tayob > Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 5:56 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good > > And 'going forward', I forgot to mention one more category (fuzzy, > subject to Sobiret's paradox) to give more clarity, 'minimal > accommodationists' are those from the third world who seek > accommodation/fit/consensus with the dominant/first world view without > articulating a political or substantive position that strengthens the > third world on the first/third world dialectic. These are not to be > dogmatically affirmed (particularly since judgements of these nature, > particularly in hindsight are 20/20), often matters of degree and position. > > May as well get this out of the way. > > Riaz > > On 2013/04/26 03:07 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > > Too good: "There has got to be another way , but for the life of me I > > can't seem to define it." > > You missed out "Status-Quo"ists, people... :P > > -C > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From adam.freeman at politics.ox.ac.uk Sun Apr 28 15:07:15 2013 From: adam.freeman at politics.ox.ac.uk (Adam Freeman) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 20:07:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <517D4ECD.7060109@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6736@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517C0AF7.1080703@itforchange.net> <517D4ECD.7 060109@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <0A728815-3F09-4F3A-BB04-9182D0EAEE13@politics.ox.ac.uk> Dear all, I’m enjoying the spirited debate. But if I may, some Rousseau (via Albert Hirschman), ‘What makes for human misery is the contradiction between man and citizen; make him one and you will make him as happy as he can be; give him wholly to the state or leave him wholly to himself; but if you divide his heart you will tear it apart.’ What I take from this is that it’s a mistake to see public and private as simply opposed. If the Internet enables both an active global citizenry and expanded horizons of private interest then that very affinity with the dual drives of real people acting at their best should be its calling card. The stalking dangers of private interest takeover and mass indoctrination are side-effects of a technology (and sure, ‘an emergent [...] social reality’) that makes both power and participation truly worthwhile. The remedy to these dangers is not to bet everything on publicness, however. That’s not even the best idea humanistically speaking, even if it made sense from a technology perspective. Such a move undercuts the similarly powerful affordances toward private experience and fulfillment that makes the ‘global commons and public good character[istics]’ of the Internet age so affirmative. If I felt warranted stepping into some of the particular disputes going on, I’d say such a vantage offered at least the beginnings of a bridge between, say, Parminder and Milton Mueller. It’s a good job, therefore, that I don’t feel at all warranted in that respect! All best, Adam Adam Freeman St Peter’s College, University of Oxford adam.freeman at politics.ox.ac.uk On Apr 28, 2013, at 17:31, parminder wrote: > > Avri > > Thanks for the detailed analysis. A few points (even as I understand that fears are irrational and cant be rationally argued against). > > Yes, closed and proprietary spaces could be a lot of things, among those, a few that you list below (although not all, but that is not important for the sake of this argument). > > However, you must notice that the statement does not say, 'we are against closed and proprietary spaces on the Internet' which perhaps you 'seem' to suggest it says. The statement says we fear "the growing danger for the Internet experience to be *reduced to* (emphasis added) closed or proprietary online spaces" > > Now, you may not agree that there is any such growing danger, as Milton refuses to agree.... However to clear any misunderstandings, in case there be any, the statement in no way threatens revenue models for 4 G nor it intends to be push for NY to open its online version to everyone. (In fact, inter alia, Mawaki in his last email to Milton gave a good indication of what kind of issues are implicated and sought to be addressed by the statement) > > You say that you fear that someone may say something like, and I quote > "The IGC, representative of Civil Society in Internet governance we are against proprietary online spaces and thus we say ..." > Now, unless one just decides to say whatever he or she wishes, this kind of representation of the statement is simply not possible, because the statement nowhere says "we are against proprietary online spaces". > But as I said, fears are irrational, and if you have the fears you have them. > > On the other hand, just to illustrate my point; someone may develop fears about, say, an IGC advocacy statement promoting freedom of expression on the Internet citing a hundred possibilities of, well, how someone may claim he or she is entitled to this or that because IGC has clearly and firmly stated that it is for freedom of expression... Fears being irrational and not subject to rationality, such a thing I can see is entirely possible. > > Thanks however for going into so much detail on why you do not support this statement. > > And thanks for saying that it is indeed a very good aspirational statement. That is what we largely wanted it to be (using I think Anriette's words). Civil society lives by its aspirations, some of them sometimes a bit too high, but that is our staple. > > parminder > > >> Hi, >> >> I swore I was going to stay out of this particular substantive issue.* >> But as usual I am breaking another promise to myself. >> Sometimes, I really can't stand the irresponsibility of a person who can't even keep her commitments to herself. >> I should be ashamed. >> >> On 27 Apr 2013, at 12:29, parminder wrote: >> >>> I think the current text stands as follows (Mawaki/ others, correct me if I am wrong) >>> "We recognise the Internet to be a global, end-to-end, network of networks comprised of computing devices and processes, and an emergent and emerging social reality. In that sense, it is an intricate combination of hardware, software, protocols, and human intentionality enabling new kinds of social interactions and transactions, brought together by a common set of design principles. The design principles and policies that constitute Internet's governance should be derived through open and transparent, participatory democratic processes involving all stakeholders. While such principles and policies strive to ensure stability, functionality and security of the Internet, they must also aim at preserving and enhancing the global commons and global public good character of the Internet, the combination of which has made previous innovations possible. Therefore, in the face of the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces, we urge that >>> >>> the governance of the Internet promote the preservation and enhancement of the Internet's global commons and public good character. " >>> >> In any case, in terms of this. >> I actually think it is a very good aspirational statement. >> To some extent I can say it gives me the warm and fuzzies. >> It touches on some of my most emotional political aspirations. >> >> But I could _not_ support it as either >> - a definition (which is what I thought the exercise had been about) or >> - an IGC's advocacy statement. >> >> (Notice I will avoid, without comment, discussing the issue of whether the IGC is a representative of Civil society and has legitimacy as the voice of Civil society on Internet governance issues. I will not, therefore, discuss the statement as Civil Society aspirations) >> >> As an advocacy statement, which I did not know we were working on, i see no strategy discussed in this. What does this statement claim we want done? What are we planning to advocate? >> >> And that is where my problem with this aspirational statement really comes in. >> Like the working definition of Internet governance this is wonderfully ambiguous. >> But the devils are in the definitions of the things referenced. >> >> For example, "closed or proprietary online spaces" could mean: >> >> 1. The single root controlled by a single technology. >> 2. That certain names within that single root are so precious (the refer to sacred objects, national sovereignty or cultural sensistivity) they must be protected as part of the commons >> 3. That the environment created by FB, Google or Linkedin (3 i use) isn't a private space to be used in whatever way the voluntary participants allow (aka voting with their fingers) >> 4. That one has to pay to gain access to a 4g network >> 5. That the NYTimes on line should be available free to anyone who wishes >> 6. That Circleid makes me log on to comment in its web site >> 7. That all repositories of academic article produced with the assistance of public moneys aren't open >> 8. .... >> >> i agree with some of these, to some extent, but not all to every extent. >> And I read that as an indication we should be working on opening new spaces. >> And supporting the open spaces that are out there. >> Not controlling old ones. >> >> There are similar question sets for almost every phrase in this wonderful aspirational document. >> >> Which of these specific issues do we need action on? >> >> My fear* is that if we agree to this statement, for every cause of everyone with an agenda in the IGC, and I expect most of us have an agenda though some may not, they will be able to point to the aspirations on which the IGC has agreed and say: >> >> "But you agreed that this was our advocacy goal!" >> >> Hell, I can even see an argument-opportunist like myself doing so. >> >> Or would here keynote talks where some one sys: >> >> "The IGC, representative of Civil Society in Internet governance we are against proprietary online spaces and thus we say ..." >> >> I gott to admit, I can't see myself saying this one, but I can imagine others who might. >> >> Nope, I could not agree to this advocacy statement. >> And there is no tweaking of the words that could convince me to agree as the problem is not in the words but the baggage. >> >> >> avri >> >> * >> substantive issue - aka rat's nest >> fear -- did anyone see the marvelous cartoon on kinds of fear, I can find it, but it is out there) >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 28 18:00:16 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:00:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> Message-ID: <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> What are the views about the idea of in addition issuing a brief IGC statement in support of this petition or with a message similar to it? Greetings, Norbert Ian Peter wrote: > Many people here may wish to sign this petition. > > > http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5 > > > We call on the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and its member > organizations to reject the Encrypted Media Extensions proposal > (EME), which would incorporate support for Digital Restrictions > Management (DRM) into HTML. > > EME would be an irreversible step backward for freedom on the Web. It > would endorse and enable business models that unethically restrict > users, and it would make subjugation to particular media companies a > precondition for full Web citizenship. Just as Flash and Silverlight > are finally dying off, we should not replace them with the media > giants' latest control fantasy. > > Furthermore, EME contradicts the W3C's core values. It would hamper > interoperability by encouraging the proliferation of DRM plugins. It > would fly in the face of the W3C's principle of keeping the Web > royalty-free — this is simply a back door for media companies to > require proprietary player software. It is willful ignorance to > pretend otherwise just because the proposal does not mention > particular technologies or DRM schemes by name. > > W3C and member organizations: don't weave DRM into the fabric of the > Web. -- Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 28 18:40:08 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 18:40:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> Hi, I have personally signed and would support a statement if we could say something that like: " The IGC is ...*. The participants in the IGC support this petition. signed {set of those who endorse - individuals and organizational participants} " Any more and we would probably be involved in substantive issues. avri * do we have a canned "who the IGC is" stmt - or is that a substantive issue? On 28 Apr 2013, at 18:00, Norbert Bollow wrote: > What are the views about the idea of in addition issuing a brief > IGC statement in support of this petition or with a message similar to > it? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Ian Peter wrote: > >> Many people here may wish to sign this petition. >> >> >> http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5 >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 28 20:33:34 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 06:03:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <517DBFDE.4090908@itforchange.net> On Monday 29 April 2013 03:30 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > What are the views about the idea of in addition issuing a brief > IGC statement in support of this petition or with a message similar to > it? I agree tha IGC should consider supporting.... > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Ian Peter wrote: > >> Many people here may wish to sign this petition. >> >> >> http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5 >> >> >> We call on the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and its member >> organizations to reject the Encrypted Media Extensions proposal >> (EME), which would incorporate support for Digital Restrictions >> Management (DRM) into HTML. >> >> EME would be an irreversible step backward for freedom on the Web. It >> would endorse and enable business models that unethically restrict >> users, and it would make subjugation to particular media companies a >> precondition for full Web citizenship. Just as Flash and Silverlight >> are finally dying off, we should not replace them with the media >> giants' latest control fantasy. >> >> Furthermore, EME contradicts the W3C's core values. It would hamper >> interoperability by encouraging the proliferation of DRM plugins. It >> would fly in the face of the W3C's principle of keeping the Web >> royalty-free — this is simply a back door for media companies to >> require proprietary player software. It is willful ignorance to >> pretend otherwise just because the proposal does not mention >> particular technologies or DRM schemes by name. >> >> W3C and member organizations: don't weave DRM into the fabric of the >> Web. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 28 20:37:19 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 06:07:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> Message-ID: <517DC0BF.5080100@itforchange.net> On Monday 29 April 2013 04:10 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I have personally signed and would support a statement if we could say something that like: > > " > The IGC is ...*. > The participants in the IGC support this petition. > > signed > {set of those who endorse - individuals and organizational participants} > " > > Any more and we would probably be involved in substantive issues. Is a bar being put to IGC supporting and making substantive positions, and with that intention getting into discussing substantive issues... If so, it will be good to know. Apart from the fact that IGC has made substantive positions in the past, and endorsed those of others, making an explicit decision now not to do so any more makes it quite unproductive for many of us to spend a lot if time here. parminder > > avri > > * do we have a canned "who the IGC is" stmt - or is that a substantive issue? > > On 28 Apr 2013, at 18:00, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> What are the views about the idea of in addition issuing a brief >> IGC statement in support of this petition or with a message similar to >> it? >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> Many people here may wish to sign this petition. >>> >>> >>> http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5 >>> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Apr 28 20:54:48 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 21:54:48 -0300 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <517DC4D8.7070005@cafonso.ca> It would be great to have it delivered to Tim B-L before May 13th, when WWW 2013 will start in Rio (http://www2013.org/). --c.a. On 04/28/2013 07:00 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > What are the views about the idea of in addition issuing a brief > IGC statement in support of this petition or with a message similar to > it? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Ian Peter wrote: > >> Many people here may wish to sign this petition. >> >> >> http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5 >> >> >> We call on the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and its member >> organizations to reject the Encrypted Media Extensions proposal >> (EME), which would incorporate support for Digital Restrictions >> Management (DRM) into HTML. >> >> EME would be an irreversible step backward for freedom on the Web. It >> would endorse and enable business models that unethically restrict >> users, and it would make subjugation to particular media companies a >> precondition for full Web citizenship. Just as Flash and Silverlight >> are finally dying off, we should not replace them with the media >> giants' latest control fantasy. >> >> Furthermore, EME contradicts the W3C's core values. It would hamper >> interoperability by encouraging the proliferation of DRM plugins. It >> would fly in the face of the W3C's principle of keeping the Web >> royalty-free — this is simply a back door for media companies to >> require proprietary player software. It is willful ignorance to >> pretend otherwise just because the proposal does not mention >> particular technologies or DRM schemes by name. >> >> W3C and member organizations: don't weave DRM into the fabric of the >> Web. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 28 22:37:56 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 02:37:56 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <517C0AF7.1080703@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6736@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517C0AF7.1080703@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C9CAC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder You say that the statement of the problem is not true. I believe that most people here agree with the problem statement of “the growing danger for the Internet experience to be reduced to closed or proprietary online spaces.” [Milton L Mueller] If most people agree, they should be able to provide examples. Yet, I am still waiting for specific examples. Examples of both what specifically is meant by “reduction to closed or proprietary online spaces”, and evidence of the “growth” of this problem. So far, the only concrete reference I have seen comes from Mawaki, and it is a good example of why I am resisting this statement. Mawaki claimed “that the internet experience of more and more users --maybe the younger ones-- is becoming limited to particular apps, notably those of social media such as Facebook (FB).” Now, I am not a Facebook member and do not particularly like that type of online community. But I would quibble with the definition of Facebook as “closed,” in that joining is free and pretty much open to anyone, and using it does not prevent anyone from accessing anything else on the internet. FB does not alter or in any way enclose the Internet protocols or standards. If you don’t like FB because people spending time on it are not looking at other things on the internet, the complaint seems churlish. Would one then call the IGC governance list a closed space? If you join you only see messages from a few hundred brilliant minds debating internet governance, you do not get exposed to, say, an email list of zoologists who specialize in zebras or Hello Kitty fans. By enclosing ourselves in this lovely space are we an example of this terrible phenomenon? Well, we could do something about that – and shut down the list. Or are we just complaining about young people wrapping themselves up in Facebook, like 1960s parents complaining that their kids watch too much television? Are we telling those folks that we know better than they do how they should spend their online time? What, exactly, is the political point we are making? What is the policy that is advocated? Are we going to force people to leave FB? Ban private social media? Nationalize FB (as one academic who should know better has suggested)? Oh by the way, which national government will be the one to nationalize it? After we nationalize it, how do we know that the policies will be better? I mean, if it’s run by a government, what could possibly go wrong? Are we going to start a new social media platform? What if no one comes? What if they like FB better? Will we then complain, as Mawaki seemed to do, that they really don’t know what’s good for themselves and perhaps we should make the choice for them? You are proposing that we add to the statement the need to save and promote its private (property) character as well. Now, advocacy statements are not made like this. For instance, most global civil society networks will accept an advocacy statement like "we should promote the commons character of knowledge". Almost all of them will scoff at the demand to add to this something like "we do recognise the need to privatise knowledge to provide enough incentives for its further creation and so on", while admittedly, there is some truth in this possible addition. But if you add this, it is not worth making a statement at all. The purpose which was intended is not served. [Milton L Mueller] Thank you for the frank acknowledgement of the partisan and polarized nature of this statement! So the purpose is to rally global civil society networks who get excited at the “commons character of knowledge” and to alienate and exclude those who do not. You are saying that we are not interested in anyone with a more nuanced understanding of the Internet, and we are not interested in advocacy that educates the public about the unique combination of public and private goods on the internet. We just want to throw some red meat to the people with a set ideology. Is that it? How could we possibly arrive at a consensus statement if that is the way you want to do things? You are taking the current political divisions as a given and trying to exploit them, rather than defining a new politics of the internet and building something new. Look, I am sure we can reach agreement if we are trying to arrive at an accurate and constructive understanding of public and private goods on the internet, and if we are trying to advocate policies that promote that balance and have broad support in IGC. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ecrire at catherine-roy.net Sun Apr 28 22:44:07 2013 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (Catherine Roy) Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 22:44:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards In-Reply-To: <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <517DDE77.2020400@catherine-roy.net> I support this proposal. -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net On 28/04/2013 6:00 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > What are the views about the idea of in addition issuing a brief > IGC statement in support of this petition or with a message similar to > it? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Ian Peter wrote: > >> Many people here may wish to sign this petition. >> >> >> http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5 >> >> >> We call on the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) and its member >> organizations to reject the Encrypted Media Extensions proposal >> (EME), which would incorporate support for Digital Restrictions >> Management (DRM) into HTML. >> >> EME would be an irreversible step backward for freedom on the Web. It >> would endorse and enable business models that unethically restrict >> users, and it would make subjugation to particular media companies a >> precondition for full Web citizenship. Just as Flash and Silverlight >> are finally dying off, we should not replace them with the media >> giants' latest control fantasy. >> >> Furthermore, EME contradicts the W3C's core values. It would hamper >> interoperability by encouraging the proliferation of DRM plugins. It >> would fly in the face of the W3C's principle of keeping the Web >> royalty-free — this is simply a back door for media companies to >> require proprietary player software. It is willful ignorance to >> pretend otherwise just because the proposal does not mention >> particular technologies or DRM schemes by name. >> >> W3C and member organizations: don't weave DRM into the fabric of the >> Web. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 28 22:48:14 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:48:14 +0800 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C9CAC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6736@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517C0AF7.1080703@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C9CAC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.s yr.edu> Message-ID: <517DDF6E.6090601@ciroap.org> On 29/04/13 10:37, Milton L Mueller wrote: > */[Milton L Mueller] If most people agree, they should be able to > provide examples. Yet, I am still waiting for specific examples. > Examples of both what specifically is meant by “reduction to closed or > proprietary online spaces”, and evidence of the “growth” of this > problem./**/ > > So far, the only concrete reference I have seen comes from Mawaki, and > it is a good example of why I am resisting this statement. Mawaki > claimed “that the internet experience of more and more users --maybe > the younger ones-- is becoming limited to particular apps, notably > those of social media such as Facebook (FB).” Now, I am not a Facebook > member and do not particularly like that type of online community. But > I would quibble with the definition of Facebook as “closed,” in that > joining is free and pretty much open to anyone, and using it does not > prevent anyone from accessing anything else on the internet. FB does > not alter or in any way enclose the Internet protocols or standards./* I can't say if this is what Mawaki meant, but there are many mobile Internet services around the world (including mine, Maxis here in Malaysia) that give you free or cheaper access to Facebook than to other social networking websites. Also, devices such as phones and game consoles typically allow a gatekeeper to approve what apps you can use to access the Internet. For example I have an iPhone, and I want to use a Bitcoin client on it - but I can't, because Apple decided I can't; and I want to install a Bittorrent app on my PS3, but I can't, because Sony decided I can't. I presume that you have read Zittrain's "The Future of the Internet", which although becoming dated now gives many other examples. -- *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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 29 00:49:05 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 06:49:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC and substantive issues (was Re: Digital restrictions...) In-Reply-To: <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> Message-ID: <20130429064905.5458600e@quill.bollow.ch> Avri Doria wrote: > Any more and we would probably be involved in substantive issues. According to http://igcaucus.org/charter IGC has been created with this mission: The mission of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. The caucus intends to provide an open and effective forum for civil society to share opinion, policy options and expertise on Internet governance issues, and to provide a mechanism for coordination of advocacy to enhance the utilization and influence of Civil Society (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy processes. Not engaging on any substantive issues would imply having zero influence in the relevant policy processes, so that would be contrary to IGC's mission. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 29 01:23:59 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 07:23:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <517DDF6E.6090601@ciroap.org> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6736@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517C0AF7.1080703@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C9CAC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.s yr.edu> <517DDF6E.6090601@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20130429072359.4503339b@quill.bollow.ch> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 29/04/13 10:37, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > So far, the only concrete reference I have seen comes from Mawaki, > > and it is a good example of why I am resisting this statement. > > Mawaki claimed “that the internet experience of more and more users > > --maybe the younger ones-- is becoming limited to particular apps, > > notably those of social media such as Facebook (FB).” > > I can't say if this is what Mawaki meant, but there are many mobile > Internet services around the world (including mine, Maxis here in > Malaysia) that give you free or cheaper access to Facebook than to > other social networking websites. Another problematic aspect of Facebook is related to the network effects. Unfortunately there is a lack of standardized interoperability interfaces that would allow to fully participate in the online social interactions of Facebook users without entrusting significant personal data to Facebook Inc and thereby also to the US government. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 29 01:39:28 2013 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 08:39:28 +0300 Subject: [governance] IGC and substantive issues (was Re: Digital restrictions...) In-Reply-To: <20130429064905.5458600e@quill.bollow.ch> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130429064905.5458600e@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130429053928.GB20592@thorion.it.jyu.fi> I don't think Avri meant there should be no substantive discussions on the list at all, rather just that in this particular issue (supporting the appeal that is, not html5/drm in general) it would be best avoided - and I agree, for time is limited and the appeal is simple enough, it would be more effective to support it as is now than with long and detailed argument later. Of course nothing stops as from doing both, and certainly drm in general would merit a long substantive debate, but right now I think it'd be best to seek consensus for a simple "IGC supports this" -statement. Remember Voltaire: "Better is enemy of the good". -- Tapani Tarvainen On Apr 29 06:49, Norbert Bollow (nb at bollow.ch) wrote: > Avri Doria wrote: > > > Any more and we would probably be involved in substantive issues. > > According to http://igcaucus.org/charter IGC has been created with this > mission: > > The mission of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is to provide a > forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of > civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. The > caucus intends to provide an open and effective forum for civil > society to share opinion, policy options and expertise on Internet > governance issues, and to provide a mechanism for coordination of > advocacy to enhance the utilization and influence of Civil Society > (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy processes. > > Not engaging on any substantive issues would imply having zero > influence in the relevant policy processes, so that would be contrary > to IGC's mission. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Apr 29 01:44:06 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 11:14:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <517DDF6E.6090601@ciroap.org> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6736@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517C0AF7.1080703@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C9CAC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.s yr.edu> <517DDF6E.6090601@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <517E08A6.5010309@itforchange.net> On Monday 29 April 2013 08:18 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 29/04/13 10:37, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> */[Milton L Mueller] If most people agree, they should be able to >> provide examples. Yet, I am still waiting for specific examples. >> Examples of both what specifically is meant by “reduction to closed >> or proprietary online spaces”, and evidence of the “growth” of this >> problem./**/ >> >> So far, the only concrete reference I have seen comes from Mawaki, >> and it is a good example of why I am resisting this statement. Mawaki >> claimed “that the internet experience of more and more users --maybe >> the younger ones-- is becoming limited to particular apps, notably >> those of social media such as Facebook (FB).” Now, I am not a >> Facebook member and do not particularly like that type of online >> community. But I would quibble with the definition of Facebook as >> “closed,” in that joining is free and pretty much open to anyone, and >> using it does not prevent anyone from accessing anything else on the >> internet. FB does not alter or in any way enclose the Internet >> protocols or standards./* > > I can't say if this is what Mawaki meant, but there are many mobile > Internet services around the world (including mine, Maxis here in > Malaysia) that give you free or cheaper access to Facebook than to > other social networking websites. Also, devices such as phones and > game consoles typically allow a gatekeeper to approve what apps you > can use to access the Internet. For example I have an iPhone, and I > want to use a Bitcoin client on it - but I can't, because Apple > decided I can't; and I want to install a Bittorrent app on my PS3, but > I can't, because Sony decided I can't. I presume that you have read > Zittrain's "The Future of the Internet", which although becoming dated > now gives many other examples. These are certainly very significant instances of how the proprietary aspects of the Internet are overtaking its commons/ public goods aspects. And the movement in this direction continues unabated, in fact with increased force. We now have this new proposed web standard that seems to incorporate DRM possibilities. Recently there was the IETF RFC controversy whereby the market character of the Internet seemed to be given a decisive precedence over its collaborative possibilities.... ( Milton, I know no number of facts is going to be enough for you.) As for the much touted idea of 'balance' here, it is always a relative context. Which way we should move to reach where we want to go depends on where we stand at present. How we balance depends on which way we seem to be falling. (Here, the issue of 'whose interests we represent' also comes into the picture, because different groups and people are being affected differently by these changes. Yes, I know, some love it. ) OECD's Principles for Internet Policy Making focus strongly on intellectual property rights and their enforcement, with little to say about its commons/ public goods nature. So are increasing number of 'global' policy instruments promoted by rich country governments. These are the most powerful forces shaping the Internet today. And they are shaping it in a manner that furthers their narrow geo economic interests. Our strategies and activities need to address this specific context/ problem. It is this problematic and growing dis-balance that we had sought to correct through a civil society statement, taking it that civil society is supposed to intervene on the side of the more marginalised sections. But if the caucus does not want to recognise this problem and to do something about it, that is fine. It could however result in losing considerable credibility among progressive groups. parminder > > -- > > *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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 29 02:02:14 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 11:32:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] On the seriousness of threats (was Re: abuse...) In-Reply-To: <201304271943.r3RJhVbk019061@atl4mhob05.myregisteredsite.com> References: <201304271943.r3RJhVbk019061@atl4mhob05.myregisteredsite.com> Message-ID: <517E0CE6.3090406@itforchange.net> On Sunday 28 April 2013 01:13 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > all the cool kids are getting warnings. Yes, very cool kids, like those who tell 'shame on you'* to one of our co-cos, for acts done by him on the behalf of the caucus, and that too after proclaiming that one has recently been warned privately for violation of list posting rules. I think it is really cool!! Also tells about powers and immunities. Power does create coolness. * I dont know how it reads to someone from the western culture, but here in south Asia it is a most insulting phrase. parminder > > pretty soon if you haven't gotten a warning you will have wonder what > is wrong with you. > > avri > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Peter H. Hellmonds" > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > "Adam Peake" > Subject: [governance] On the seriousness of threats (was Re: abuse...) > Date: Sat, Apr 27, 2013 10:51 > > > Adam, > > amongst those who received a private warning am also I, following my > recent reply to Parminder. The coordinator is obviously very quick > with his hat on. ;-) > > Best > Peter > > Peter H. Hellmonds > > +49 (160) 360-2852 > > On 26.04.2013, at 12:27, "Adam Peake" wrote: > > Norbert > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > (this posting is intentionally sent informally, without "coordinator > > hat") > > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > >> [Milton L Mueller] Of course, that is what I meant. I made it clear > >> that I will speak up against and challenge any attempt to force > >> through a poorly-crafted statement as a "civil society" position or a > >> position of this caucus. > > > > You are of course the ultimate authority on what you meant, and I am > > personally glad to take note of the implied promise that you will not > > take other action, such as public humiliation or perhaps disruption of > > a young academic's career, if someone should proceed to promote, > > contrary to your desire, something that involves emphasis on public > > good aspects of the Internet as *a* civil society position. > > there was no such suggestion in Milton's email. If you saw such a > message rather than threaten him with a warning you should ask him > what he meant, express your concern. > > You are clearly too quick with your hat and your warnings and it's > troubling that you add your own interpretation and opinion. Your > warning to me (yes, I've been warned...) was over the Michael Gurstein > incident and what I saw as forum/stakeholder shopping to gain a seat > in the CSTD WG (my fault for expressing annoyance that someone would > attempt to manipulate longstanding and well understood process.) Fair > enough if you thought I had gone to far. But you added a comment that > I was in someway extra guilty because Michael was performing the > function of whistle-blower, obviously a sacred role. As with Milton > you added your own interpretation, got rather carried away. > > For someone who seems interested in human rights you are very quick to > pass personal judgement and censor. Could you stop please. > > Adam > > > > > > Getting back to the specific sentence that I reacted to in my private > > email to you, “I hope IGC does not waste further time on this > > statement, and be forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to > > misrepresent it as a civil society position” - that is a statement > > which can be reasonably read as much more than what you have described > > as its intended meaning. While I agree that in the present context it is > > not plausible to interpret it as a threat of physical violence, it can > > be pl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 29 02:37:20 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 02:37:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC and substantive issues (was Re: Digital restrictions...) In-Reply-To: <20130429053928.GB20592@thorion.it.jyu.fi> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6832@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <743B17E3C56A4056B20E67ADB767EA79@Toshiba> <20130429000016.0fd58cf6@quill.bollow.ch> <84F4775D-5F19-4A7C-94DE-B89D1FECC629@acm.org> <20130429064905.5458600e@quill.bollow.ch> <20130429053928.GB20592@thorion.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: <1A87DF85-DB19-4358-A8E6-5BDEA79E951A@acm.org> Hi, Indeed, there was nothing normative in my statement. We can try to do substantive issues. I just don't have a whole lot of hope. But talking of hope, I expect I will be accused of being irrational again. avri On 29 Apr 2013, at 01:39, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > I don't think Avri meant there should be no substantive > discussions on the list at all, rather just that in this > particular issue (supporting the appeal that is, not > html5/drm in general) it would be best avoided - and I agree, > for time is limited and the appeal is simple enough, > it would be more effective to support it as is now > than with long and detailed argument later. > > Of course nothing stops as from doing both, and certainly > drm in general would merit a long substantive debate, > but right now I think it'd be best to seek consensus for > a simple "IGC supports this" -statement. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Apr 29 04:25:14 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:25:14 +0900 Subject: [governance] On the seriousness of threats (was Re: abuse...) In-Reply-To: <517E0CE6.3090406@itforchange.net> References: <201304271943.r3RJhVbk019061@atl4mhob05.myregisteredsite.com> <517E0CE6.3090406@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <6D6066F6-38BE-4A52-8256-208F61DC7C95@gmail.com> Hello, > On Sunday 28 April 2013 01:13 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> all the cool kids are getting warnings. > > Yes, very cool kids, like those who tell 'shame on you'* to one of our co-cos, for acts done by him on the behalf of the caucus, and that too after proclaiming that one has recently been I am not aware or recall that IGC members mandated the co-cos to act in controversial way on their behalf by re-interpreting rules or what looks sometimes as taking position or siding with party against another or pushing for their own opinions. Co-cos have a hard task in IGC and we are helping them to act WITHIN their roles. Yes receiving many warning may indicate some level of abuse of power and just as reminder no so long time ago we had an appeal process, something rarely happened before. > warned privately for violation of list posting rules. I think it is really cool!! Also tells about powers and immunities. Power does create coolness. > > * I dont know how it reads to someone from the western culture, but here in south Asia it is a most insulting phrase. > Well coming from middle east and north African , Mediterranean culture (from the south side), I read the phrase as sarcasm and irony, a powerful manner and style to criticise abuse of power. I am not sure that trying to create this division between west and east in IGC in regular manner is well-advisedto to enhance any kind of substantive debate in the list. We have many problems here and hope that everybody try to work toward common ground and avoid ideological fights or pushing for personal agenda whatever it costs. I am aware that because my message I become good candidate for private warning, but anyway I am sending the reply because I do think that IGC reached since a while an intolerable level of mistrust and fights that prevent making any contribution as caucus . Thanks, Rafik > parminder > > > >> >> pretty soon if you haven't gotten a warning you will have wonder what is wrong with you. >> >> avri >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "Peter H. Hellmonds" >> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Adam Peake" >> Subject: [governance] On the seriousness of threats (was Re: abuse...) >> Date: Sat, Apr 27, 2013 10:51 >> >> >> Adam, >> >> amongst those who received a private warning am also I, following my recent reply to Parminder. The coordinator is obviously very quick with his hat on. ;-) >> >> Best >> Peter >> >> Peter H. Hellmonds >> >> +49 (160) 360-2852 >> >> On 26.04.2013, at 12:27, "Adam Peake" wrote: >> >> Norbert >> >> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> > (this posting is intentionally sent informally, without "coordinator >> > hat") >> > >> > Milton L Mueller wrote: >> > >> >> [Milton L Mueller] Of course, that is what I meant. I made it clear >> >> that I will speak up against and challenge any attempt to force >> >> through a poorly-crafted statement as a "civil society" position or a >> >> position of this caucus. >> > >> > You are of course the ultimate authority on what you meant, and I am >> > personally glad to take note of the implied promise that you will not >> > take other action, such as public humiliation or perhaps disruption of >> > a young academic's career, if someone should proceed to promote, >> > contrary to your desire, something that involves emphasis on public >> > good aspects of the Internet as *a* civil society position. >> >> there was no such suggestion in Milton's email. If you saw such a >> message rather than threaten him with a warning you should ask him >> what he meant, express your concern. >> >> You are clearly too quick with your hat and your warnings and it's >> troubling that you add your own interpretation and opinion. Your >> warning to me (yes, I've been warned...) was over the Michael Gurstein >> incident and what I saw as forum/stakeholder shopping to gain a seat >> in the CSTD WG (my fault for expressing annoyance that someone would >> attempt to manipulate longstanding and well understood process.) Fair >> enough if you thought I had gone to far. But you added a comment that >> I was in someway extra guilty because Michael was performing the >> function of whistle-blower, obviously a sacred role. As with Milton >> you added your own interpretation, got rather carried away. >> >> For someone who seems interested in human rights you are very quick to >> pass personal judgement and censor. Could you stop please. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> > Getting back to the specific sentence that I reacted to in my private >> > email to you, “I hope IGC does not waste further time on this >> > statement, and be forewarned that if it does I will not allow anyone to >> > misrepresent it as a civil society position” - that is a statement >> > which can be reasonably read as much more than what you have described >> > as its intended meaning. While I agree that in the present context it is >> > not plausible to interpret it as a threat of physical violence, it can >> > be pl > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 29 05:16:00 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:16:00 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <517DDF6E.6090601@ciroap.org> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6736@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517C0AF7.1080703@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C9CAC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517DDF6E.6090601@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Thanks, Jeremy. That's the kind of phenomena I had in mind, some of which I believed were discussed on this list some time ago. Before FB, there was some concern that Google search engine was predominantly becoming the sole entry point to the Web (I'm not making any assertion as to whether that fear was grounded), and there will probably be other apps or Web services after FB that will be pointed to for the same problem. So FB was just an example (as was asked for) of a broader tendency which so far has most of the time been potential but which may be more qnd more actual. So Milton, is there a problem for which you think it'd be worthwhile to make a statement that strikes the balance you're looking for between private and public aspects of the internet? I'm asking because I think it'd be good if you can put forward an alternate statement (but I guess you will only do it if you think it's worth making such statement, that is, if it serves to address some problem). Also I have been thinking of something to replace the public good and commons language while still making the point for the need to keep the plain IP capabilities in sight and as open as they were initially designed to be while discussing and making policy for IG, but of course it is not worth my time either if the opposition is total to the very notion of such statement. Thanks, Mawaki On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 29/04/13 10:37, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > *[Milton L Mueller] If most people agree, they should be able to provide > examples. Yet, I am still waiting for specific examples. Examples of both > what specifically is meant by “reduction to closed or proprietary online > spaces”, and evidence of the “growth” of this problem.** > > So far, the only concrete reference I have seen comes from Mawaki, and it > is a good example of why I am resisting this statement. Mawaki claimed > “that the internet experience of more and more users --maybe the younger > ones-- is becoming limited to particular apps, notably those of social > media such as Facebook (FB).” Now, I am not a Facebook member and do not > particularly like that type of online community. But I would quibble with > the definition of Facebook as “closed,” in that joining is free and pretty > much open to anyone, and using it does not prevent anyone from accessing > anything else on the internet. FB does not alter or in any way enclose the > Internet protocols or standards.* > > > I can't say if this is what Mawaki meant, but there are many mobile > Internet services around the world (including mine, Maxis here in Malaysia) > that give you free or cheaper access to Facebook than to other social > networking websites. Also, devices such as phones and game consoles > typically allow a gatekeeper to approve what apps you can use to access the > Internet. For example I have an iPhone, and I want to use a Bitcoin client > on it - but I can't, because Apple decided I can't; and I want to install a > Bittorrent app on my PS3, but I can't, because Sony decided I can't. I > presume that you have read Zittrain's "The Future of the Internet", which > although becoming dated now gives many other examples. > > > -- > > *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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Mon Apr 29 06:10:33 2013 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:10:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] Evidence-based policy-making and impact assessments for Internet-related policies Message-ID: Dear all, during the discussions concerning a possible statement by the IGC on the "nature of the Internet" someone - I think it was Milton - underlined the need to have a clear "problem definition" and to assess the impact of different policy options. I also noted that others - I think it was Mawaki - pointed out that this is rather high bar for an "advocacy" statement. I take absolutely no position on the need for analysis / assessment before the IGC makes a statement on this, or other topics. The decision to issue a statement as the IGC is of course fully the responsibility of IGC members, which I'm not. However, this particular exchange led me to a broader consideration. As you might know, the European Commission (similarly to other governments / public authorities) has a formal obligation to conduct an "impact assessment" before proposing new initiatives. In reality, there are some subtleties - not all "initiatives" require it - but the key concept remains. You can find further information on the European Commission's approach to impact assessments at http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/index_en.htm. If you are interesed and have plenty of time at your disposal, you might also be interested in two recent papers analysing how well (or not :) the EC has performed in this particular area (G. Lucchetta, "Impact Assessment and the Policy Cycle in the EU", 2013, http://www.ceps.eu/book/impact-assessment-and-policy-cycle-eu; O. Fritsch, C. Radaelli, L. Schrefler, A. Renda, "Regulatory Quality in the European Commission and the UK: Old questions and new findings", 2012, http://www.ceps.eu/book/regulatory-quality-european-commission-and-uk-old-questions-and-new-findings). When conducting impact assessments, there are certain agreed procedures which are rather generic or "horizontal", i.e. applying to different policy areas; but there are also add-on procedures and methodologies that are used when tackling more specific policy areas / impacts. To continue with the example of the European Commission Impact Assessment procedures, which are the ones I know best, specific guidelines / methodologies to assess the impact on SMEs, administrative simplification and fundamental rights have been introduced throughout the years. I wonder whether there is a need to introduce specific guidelines / methodologies to assess the impact of Internet-related policies (which I define on the fly as "policies (including regulation, soft law, research activities) which either impact on, or are impacted by, the Internet). Questions that come to my mind: - is the Internet an important enough phenomenon / infrastructure to justify having specific methodologies to assess the impact of policies on it, and its impact on policies? - are existing methodologies (e.g. concerning the impact on ICT or telecommunication networks generically) enough to cover this need? - which kind of basic questions should one ask when assessing the impact of Internet-related policies? - which kind of methodological tools (and from which disciplines) should one consider when performing such impact assessment? Food for thought. I'd appreciate all your comments / reactions, either on the list or also privately. 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Mon Apr 29 06:59:34 2013 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 06:59:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] Evidence-based policy-making and impact assessments for Internet-related policies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <517E5296.80504@communisphere.com> Andrea, Here in New York City hundreds of years of experience with poor and sometimes disastrous land-uses led to inclusion in the city charter of a formalized public review process of real estate developments. It's called the Uniform Land-Use Review Procedure (see here ). This ULURP provides for the public's engagement as land-use proposals are reviewed by the affected community boards, borough boards, the city planning commission, and finally the city council. But there's no requirement for a similar review of our digital resources. Recently the Bloomberg Administration appointed a .NYC Community Advisory Board to: Provide feedback on the development of .nyc including strategies for using, delegating and marketing the top level domain; Discuss future uses of the domain including public utilities, smart city ideas and future planning uses such as email addresses for residents; Act as a community ambassador to provide updates to your constituency or sector, and relay feedback to the group; and to Provide input into policy and content for community.nyc. I'm a member of the Board and our initial meeting is later this week. While this is a positive step it remains ad hoc, with no charter mandate and no scope beyond our new TLD review. One City Council Member, Gale Brewer, has bemoaned the lack of a ULURP for the "Internet." There's a city-wide election this year and it's my hope that candidates will be asked if they support a ULURP for the Net. I hope similar efforts are underway elsewhere, but am unaware of same. If anyone knows of city UNETURP (ouch!) efforts , please let me know. Tom Lowenhaupt On 4/29/2013 6:10 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > Dear all, > > during the discussions concerning a possible statement by the IGC on > the "nature of the Internet" someone - I think it was Milton - > underlined the need to have a clear "problem definition" and to assess > the impact of different policy options. I also noted that others - I > think it was Mawaki - pointed out that this is rather high bar for an > "advocacy" statement. > > I take absolutely no position on the need for analysis / assessment > before the IGC makes a statement on this, or other topics. The > decision to issue a statement as the IGC is of course fully the > responsibility of IGC members, which I'm not. > > However, this particular exchange led me to a broader consideration. > As you might know, the European Commission (similarly to other > governments / public authorities) has a formal obligation to conduct > an "impact assessment" before proposing new initiatives. In reality, > there are some subtleties - not all "initiatives" require it - but the > key concept remains. > > You can find further information on the European Commission's approach > to impact assessments at > http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/index_en.htm. If you are > interesed and have plenty of time at your disposal, you might also be > interested in two recent papers analysing how well (or not :) the EC > has performed in this particular area (G. Lucchetta, "Impact > Assessment and the Policy Cycle in the EU", 2013, > http://www.ceps.eu/book/impact-assessment-and-policy-cycle-eu; O. > Fritsch, C. Radaelli, L. Schrefler, A. Renda, "Regulatory Quality in > the European Commission and the UK: Old questions and new findings", > 2012, > http://www.ceps.eu/book/regulatory-quality-european-commission-and-uk-old-questions-and-new-findings). > > > When conducting impact assessments, there are certain agreed > procedures which are rather generic or "horizontal", i.e. applying to > different policy areas; but there are also add-on procedures and > methodologies that are used when tackling more specific policy areas / > impacts. To continue with the example of the European Commission > Impact Assessment procedures, which are the ones I know best, specific > guidelines / methodologies to assess the impact on SMEs, > administrative simplification and fundamental rights have been > introduced throughout the years. > > I wonder whether there is a need to introduce specific guidelines / > methodologies to assess the impact of Internet-related policies (which > I define on the fly as "policies (including regulation, soft law, > research activities) which either impact on, or are impacted by, the > Internet). Questions that come to my mind: > > - is the Internet an important enough phenomenon / infrastructure to > justify having specific methodologies to assess the impact of policies > on it, and its impact on policies? > - are existing methodologies (e.g. concerning the impact on ICT or > telecommunication networks generically) enough to cover this need? > - which kind of basic questions should one ask when assessing the > impact of Internet-related policies? > - which kind of methodological tools (and from which disciplines) > should one consider when performing such impact assessment? > > Food for thought. I'd appreciate all your comments / reactions, either > on the list or also privately. > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Apr 29 12:55:50 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:55:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] | 04.24.13 | DHS to start deep packet inspection of federal network traffic In-Reply-To: References: <30460_1366827508_517821F4_30460_80_1_967543188.618444791366827506855.JavaMail.app@rbg13.atlis1> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Jane Fountain" Date: Apr 29, 2013 12:54 PM Subject: Fwd: | 04.24.13 | DHS to start deep packet inspection of federal network traffic To: "Diego Rafael Canabarro" FYI Professor of Political Science and Public Policy Director, National Center for Digital Government (ncdg.org) Director, Science, Technology and Society Initiative (umass.edu/sts) Thompson Hall 406 | 200 Hicks Way University of Massachusetts Amherst Amherst, MA 01003 Twitter: janeefountain | Skype: janeefountain | Web: http://people.umass.edu/jfountai/ New report on GPRAMA and cross-agency collaboration: http://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/implementing-cross-agency-collaboration-guide-federal-managers ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: FierceGovIT Date: Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 2:18 PM Subject: | 04.24.13 | DHS to start deep packet inspection of federal network traffic To: fountain at polsci.umass.edu If you are unable to see the message below, click here to view . [image: FierceGovernmentIT] *April 24, 2013* Sign up for free: Subscribe| Web| Mobile Refer FierceGovernmentIT to a Colleague This week's sponsor is AirSage. Learn how emerging trends are transforming the transportation industry. Traditional methods of compiling origin-destination data are compared with new technologies. Download whitepaper here. *Today's Top Stories* 1. DHS to start deep packet inspection of federal network traffic<#13e56b72985e5f04_13e3d44a5972897d_1> 2. Chinese espionage highlighted in data breach report<#13e56b72985e5f04_13e3d44a5972897d_2> 3. Agile Development isn't undisciplined, says panel of federal CIOs<#13e56b72985e5f04_13e3d44a5972897d_3> 4. Hagel tells committee he stopped Defense EHR RFP<#13e56b72985e5f04_13e3d44a5972897d_4> 5. NIST to establish cybersecurity FFRDC<#13e56b72985e5f04_13e3d44a5972897d_5> [image: Sign up for FierceMobileGovernment] *Also Noted:* <#13e56b72985e5f04_13e3d44a5972897d_AlsoNoted> Why NASA is firing cellphones into space; CFPB defends data collection; and *much more...* *Follow @fiercegovit on Twitter* *More News From the FierceGovernment Network:* 1. Q&A: USDA CIO Cheryl Cook discusses mobility projects 2. 32% of visitors to federal sites arrive via mobile, says ForeSee 3. Virtual communication tools can cause trouble in the workplace This week's sponsor is Coveo. *Research Report: How to Unlock Knowledge from Big, Unstructured Data to Improve Customer Service* Learn how to unlock knowledge trapped in silos and systems and read how advanced enterprise search technology can put your organization's collective knowledge in the hands of your service reps. Watch your service performance improve and customer satisfaction soar. Download Now! *FierceLive! Webinars* > Webinar: Federal security concerns and the cloud - Now Available On-Demand<#13e56b72985e5f04_13e3d44a5972897d_N10101> *Events* > AFCEA Bethesda Monthly Breakfast Series - April 25th - Bethesda, MD<#13e56b72985e5f04_13e3d44a5972897d_N10117> > 2013 Midyear Conference <#13e56b72985e5f04_13e3d44a5972897d_N10123> > TECHEXPO CYBER SECURITY Hiring Event - Columbia, MD - April 30th, 9am - 3pm <#13e56b72985e5f04_13e3d44a5972897d_N1012F> > Cleared Job Fair - May 8 - Crystal City, VA<#13e56b72985e5f04_13e3d44a5972897d_N1013B> > Gartner Security & Risk Management Summit 2013 - June 10 ? 13, 2013 - National Harbor, MD <#13e56b72985e5f04_13e3d44a5972897d_N10147> *Marketplace* > Whitepaper: The Importance of Managing Privileged Accounts<#13e56b72985e5f04_13e3d44a5972897d_N1015D> > eBook: Smarter Service: The Contract Center of the Future<#13e56b72985e5f04_13e3d44a5972897d_N10169> > Whitepaper: The Future of Transportation Studies: A Comparative Review<#13e56b72985e5f04_13e3d44a5972897d_N10175> > NEVER MISS AN IMPORTANT GOVERNMENT EVENT AGAIN!<#13e56b72985e5f04_13e3d44a5972897d_N10181> * Post a classified ad: Click here . * General ad info: Click here Today's Top News 1. DHS to start deep packet inspection of federal network traffic By David Perera Comment| Forward| Twitter| Facebook| LinkedIn The Homeland Security Department will institute near real-time deep packet inspection of traffic coming to or from .gov federal Internet protocol addresses, DHS says in an April 19 privacy impact analysis(.pdf). The inspection, which the DHS Office of Cybersecurity and Communications is rolling out as the EINSTEIN 3 Accelerated program, will permit network security analysts to look at the content of electronic communications, as opposed to just the IP packet headers the department has examined through network flow data under implementation of EINSTIEN 1. The examination will be done for cybersecurity purposes and threat signatures developed by the office--and shared with Internet Service Providers that deliver connectivity to federal agencies--and will minimize "information that could be considered" personally identifiable information to the extent possible. Signatures most often will be based on network traffic metadata, such as IP addresses, but they may potentially include any packet data, "including the payload." The privacy assessment says it uses the phrase "information that could be considered PII" because some threat indicators contains the same type of information people use to identify themselves in online communication, such as an email address. In the context of Einstein 3 Accelerated, "these types of information are not used to identify an individual; instead, they are used as a reference point for particular known or suspected cyber threats," it says. Information collected under deep packet inspection can be used for secondary purposes and shared with federal, state or local law enforcement, the assessment says. If information "appears to indicate involvement in activities that may violate laws," it can be sent to law enforcement authorities. Sharing with police can occur also should that sharing be "done in the performance of a lawful government function," the assessment says. "Only information that is necessary to understand reports will be included in any of these products," it adds. Initially, the office will also operate two cyber threat countermeasures, the assessment says: Domain Name Server sinkholing and quarantining email that filtering determines may be malicious. For more: - downloadthe EINSTEIN 3 Accelerated PIA (.pdf) *Related Articles:* Lute: Sequestration will delay Einstein-3A and DHS cybersecurity outreach EINSTEIN 2 could violate Fourth Amendment Read more about: cybersecurity, DHS back to top <#13e56b72985e5f04_13e3d44a5972897d_top> ------------------------------ 2. Chinese espionage highlighted in data breach report By Molly Bernhart Walker Comment| Forward| Twitter| Facebook| LinkedIn Figures in an annual, international data breach report indicate that China is a hotbed of government and industrial espionage. China-based breaches accounted for the largest source of espionage, accordingto figures in Verizon's Data Breach Investigations Report, which the company published April 23. Nineteen organizations, including the Homeland Security Department and international law enforcement agencies, contribute to the report, which analyzes more than 47,000 security incidents. For 75 percent of the breaches reviewed, researchers were able to identify a country of origin. Financially-motivated breaches involved actors from Eastern Europe, while 96 percent of espionage cases were attributable to threat actors in China, according to the report. Ninety-two percent of breaches in 2012 were perpetrated by outsiders and 19 percent were state-affiliated actors, finds the report. "State-affiliated actors tied to China are the biggest mover in 2012. Their efforts to steal IP compromise about one-fifth of all breached in this data set," write report authors. Report authors note that attack attribution to a person, group or country is difficult. "While we don't require evidence that will stand up in a court of law, we also don't guess or simply rely on low-confidence indicators like geolocation of IP addresses," says the report. "Sometimes attribution is based on arrests and prosecutions, but it often comes down to the use of particular tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) associated with known threat groups." State-affiliated actors have resources to create specialized tools that are less easily recognized, write report authors. That being said they also often use the same formula and pieces of multi-functional malware in campaigns. "More than 95 percent of all attacks tied to state-affiliated espionage employeed phishing as a means of establishing a foothold in their intended victims' systems," write report authors. As for what breach techniques were most prominent overall last year, the DBIR points to hacking and credentials. According to the report 52 percent of breaches used some form of hacking and 76 percent exploited weak or stolen credentials. The number of breaches that used social tactics, such as phishing, were four times higher in 2012 than the previous year, which report authors attribute to targeted espionage campaigns. For more: - downloadthe report, "2013 Data Breach Investigations Report" (.pdf) *Related Articles:* DOE victim of mid-January data breach, though no classified data stolen Cyber Europe 2012 revealed national and international cyber attack response holes Data breach requirement stays in conference defense authorization bill Read more about: Data Breach Investigations Report, China back to top <#13e56b72985e5f04_13e3d44a5972897d_top> ------------------------------ 3. Agile Development isn't undisciplined, says panel of federal CIOs By David Perera Comment| Forward| Twitter| Facebook| LinkedIn Some of the common criticisms against Agile Development--that it produces sloppy code, that documentation gets overlooked, that user development stories are cumbersome--are unfounded or the result of bad Agile implementations, a group of federal chief information officers said April 23. "Folks think that Agile is undisciplined. I think just exactly the opposite is true," said Barclay Butler, director of the Defense and Veterans Affair departments interagency program office charged with developing joint electronic health record software. He cited the process of reconciling different user stories to make decisions about tackling backlogs as an example; he spoke during an Association for Federal Information Resources Management event in Washington, D.C. But it's possible under Agile to make the mistake of pushing completion of more complex requirements from sprint to sprint until they accumulate to a project-damaging degree, acknowledged Liz DelNegro, CIO of the Federal Acquisition Service within the General Services Administration. One such GSA Agile project did exactly that, she said. "That came back to hurt us, I'd say," DelNegro added. And it's also true that "a lot of developers will use any excuse they can to not write documentation, and Agile is a very good excuse, sometimes," said Mark Schwartz, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services CIO. Documentation should be treated as a deliverable due at the end of a sprint, he added. "It should be assessed by quality assurance, the same way you test any code--it's just another artifact that you're producing," he said. When it comes to ensuring good code, a principle of Agile is to refactor often, Schwartz said. "It's perfectly acceptable that you went down one path and now you need to change and refactor. ... The reason why that doesn't cost you more is because you didn't get into analysis paralysis upfront," Schwartz said. Asked later if "Agile" in government is synonymous with "scrum," Schwartz said not necessarily so. USCIS uses scrum for development, he said--when it's possible to define the contents of a sprint, or when "you can say 'these are the things that we're going to do in this time box.'" But, the agency prefers Kanban for operations and maintenance, he said, since it "works better when you have a continuous flow of requirements and you want to limit your work in progress." *Related Articles:* DHS incremental IT development should be matched by better outcome reporting, says GAO official Agile Development requires agile oversight, says U.K. government office Agile development faces challenges at federal agencies Read more about: Scrum, Barclay Butler back to top <#13e56b72985e5f04_13e3d44a5972897d_top> ------------------------------ 4. Hagel tells committee he stopped Defense EHR RFP By David Perera Comment| Forward| Twitter| Facebook| LinkedIn Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told a House committee earlier this month the department pulled back from issuing an planned request for proposals for an electronic health record at his instruction. "I stopped it from going out the end of March because I didn't think we knew what the hell we were doing," Hagel toldthe House Appropriations subcommittee on defense April 16. Adoption of a commercial and proprietary EHR has strong support in some parts of the Defense Department, and proprietary system adoption supporters appeared to have the upper hand following a February announcementby then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki that both departments would stop development on a core, joint EHR system. Under Hagel, the momentum for purchasing a system has by most accounts slowed, although by no means disappeared. The secretary also told the committee that he's "restructuring who's in charge and the accountability of this." "Until I get my arms around this, I'm not going to spend any more money on this," he said, adding that "we will have something decided within 30 days." For more: - go tothe hearing webpage (prepared testimony and webcast available) *Related Articles:* DoD and VA should complete iEHR 'as soon as possible,' says IOM task force VA can't 'force feed' DoD on VistA GAO calls into question ability of VA, DoD to collaborate on EHRs Read more about: DoD, iEHR back to top <#13e56b72985e5f04_13e3d44a5972897d_top> ------------------------------ 5. NIST to establish cybersecurity FFRDC By David Perera Comment| Forward| Twitter| Facebook| LinkedIn The National Institute of Standards and Technology says it will establish the first information system security federally funded research and development center. In an April 22 *Federal Register* notice, NIST says the FFRDC will support its National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence, a public-private cybersecurity effort to find remediation for cybersecurity problems. FFRDCs are nonprofit institutions; that model is "the most effective way the center can work with private companies to accelerate industry's adoption of integrated tools and technologies," said NIST Director Patrick Gallagher in a statement . Among the tasks the NIST FFRDC will undertake is to research and develop "frameworks and implementation strategies for inducing industry to invest in and expedite adoption of effective cybersecurity controls and mechanisms" and provide systems engineering support to the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence, the *Federal Register* notice states. FFRDCs have come under some recent criticism; a June 2012 paper(.pdf) from the Professional Services Council, an industry advocate group, says "there is strong evidence that FFRDCs are significantly more expensive than for-profit contractors on a per capita basis." For more: - go tothe *Federal Register* notice - readNIST's press statement on the FFRDC *Related Articles:* NIST sorting comments on cybersecurity framework 2014 Budget Request: NIST No 'fat' at NIST, says National Research Council representative Read more about: National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence, FFRDCs back to top <#13e56b72985e5f04_13e3d44a5972897d_top> ------------------------------ Also Noted > Why NASA is firing cellphones into space. Article( *NattyJo*) > CFPB defends data collecting. Article( *GovExec*) > Medical service's Facebook experience a sign of social media's growth. Article( *GCN*) > DOD issues directive to define role of CIO Article( *FCW*) *And Finally...* Lou Reed meets the gentlemen of the press in 1974. Embedded video * Webinars * * Post listing: Click here . * General ad info: Click here . * > Webinar: Federal security concerns and the cloud - Now Available On-Demand* Watch this interactive FierceGovernmentIT webinar that explores the extent to which data security concerns act as a cloud computing adoption obstacle, the extent to which the can be mitigated, and the resulting impacts those mitigations may have on use cases and deployment. Watch Today . ------------------------------ * Events * * Post listing: Click here . * General ad info: Click here . * > AFCEA Bethesda Monthly Breakfast Series - April 25th - Bethesda, MD* FedRAMP will soon be key to every agency’s cloud initiative as the "do once, use many" security assessment framework looks to reduce long-term investments. Register hereand hear GSA, DHS and Commerce representatives take a look at cloud security through the lens of FedRAMP. * > 2013 Midyear Conference* NASCIO conference attendees include the highest-profile government and corporate technology experts in the nation. In addition to state, federal and local CIOs and corporate partners, past conference attendees have included governors, state and federal legislators, and more. Learn more! * > TECHEXPO CYBER SECURITY Hiring Event - Columbia, MD - April 30th, 9am - 3pm* Are you a Cyber Warrior & seeking a new employment opportunity? Don't miss TECHEXPO's Cyber Security Job Fair on April 30th in Columbia, MD. Interview face-to-face with industry leaders & learn from our panel of distinguished speakers! Cyber Security Experience Required. For more information on attending or exhibiting visit: www.TechExpoUSA.com * > Cleared Job Fair - May 8 - Crystal City, VA* Security cleared professionals please join us 11am - 3pm at the DoubleTree Crystal City. Our cleared facilities employers will include Engility, General Dynamics-IT, HP, ManTech International, SAIC, Tanager, Verizon-Federal Network Systems and more! We'll also be featuring career seminars and professional resume reviews. Pre-register here.Active or current security clearance required. * > Gartner Security & Risk Management Summit 2013 - June 10 ? 13, 2013 - National Harbor, MD* This premier gathering for senior IT and business executives offers five role-based programs that take a deep dive into role evolution in information security and risk. Save $300 on the standard registration rate with priority code GARTFG. Click here to register now. ------------------------------ * Marketplace * * Post listing: Click here . * General ad info: Click here . * > Whitepaper: The Importance of Managing Privileged Accounts* Organizations can benefit greatly from a methodical process for the proper use, management and enforcement of administrative privileges. Read this whitepaper to learn how to develop and enforce a strategy for managing privileged accounts. * > eBook: Smarter Service: The Contract Center of the Future* This eBook explores the challenges facing traditional contact centers and the benefits of deploying the contact center of the future. You'll find links to further resources on the final page. Download today. * > Whitepaper: The Future of Transportation Studies: A Comparative Review* Learn how emerging trends are transforming the transportation industry. Traditional methods of compiling origin-destination data are compared with new technologies. Download whitepaper here. * > NEVER MISS AN IMPORTANT GOVERNMENT EVENT AGAIN!* GovEvents.comis your one-stop-shop for all government- & military-related events worldwide. A complimentary service, GovEvents provides instant access to a comprehensive directory of conferences, seminars, webcasts and more. Simply register to start finding events that matter to you today >> ©2013 FierceMarkets This email was sent to fountain at polsci.umass.edu as part of the FierceGovernmentIT email list which is administered by FierceMarkets, 1900 L Street NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 628-8778. Refer FierceGovernmentIT to a Colleague Contact Us Editor: David Perera VP Sales & Business Development: Jack Fordi Publisher: Ron Lichtinger Advertise Advertising Information: contact Jack Fordi . Request a media kit . Email Management Manage your subscription Change your email address Unsubscribe from FierceGovernmentIT Explore our network of publications: - FierceBiotech Research - FierceBiotech - FierceBiotechIT - FierceCIO - FierceCIO:TechWatch - FierceContentManagement - FierceDeveloper - FierceEMR - FierceFinance - FierceFinanceIT - FierceDrugDelivery - FierceGovernment - FierceHealthcare - FierceHealthFinance - FierceHealthIT - FierceGovernmentIT - FierceIPTV - FierceMobileContent - FierceMobileHealthcare - FierceMobileIT - FierceOnlineVideo - FiercePharma - FierceMedicalDevices - FiercePharma Manufacturing - FierceComplianceIT - FierceTelecom - FierceVaccines - FierceEnterpriseCommunications - FierceBroadbandWireless - FierceWireless - FierceWireless:Europe - Hospital Impact - FierceHealthPayer - FiercePracticeManagement - FierceEnergy - FierceSmartGrid -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jaryn56 at gmail.com Mon Apr 29 13:52:12 2013 From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:52:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=C2=BFNo_se_puede_opinar=3F?= Message-ID: ¿No se puede opinar? *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Norbert Bollow Date: 2013/4/25 Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good: in an Hourglass To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Lee W McKnight wrote: > All too true, speaking of my own waist only of course : ( > > But - there's hope the Internet may go on a diet, at least according > to Steve Deering. > > http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/03/hourglass-london-ietf.pd > > Still whether or not the IPv6 - diet - is effective, doesn't change > my observation/contention we may find public goods both above and > below the IP layer, in the present Internet ecosystem. As well as, > many private goods. Apart from the typo (the correct link is http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/03/hourglass-london-ietf.pdf) that's a really, really good read - not only really funny, but also very insightful - thanks a lot Lee for pointing us to that! Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Apr 29 14:03:00 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:03:00 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good In-Reply-To: <517DDF6E.6090601@ciroap.org> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23B7F0D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5170CA7F.2000109@itforchange.net> <5170E2EA.1060807@itforchange.net> <20130419182251.08c918bc@quill.bollow.ch> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1F5CBB@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <112a01ce3d31$80c418f0$824c4ad0$@gmail.com> <5176ABBB.6060502@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C5C3E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130424091013.447f974e@quill.bollow.ch> <91CB8576-57C7-468C-8753-E9B584C5113C@telus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C6736@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <517C0AF7.1080703@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23C9CAC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.s yr.edu> <517DDF6E.6090601@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD23CB087@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> I can't say if this is what Mawaki meant, but there are many mobile Internet services around the world (including mine, Maxis here in Malaysia) that give you free or cheaper access to Facebook than to other social networking websites. OK, so this is at least a substantive issue, but this is a classic nondiscrimination issue that is typically debated in the context of network neutrality. It has absolutely nothing to do with the "public goods" character of the internet or with "the commons." You do not get any traction on that debate by slinging those words around. If you want to make a net neutrality statement, make a net neutrality statement, at least people will know what you are talking about. Also, devices such as phones and game consoles typically allow a gatekeeper to approve what apps you can use to access the Internet. For example I have an iPhone, and I want to use a Bitcoin client on it - but I can't, because Apple decided I can't; and I want to install a Bittorrent app on my PS3, but I can't, because Sony decided I can't. I presume that you have read Zittrain's "The Future of the Internet", which although becoming dated now gives many other examples. Again, this is a matter of the benefits or costs of the platform operator having the authority to internalize the externalities of the internet by making decisions about which apps/services can be excluded and which cannot. There are two sides to that debate. The platform operators argue that they should have editorial discretion; some consumer groups actually _want_ platform operators to make those decisions; many economists and regulators feel that competition among platform operators is enough to keep abuses in check. There are various examples of where public pressure has ended some arbitrary incidents of discrimination. My purpose here is not to take either of those sides, it is to point out that that debate has little to do with the "public goods" character of the internet. Nor do I see what we contribute to that debate with a vague invocation of "the commons." An app platform operated as a "public good" or "commons" would mean what, exactly? That it is run by the government/public sector? Or that there was no management at all, anyone could put anything on it, including malware, phishing exploits, advertising driven stuff, and no one would have any right to remove it, even if thousands of consumers complain about it? But if there is selection, then who decides what is selected and under what criteria? The government? Think that'll be better? Which government? In sum, the policy prescription implied by such characterization is not clear. This is still a meaningless statement. Also, we are still lacking evidence that this is a growing problem. 6 years ago, when I first started studying mobile network neutrality, mobile walled gardens were the NORM. Most mobile operators confined you to a restricted set of special services they had deals with. The advent of the iPhone completed eliminated that model. The mobile internet is far more open now than it was then. Where is the evidence of a "growing trend?" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Apr 30 00:54:36 2013 From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 00:54:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=C2=BFDictadores=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130430005436.17034ewb07te9zm4@www.ciencitec.com> Ilustre Tocayo y compatriota: ¿Que paso? José F. Callo Romero CEO ciencitec.com José Félix Arias Ynche escribió: > ¿No se puede opinar? > > *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* > * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Norbert Bollow > Date: 2013/4/25 > Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good: in an > Hourglass > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > Lee W McKnight wrote: > >> All too true, speaking of my own waist only of course : ( >> >> But - there's hope the Internet may go on a diet, at least according >> to Steve Deering. >> >> http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/03/hourglass-london-ietf.pd >> >> Still whether or not the IPv6 - diet - is effective, doesn't change >> my observation/contention we may find public goods both above and >> below the IP layer, in the present Internet ecosystem. As well as, >> many private goods. > > Apart from the typo (the correct link is > http://www.iab.org/wp-content/IAB-uploads/2011/03/hourglass-london-ietf.pdf) > that's a really, really good read - not only really funny, but also very > insightful - thanks a lot Lee for pointing us to that! > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 jfcallo at ciencitec.com Tue Apr 30 01:01:24 2013 From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 01:01:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?B?wr9DZW5zdXJhPywgwr9EaXNjcmltaW5hY2lvbj8s?= =?UTF-8?B?IMK/WGVub2ZvYmlhPw==?= In-Reply-To: References: <3lf0emuwvcr49ccyfkqvhgt9.1367026728895@email.android.com> Message-ID: <20130430010124.80411rpesg030opw@www.ciencitec.com> Ilustre Tocayo y compatriota: ¿Que pasa en la lista?, que te ha mortificado, de lo contrario, seran muchos mas los que levanten su protesta contra estas personas, cuyo lenguaje despectivo no cabe en esta lista y mucho menos en miembros que buscan democratizar Internet. Jose, es tiempo de hacer fuerza y que nuestro bloque Latinoamericano tome fuerza en el contexto internacional, bsta de oportunistas y figuretis, que se venden bien en el extranjero y que no hacen nada aqui en Lima, Perú, solo van a levantarse dinero y decir que hacen obras. Basta ya Por favor al moderador, le sugerimos con todo respeto que estas acciones xenofobas no se repitan. Por Internet de todos y para todos. José F. Callo Romero CEO ciencitec.com Lima - Perú José Félix Arias Ynche escribió: > Para las personas que vivimos en el tercer mundo o sub-desarrollados, el > termino de: tercermundista; es el de “clasificarnos cómo personas que no > tienen ni voz ni voto por su condición, por su escasa cultura o > desarrollo”. > > > No me arrepiento ni me amilano de vivir en un país en desarrollo o > tercermundista, como ustedes nos llaman. > > > No estoy lejos de ser uno de los menos afortunados entre mis compañeros de > América Latina y el Caribe y de otras personas de países en desarrollo. > > > En las condiciones en la que ahora me encuentro leyendo los mensajes de > esta lista, en una Internet de barrio, porque no tengo el lujo de una > conexión a Internet de alta velocidad en casa o donde sea y tratando de > entender y traducir los mensajes en ingles. > > > Solo pido que los que integren y debaten en esta lista lo hagan con altura > y invitando a los demás a participar en este proceso, porque de lo > contrario esta lista se vera (o ya se esta viendo) como de gente de “élite > cerrada”, que solamente le interesa lo suyo, su posición, sin solidaridad > con los demás compañeros que no tienen el privilegio de tener conexión de > internet en su casa y menos una laptop > > > > > > *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* > * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* > > > 2013/4/26 Carlos A. Afonso > >> I particularly like the "one-rooters", although I do not necessarily >> belong to that tribe. ;) Note that one other tribe is the anthropophagists >> -- literally from Greek, the ones who practice the eating ("phagia") of >> human beings ("anthropos"). :) >> >> fraternal rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> ------------ >> C. A. Afonso >> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: Ian Peter >> Date: 26/04/2013 17:30 (GMT-03:00) >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good >> >> >> epiphenomonalists, third-worlders, one rooters, andropophagists, >> >> is this Lewis Carroll's Mad Hatter's Party? >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Riaz K Tayob >> Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2013 5:56 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as a commons/ public good >> >> And 'going forward', I forgot to mention one more category (fuzzy, >> subject to Sobiret's paradox) to give more clarity, 'minimal >> accommodationists' are those from the third world who seek >> accommodation/fit/consensus with the dominant/first world view without >> articulating a political or substantive position that strengthens the >> third world on the first/third world dialectic. These are not to be >> dogmatically affirmed (particularly since judgements of these nature, >> particularly in hindsight are 20/20), often matters of degree and position. >> >> May as well get this out of the way. >> >> Riaz >> >> On 2013/04/26 03:07 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: >> > Too good: "There has got to be another way , but for the life of me I >> > can't seem to define it." >> > You missed out "Status-Quo"ists, people... :P >> > -C >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Apr 30 11:44:47 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 11:44:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: ISIF Asia Award nominations open -- deadline May 15 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Joe Karaganis Date: Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:40 AM Subject: ISIF Asia Award nominations open -- deadline May 15 To: IP-ENFORCEMENT at roster.wcl.american.edu A nice way to honor some worthy Asia Pacific work. ISIF has signaled interest in copyright stuff. J ISIF Asia award nominations close soon. We want to recognize the hard work from organizations that have implemented innovative solutions to development problems using Internet technologies on 4 different categories 1) innovation on access provision, 2) innovation on learning and localization, 3) code for the common good and 4) rights. Please check the descriptions about the categories to find the best fit for your projects and submit your nomination by 15 May www.isif.asia/award Joe Karaganis The American Assembly -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 30 15:32:54 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:32:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] MM blog post on what is really threatening Internet Freedom Message-ID: Not that I agree with all of the post of course, but this hits home in terms of our latest discussion: http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/04/23/wtf-wtpf-the-continuing-battle-over-internet-governance-principles/ "The threats to Internet freedom posed by states are more serious than those posed by private actors. Get over the stuff about ‘Googledom’ and ‘Facebookistan.’ It’s a cute metaphor but there is really no comparison between sovereigns and these businesses. States have the power to tax and expropriate, they have a monopoly on the use of force, they generate armed conflicts that result in war; they fund and deploy weapons. You do not choose to use their services. However much you might think you are locked in to Google, there is still a huge qualitative difference between your ability to use or not use its services and the choice you have with respect to states. This doesn’t mean that the private sector is perfect nor that there is no need for states to ever order or regulate what private actors do, but it helps to keep your priorities straight." -- 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