From nb at bollow.ch Thu Aug 1 04:42:13 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 10:42:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Broader commercialization concerns (was Re: Update from today's MAG call) In-Reply-To: References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> Message-ID: <20130801104213.45886fcb@quill> JFC Morfin wrote: > At 15:02 31/07/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting > >commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy > >has simply been declared dead > > Norbert, Anriette, > > OpenStand does not mean commercialization but legitimate or > over-corporatization (that depends on the cooperation others bring or > not). Hi Jefsey I see the scandal around that Bali IGF fundraising doc and the concerns which you have been raising about “OpenStand” (which I certainly share) as separate issues which this in common that they are in my view both part of a very dangerous pattern of various attacks against the principle that public policy questions should be decided in a democratic manner rather than in a commercialized market-driven manner. > - The point here is not logos/banners (this is already the on-line > case: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/funding/86-donors). From my perspective, the point in regard to the Bali IGF fundraising doc is about how various aspects of the environment in which public policy processes take place subconsciously influence the participants in the public policy processes. Leaving aside for a moment the question whether private sector donations are an acceptable funding strategy for public policy processes in the first place: If donations are accepted then it is of course appropriate to make them transparent and to give the sponsors the kind of recognition that they are currently given on the IGF website, and the example that Markus gave about one situation where sponsors' banners were put up outside the venue of the UN event but so that they were visible from the cafeteria is also ok from my perspective. The flood of commercial messaging that the Indonesian fundraising team had planned would however have profoundly influenced the total atmosphere of the event, and I am glad that the UN has put their foot down and said “no go”. Even more serious is the aspect that --even if in a limited way-- speaking slots were offered in exchange for money. The document did explicitly not offer to sell panelist speaking slots, but it did contain the following offers: For private sector sponsors: “Major sponsors may recommend speaker(s) for the closing ceremony.” For government sponsors: “Major sponsors may lead a session in the IGF and be responsible for opening, summary, and the closing of events.” > - The point is about the ongoing research that is needed to further > the evolution of the Internet. I agree that the point about “OpenStand” which you are emphasizing is a legitimate and important one. > 2005 WSIS Tunis Agenda has mandated the IGF to be principally a > discussion forum to facilitate a multilogue among stakeholders and > "identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the > relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make > recommendations". Reasonnable corporate influence, pressure and > lobbying is legitimate. What is a fault is the lack of governments > (and their international organizations) funding and civil-society non > commercial voluntary work coordination. The Tunis Agenda mandate for the IGF also specifies that the IGF shall be “democratic”. From that perspective, it is IMO a clear no-go to give corporations power to exert pressure (such power is there automatically when an event depends on voluntary private sector funding) while public interest representatives don't have any comparable kind of power. On this basis it is my view that the IGF should be funded from the UN budget together with the host country governments. Private sector donations should be neither solicited nor accepted. Let's face it, developing global public policy and doing that in an appropriate way costs money. Ultimately that cost is borne by the population of the world, regardless of whether the money is extracted say through taxation of corporations and it then goes towards the UN budget, or if the corporations sponsor those UN events that they wish to support. In both cases the money is ultimately paid by consumers as part of the price of services rendered. The difference is just that for one of the funding paths it is *possible* to organize it in accordance with democratic principles. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Aug 1 13:30:14 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 19:30:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Broader commercialization concerns (was Re: Update from today's MAG call) In-Reply-To: <20130801104213.45886fcb@quill> References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> <20130801104213.45886fcb@quill> Message-ID: Hi! Norbert, We broadly agree on many points. However, my background is "agoric" (i.e. the dynamic convergence of the logic diversity maintaining emergences). This polylectic way of thinking you need when confronted to many or myriads of parameters. - It was the technical philosophy of the Tymnet technology and policy that we used to teach and deploy the international network services, support OSI, and welcome TCP/IP during its first decade (1977/1986). Therefore, I saw it at work, both in the technical and political area, and supported its (national, corporate, individual) use. - It is the necessary approach of the internet multilingualization that we confirmed with IDNA (RFC 5890/95) as an example of the way the internet architecture supports diversity by subsidiarity – something its community has not digested yet, but technically flourishes with the architectural patches that are the Web, IDNA, apps, etc. - etc. In such thinking, common to statistical physics and centuries of philosophy and currently forgotten by financial analysts, nothing can be considered as a separate issue. Our period makes this especially clear with the network meshing and the time contraction due to digital processing. However, the fundamentality of the necessary changes deters us from switching from democratic votes, specialized dialogue, and dialectic reasoning (moreover, they have also to digest monolectic efficiency [cybernetics]), even if we know we are wrong. We, therefore, prefer not to deeply investigate and consider the networking relations, rather than to explore today's reality of our polycratic open multilogue (everyone talking with everyone). Alvin Toffler gave our syndrome a name in 1970: "Future shock: stress from too much change in too short a period of time". There is no "plot". There are long/medium term evolutions of the universe mechanism, we can influence by the right small moves, at the right time. Obviously everything has a cost. However, it has to be evaluated in using a common independent metric. Relativity is that everyone has his/her independent metric. This is why: - either there is a need for a conversion between the metrics of nature, humanity, and reality. - or there is no conversion (i.e. I cannot exchange an idea against a hotel room), but there are cross areas of mutual assistance: civil society leaders may be invited by sponsors and govs may help research, in the same way that FLOSS makes Apache available to everyone for free. Best jfc At 10:42 01/08/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote: >Hi Jefsey > >I see the scandal around that Bali IGF fundraising doc and the concerns >which you have been raising about "OpenStand" (which I certainly share) >as separate issues which this in common that they are in my view both >part of a very dangerous pattern of various attacks against the >principle that public policy questions should be decided in a >democratic manner rather than in a commercialized market-driven manner. > > > - The point here is not logos/banners (this is already the on-line > > case: http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/funding/86-donors). > > From my perspective, the point in regard to the Bali IGF fundraising >doc is about how various aspects of the environment in which public >policy processes take place subconsciously influence the participants >in the public policy processes. > >Leaving aside for a moment the question whether private sector >donations are an acceptable funding strategy for public policy >processes in the first place: If donations are accepted then it is >of course appropriate to make them transparent and to give the sponsors >the kind of recognition that they are currently given on the IGF >website, and the example that Markus gave about one situation where >sponsors' banners were put up outside the venue of the UN event but so >that they were visible from the cafeteria is also ok from my >perspective. > >The flood of commercial messaging that the Indonesian fundraising team >had planned would however have profoundly influenced the total >atmosphere of the event, and I am glad that the UN has put their foot >down and said "no go". > >Even more serious is the aspect that --even if in a limited way-- >speaking slots were offered in exchange for money. The document did >explicitly not offer to sell panelist speaking slots, but it did >contain the following offers: For private sector sponsors: "Major >sponsors may recommend speaker(s) for the closing ceremony." For >government sponsors: "Major sponsors may lead a session in the IGF and >be responsible for opening, summary, and the closing of events.” > > > - The point is about the ongoing research that is needed to further > > the evolution of the Internet. > >I agree that the point about "OpenStand" which you are emphasizing is a >legitimate and important one. > > > 2005 WSIS Tunis Agenda has mandated the IGF to be principally a > > discussion forum to facilitate a multilogue among stakeholders and > > "identify emerging issues, bring them to the attention of the > > relevant bodies and the general public, and, where appropriate, make > > recommendations". Reasonnable corporate influence, pressure and > > lobbying is legitimate. What is a fault is the lack of governments > > (and their international organizations) funding and civil-society non > > commercial voluntary work coordination. > >The Tunis Agenda mandate for the IGF also specifies that the IGF shall >be "democratic". From that perspective, it is IMO a clear no-go to give >corporations power to exert pressure (such power is there automatically >when an event depends on voluntary private sector funding) while public >interest representatives don't have any comparable kind of power. > >On this basis it is my view that the IGF should be funded from the UN >budget together with the host country governments. Private sector >donations should be neither solicited nor accepted. > >Let's face it, developing global public policy and doing that in an >appropriate way costs money. Ultimately that cost is borne by the >population of the world, regardless of whether the money is extracted >say through taxation of corporations and it then goes towards the UN >budget, or if the corporations sponsor those UN events that they wish >to support. In both cases the money is ultimately paid by consumers as >part of the price of services rendered. The difference is just that for >one of the funding paths it is *possible* to organize it in accordance >with democratic principles. > >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 ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com Thu Aug 1 13:41:17 2013 From: ms.narine.khachatryan at gmail.com (Narine Khachatryan) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 22:41:17 +0500 Subject: [governance] XKeyscore: NSA tool collects 'nearly everything a user does on the internet' In-Reply-To: <20130731163842.6225636e@quill> References: <20130731163842.6225636e@quill> Message-ID: Snowden granted one-year asylum in Russia http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/01/edward-snowden-leaves-moscow-airport-live Regards, Narine -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sylvia at apnic.net Thu Aug 1 20:28:34 2013 From: sylvia at apnic.net (Sylvia Cadena) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 00:28:34 +0000 Subject: [governance] 2014 ISIF Asia Grant applications close 9 August Message-ID: Thanks in advance for your help to distribute this widely among your contacts in the AP region. All the best, Sylvia ________________________________________________________________________ 2014 ISIF Asia Grant applications close 9 August ________________________________________________________________________ An ISIF Asia Grant can help you get your project off the ground and increase your organization's potential to attract additional donors to continue or upscale your project's implementation. If you are working on an initiative to improve communications and information infrastructure for your local community and you need some funds to continue with your hard work, there is still time to apply for a 2014 ISIF Asia Grant! ISIF Asia gives grants of up to AUD 30,000 to projects that will be implemented in the Asia Pacific region within a 3 to 12 month period. Successful proposals will be aligned with the following categories: - Innovation on access provision This category focus on innovative solutions providing low cost deployment with low power consumption and low maintenance to expand fixed and mobile access to the Internet, information services and/or applications in your community. Innovation should not necessarily be technical, it could refer to organizational/business arrangements that support access provision, or improve the quality of access through accessibility or linguistic diversity. - Innovation on learning and localization This category covers capacity building and localization efforts, which are key to improve the skills needed to design, maintain, and manage ICT infrastructure and services in local languages. Localized projects support local talent and create job opportunities in rural or urban marginalized areas. Your innovative, open, inclusive, and sustainable approach to learning and language diversity are key elements to guarantee access to information that is needed to offer reliable services and applications to your community. - Code for the common good This category includes applications and other software solutions that enable communities in a variety of ways. High mobile penetration in the Asia Pacific region has been a catalyst in the development of mobile-based services, applications and software solutions. These solutions have been used to support timely and relevant information dissemination on a large scale using a range of network infrastructures through a variety of devices, even where literacy rates are lower. Mobile technologies have enabled communities to increase participation in political processes, coordinate efforts during emergency situations, receive extreme weather alerts, communicate with remote health services, and receive specialized patient referrals, among many other applications. - Rights This category supports the strategic use of Internet tools and services to promote freedom of expression, freedom of association, protects privacy, security, consumers' rights, gender equality, new forms of intellectual property in the digital environment, and a wider range of issues related to the Internet and human rights. In addition to the grant, 3 of the ISIF Asia 2014 grant recipients will be selected to receive additional mentoring on evaluation and research communication through a partnership between ISIF Asia and the project "Developing Evaluation & Communication Capacity in Information Society Research (DECI-2)". Teams will acquire valuable knowledge and skills that their organizations will be able to use not only for the ISIF Asia supported project but to their organizations as a whole. For more information about the DECI-2 project, visit: http://evaluationandcommunicationinpractice.ca/ Prepare a successful application: read the guidelines provided! ----------------- The ISIF Asia Secretariat recommends to carefully read the elegibility criteria, guidelines and tips for a successful application, before you submit your application: http://isif.asia/guidelines_grants To read more about ISIF Asia Grant eligibility criteria, please visit: http://www.isif.asia/eligibility_criteria_for_grant_proposals Finally, here are some handy tips for preparing your ISIF Asia Grant proposal: http://www.isif.asia/tips_for_successful_grant_submission Submit your grant proposal by 9 August: http://isif.asia/grant For more information about ISIF Asia grants, please contact info at isif.asia -- Sylvia Cadena | Community Awards and Grants Specialist | sylvia at apnic.net ISIF Asia Information Society Innovation Fund Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) 6 Cordelia Street, South Brisbane, QLD, 4101 Australia | PO Box 3646 Tel: +61 7 3858 3100 | Fax: +61 7 3858 3199 http://www.apnic.net | http://www.isif.asia sip: sylvia at voip.apnic.net skype: sylviacadena https://www.facebook.com/ISIF.asia http://gplusme.at/ISIFAsia Twitter @ISIF_Asia * Sent by email to save paper. Print only if 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 Fri Aug 2 00:08:55 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> Message-ID: <51FB30D7.6000209@itforchange.net> Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the isuue of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly disapproved of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in February itself, and for asking the local organising team to discontinue it and take the document off their website. To make things clear in such strong words is really good " the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, and that has to be at a reasonable price". Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/ corporatist influences is as important at regional and national levels as at the global level. As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of Asia Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial Indonesian IGF fund raising document as, and I quote ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship arrangement." If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did then the MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see enough reason to be concerned about it. If any clarification in this regard is to be forthcoming, I would welcome it. There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs - as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, monopolistic) 'policy dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised form of 'participation in governance' and a new experiment in participative democracy - mean and how they must be organised, and strongly insulated from private interests. And for this sake, one need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being slack and accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such extreme care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. parminder On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an > observer.) > > Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to > 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There > are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries > to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, > there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which > for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get > so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be > held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is > willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some > preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to > recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. > > The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have > already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have > not booked yet. > > The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said > that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be > commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the > UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a > compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside > the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible > from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the > premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable > price. > > So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting > commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has > simply been declared dead. > > Greetings, > Norbert > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Aug 2 00:25:22 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 09:55:22 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: References: <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> <51F6CA94.5040205@apc.org> <51F7EFD5.1050702@itforchange.net> <20130730170540.GA961@tarvainen.info> <51F7F644.7020304@itforchange.net> <14031fd5fcc.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <51F8BDAF.6090902@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51FB34B2.4020802@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 31 July 2013 01:19 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > But if she doesn't approve and she doesn't not disapprove .. it still > means she doesn't approve of this. And the MAG has collectively told > the Indonesian local team to stop this activity of theirs, While normally I try to restraint myself from responding , but this is an important matter, and this is really twiating of facts, facts that have clearly been stated on this list in the last few days... So, no, the MAG collectively never told anything to the Indonesian team.... I understand the matter never came before the MAG (which I think it should have come). Only the MAG Chair and/ or IGF secretariat seem to have conveyed their disapproval of the controversial funding document/ strategy... > so approval or disapproval or not disapproval is entirely moot here. It isnt. I have the right to discuss the political views presented by the CS reps on the MAG, generally, but especially when their nomination is supported by the IGC... Positions in power comes with demands of accountability. A simple democratic norm. > > Also - you have said multiple times on this list that you treat this > as a political issue. You dont seem to really understand what the meaning of the term 'political' is, and you simply take it to be a bad word.... Cant do anything here.... Yes, to repeat; my, and my organisation's work, is primarily political. > If Anriette restates much the same thing, how does it become ad hominem? Whitewashing seems to have become the trend on this list, and there is only that much time one can spend on un-doing the whitewashing... parminder > > --srs (iPad) > > On 31-Jul-2013, at 13:03, parminder > wrote: > >> >> On Wednesday 31 July 2013 05:20 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> She does not approve, you say >>> >>> She does not disapprove, you say. >> >> Precisely. And when I voice my concern about a civil society member >> of the MAG, as the oversight body over IGF program etc, taking such a >> neutral/ inactive position, I am told off by a series of personal >> invectives. Not done, and I would not take it. >> >>> >>> And then you report her responding to your personal attack to the co >>> cos. >>> >>> It would be interesting to see what the co cos think here. >> >> I am too. Meanwhile if it has escaped the co cos notice, I cut paste >> the relevant portions of my email below... >> >> >>> >>> You tend to twist people's words in order to score political >>> points, >>> Parminder. I find this tendency, and your general readiness to >>> launch >>> into attack, very disappointing coming from someone (and an >>> organisation) whose views I generally respect. (Anriette) >> >> I refer these ad hominem comment to the co-coordinators for their >> views and decisions. I will wait for a week, till the 6th of >> August, to be told what views they have on these comments and >> whether they propose any action. If I dont get any response or >> get a response that no action is contemplated, I will proceed to >> express my views on what I think 'Anriette does' on this list in >> a similarly unconstrained manner as she has expressed >> personalised views about me... (Parminder) >> >> >> (cut paste ends) >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> --srs (htc one x) >>> >>> >>> >>> On 30 July 2013 10:52:12 PM parminder >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tuesday 30 July 2013 10:35 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>>> > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:24:45PM +0530, parminder >>>> (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> On Tuesday 30 July 2013 01:33 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>>> >>> Dear Parminder >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I did not say there is "nothing wrong with the document". >>>> >> Anriette >>>> >> >>>> >> Your email to which I responded ends as follows >>>> >> >>>> >> " It seems that people feel the Idonesian organising committee is >>>> >> selling influence in turn for sponsorship, but don't really see >>>> >> evidence of that beyond the standard 'indirect' influence of >>>> >> branding." >>>> >> It is absolutely appropriate then for me to say that it is your >>>> >> position that there is nothing wrong with the Indonesian >>>> organising >>>> >> group's strategy or with the concerned document . I repeat it. >>>> >> Please justify how your above comment means anything else. >>>> > Parminder, >>>> > >>>> > No offence intended but I'm utterly unable to understand how >>>> > you can interpret Anriette's words the way you do. >>>> > I don't see anything in her words you're quoting as >>>> > indicating an approval of what the Indonesian group did. >>>> Tapani >>>> >>>> I did not speak of her approving, only of her not disapproving >>>> ('nothing wrong with'), which is what her words clearly amount to. >>>> ... ... 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Aug 2 01:01:08 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 07:01:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <51FB30D7.6000209@itforchange.net> References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> <51FB30D7.6000209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: At 06:08 02/08/2013, parminder wrote: >new experiment in participative democracy - mean and how they must >be organised, and strongly insulated from private interests. Dear Parminder, however I generally support the position you express in your mail, here I must "strongly" disagree. Democracy, even as modern as participative, implies a unique "collegium" (the word might have to be better specified in this case) while the IGF is made of four, of which it is to forster the enhanced cooperation. One of them is "private interests". This is why I oblige myself to use the word "polycracy" about the IGF experiment. The same, the MAG Chair's attitude corresponds to the hosting regalian collegium habits. I feel it as some kind of an abuse against multistakeholderism. Private sector is not regalian domain, is not civil society, is not international organizations. I feel our common priority, in in this first attempt of a global multistakeholder council/forum; is to defend our Civil Society rights, not to curb those of others we should accomodate. This is why I refer to RFC 6852 as participating from the proper WSIS spirit, underlying that the Information Society Architectonic responsibility we implied for years as belonging to the IAB is actually vacant and must be urgently filled on an equal basis by multistakeholders, through a new kind of enhanced cooperation we never had before. Otherwise, the vacuum will be unequally filled by the private sector. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri Aug 2 02:40:43 2013 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 23:40:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Snowden got temporary Asylum in Russia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1375425643.58778.YahooMailNeo@web125101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Might be interesting news for you that according to M/s VKontakte, Edward Snowden was Thursday granted temporary asylum in Russia for a year. Russia's Social Networking Site, VKontakte, has offered him a job in Data Protection.  References: http://news.yahoo.com/snowden-gets-job-offer-russias-facebook-164057487.html http://www.digi.no/920406/jobb-for-oss-snowden http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/01/snowden_vkontakte_job_offer/ http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130801/14215724039/russias-version-facebook-vkontakte-offers-ed-snowden-job-data-protection.shtml http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/08/01/edward_snowden_job_offers_russia_s_facebook_vkontakte_may_want_to_hire_nsa.html >________________________________ > From: Diego Rafael Canabarro >To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >Sent: Wednesday, 26 June 2013, 19:27 >Subject: [governance] Snowden a 'free man' in Moscow airport, Russian president says > > > >(CNN) -- Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who spilled U.S. surveillance secrets to the world, is a "free man" biding his time in a Moscow airport, Russian President Vladimir Putin told reporters Tuesday. > > >http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/25/politics/nsa-leak/index.html?hpt=hp_c3  > > >-- >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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Fri Aug 2 03:34:43 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:34:43 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <51FB34B2.4020802@itforchange.net> References: <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> <51F6CA94.5040205@apc.org> <51F7EFD5.1050702@itforchange.net> <20130730170540.GA961@tarvainen.info> <51F7F644.7020304@itforchange.net> <14031fd5fcc.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <51F8BDAF.6090902@itforchange.net> <51FB34B2.4020802@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1394617665.2525.1375428884044.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e17> Dear members of the list Exerpt from the exchange above : Message du 02/08/13 06:25 > De : "parminder" > A : "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > Copie à : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > Objet : Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal > > > On Wednesday 31 July 2013 01:19 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >But if she doesn't approve and she doesn't not disapprove .. it still means she doesn't approve of this. And the MAG has collectively told the Indonesian local team to stop this activity of theirs, > While normally I try to restraint myself from responding , but this is an important matter, and this is really twiating of facts, facts that have clearly been stated on this list in the last few days... > > So, no, the MAG collectively never told anything to the Indonesian team.... I understand the matter never came before the MAG (which I think it should have come). Only the MAG Chair and/ or IGF secretariat seem to have conveyed their disapproval of the controversial funding document/ strategy... > > > so approval or disapproval or not disapproval is entirely moot here. > It isnt. I have the right to discuss the political views presented by the CS reps on the MAG, generally, but especially when their nomination is supported by the IGC... Positions in power comes with demands of accountability. A simple democratic norm. > > >Also - you have said multiple times on this list that you treat this as a political issue. > You dont seem to really understand what the meaning of the term 'political' is, and you simply take it to be a bad word.... Cant do anything here.... Yes, to repeat; my, and my organisation's work, is primarily political. > > If Anriette restates much the same thing, how does it become ad hominem? > Whitewashing seems to have become the trend on this list, and there is only that much time one can spend on un-doing the whitewashing... > > parminder > > > --srs (iPad) > On 31-Jul-2013, at 13:03, parminder wrote: > > > On Wednesday 31 July 2013 05:20 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >She does not approve, you say > > She does not disapprove, you say. > > Precisely. And when I voice my concern about a civil society member of the MAG, as the oversight body over IGF program etc, taking such a neutral/ inactive position, I am told off by a series of personal invectives. Not done, and I would not take it. > > > And then you report her responding to your personal attack to the co cos. > > It would be interesting to see what the co cos think here. > > I am too. Meanwhile if it has escaped the co cos notice, I cut paste the relevant portions of my email below... > > > > You tend to twist people's words in order to score political points, > Parminder. I find this tendency, and your general readiness to launch > into attack, very disappointing coming from someone (and an > organisation) whose views I generally respect. (Anriette) > > I refer these ad hominem comment to the co-coordinators for their views and decisions. I will wait for a week, till the 6th of August, to be told what views they have on these comments and whether they propose any action. If I dont get any response or get a response that no action is contemplated, I will proceed to express my views on what I think 'Anriette does' on this list in a similarly unconstrained manner as she has expressed personalised views about me... (Parminder) > > (cut paste ends) > > parminder > > > > > > > > > > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > On 30 July 2013 10:52:12 PM parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 30 July 2013 10:35 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:24:45PM +0530, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > >> On Tuesday 30 July 2013 01:33 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >>> Dear Parminder > >>> > >>> I did not say there is "nothing wrong with the document". > >> Anriette > >> > >> Your email to which I responded ends as follows > >> > >> " It seems that people feel the Idonesian organising committee is > >> selling influence in turn for sponsorship, but don't really see > >> evidence of that beyond the standard 'indirect' influence of > >> branding." > >> It is absolutely appropriate then for me to say that it is your > >> position that there is nothing wrong with the Indonesian organising > >> group's strategy or with the concerned document . I repeat it. > >> Please justify how your above comment means anything else. > > Parminder, > > > > No offence intended but I'm utterly unable to understand how > > you can interpret Anriette's words the way you do. > > I don't see anything in her words you're quoting as > > indicating an approval of what the Indonesian group did. > Tapani > > I did not speak of her approving, only of her not disapproving ('nothing wrong with'), which is what her words clearly amount to. ... ... 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Aug 2 03:51:14 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 13:21:14 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <1394617665.2525.1375428884044.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e17> References: <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> <51F6CA94.5040205@apc.org> <51F7EFD5.1050702@itforchange.net> <20130730170540.GA961@tarvainen.info> <51F7F644.7020304@itforchange.net> <14031fd5fcc.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <51F8BDAF.6090902@itforchange.net> <51FB34B2.4020802@itforchange.net> <1394617665.2525.1375428884044.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e17> Message-ID: <44B9D623-D418-478E-B388-AEE6F268B60B@hserus.net> I suspect that the difference between policy advocacy and playing politics is getting lost here in this thread. --srs (iPad) On 02-Aug-2013, at 13:04, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > > Dear members of the list > > > > Exerpt from the exchange above : > > > > > > Absolutely right, Parminder ! If CS was able to contribute positively to the WSIS documents (Declarations, Agenda and Plan of Action) this resulted from debates held in our working groups and Plenary. And these debates were sometimes controversial but always fair. Policy questions and considerations were transverse to all to these meetings. > > Theerfore, if CS were to be "a- political" -this seems to be your view- in the IGF, a body strongly supported by CS in the second phase of WSIS, I can't imagine WHAT CS has to do in this Forum. > > I'm in favor of a fair and efficient dialogue on this list and I particularly welcome Parminder's inputs that tie some of our questions and themes to a higher level of consideration, namely the political level. In France we use to call this process "(to) raise the debate". This should be admitted by almost all of CS orgs and members and -at least- tolerated in our discussions and mails. > > Best > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > CESIR > > > > If > > > > > > > Message du 02/08/13 06:25 > > De : "parminder" > > A : "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > > Copie à : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > > Objet : Re: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal > > > > > > > On Wednesday 31 July 2013 01:19 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > But if she doesn't approve and she doesn't not disapprove .. it still means she doesn't approve of this. And the MAG has collectively told the Indonesian local team to stop this activity of theirs, > > > While normally I try to restraint myself from responding , but this is an important matter, and this is really twiating of facts, facts that have clearly been stated on this list in the last few days... > > > > So, no, the MAG collectively never told anything to the Indonesian team.... I understand the matter never came before the MAG (which I think it should have come). Only the MAG Chair and/ or IGF secretariat seem to have conveyed their disapproval of the controversial funding document/ strategy... > > > > > > > so approval or disapproval or not disapproval is entirely moot here. > > > It isnt. I have the right to discuss the political views presented by the CS reps on the MAG, generally, but especially when their nomination is supported by the IGC... Positions in power comes with demands of accountability. A simple democratic norm. > > > > > > > > Also - you have said multiple times on this list that you treat this as a political issue. > > > You dont seem to really understand what the meaning of the term 'political' is, and you simply take it to be a bad word.... Cant do anything here.... Yes, to repeat; my, and my organisation's work, is primarily political. > > > > > If Anriette restates much the same thing, how does it become ad hominem? > > > Whitewashing seems to have become the trend on this list, and there is only that much time one can spend on un-doing the whitewashing... > > > > parminder > > > > > > > --srs (iPad) > > > On 31-Jul-2013, at 13:03, parminder wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wednesday 31 July 2013 05:20 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > She does not approve, you say > > > > She does not disapprove, you say. > > > > > Precisely. And when I voice my concern about a civil society member of the MAG, as the oversight body over IGF program etc, taking such a neutral/ inactive position, I am told off by a series of personal invectives. Not done, and I would not take it. > > > > > > > And then you report her responding to your personal attack to the co cos. > > > > It would be interesting to see what the co cos think here. > > > > > I am too. Meanwhile if it has escaped the co cos notice, I cut paste the relevant portions of my email below... > > > > > > > > > > You tend to twist people's words in order to score political points, > > Parminder. I find this tendency, and your general readiness to launch > > into attack, very disappointing coming from someone (and an > > organisation) whose views I generally respect. (Anriette) > > > > > I refer these ad hominem comment to the co-coordinators for their views and decisions. I will wait for a week, till the 6th of August, to be told what views they have on these comments and whether they propose any action. If I dont get any response or get a response that no action is contemplated, I will proceed to express my views on what I think 'Anriette does' on this list in a similarly unconstrained manner as she has expressed personalised views about me... (Parminder) > > > > > (cut paste ends) > > > > parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > > > > > On 30 July 2013 10:52:12 PM parminder wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday 30 July 2013 10:35 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:24:45PM +0530, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > > > >> On Tuesday 30 July 2013 01:33 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > >>> Dear Parminder > > >>> > > >>> I did not say there is "nothing wrong with the document". > > >> Anriette > > >> > > >> Your email to which I responded ends as follows > > >> > > >> " It seems that people feel the Idonesian organising committee is > > >> selling influence in turn for sponsorship, but don't really see > > >> evidence of that beyond the standard 'indirect' influence of > > >> branding." > > >> It is absolutely appropriate then for me to say that it is your > > >> position that there is nothing wrong with the Indonesian organising > > >> group's strategy or with the concerned document . I repeat it. > > >> Please justify how your above comment means anything else. > > > Parminder, > > > > > > No offence intended but I'm utterly unable to understand how > > > you can interpret Anriette's words the way you do. > > > I don't see anything in her words you're quoting as > > > indicating an approval of what the Indonesian group did. > > Tapani > > > > I did not speak of her approving, only of her not disapproving ('nothing wrong with'), which is what her words clearly amount to. ... ... 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 ggithaiga at hotmail.com Fri Aug 2 04:39:40 2013 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 08:39:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <51FB30D7.6000209@itforchange.net> References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill>,<51FB30D7.6000209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on board, NOT necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners. Further, different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. RgdsGG Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 From: parminder at itforchange.net To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the isuue of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly disapproved of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in February itself, and for asking the local organising team to discontinue it and take the document off their website. To make things clear in such strong words is really good " the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, and that has to be at a reasonable price". Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/ corporatist influences is as important at regional and national levels as at the global level. As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of Asia Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial Indonesian IGF fund raising document as, and I quote ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship arrangement." If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did then the MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see enough reason to be concerned about it. If any clarification in this regard is to be forthcoming, I would welcome it. There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs - as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, monopolistic) 'policy dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised form of 'participation in governance' and a new experiment in participative democracy - mean and how they must be organised, and strongly insulated from private interests. And for this sake, one need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being slack and accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such extreme care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. parminder On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an observer.) Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have not booked yet. The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable price. So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has simply been declared dead. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Fri Aug 2 05:09:06 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 11:09:06 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: <51F8BDAF.6090902@itforchange.net> References: <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> <51F6CA94.5040205@apc.org> <51F7EFD5.1050702@itforchange.net> <20130730170540.GA961@tarvainen.info> <51F7F644.7020304@itforchange.net> <14031fd5fcc.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <51F8BDAF.6090902@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 31 Jul 2013, at 09:33, parminder wrote: > ad hominem comment (to misquote an old IETF adage - comments made wearing asbestos - i tried to ignore this the first time hoping it would just go away and we could all get back to rational calm conversations) an ad hominem attack would be an attack that: because someone is a bully, their views are illegitimate/irrelevant. It does not include the content of calling a bully a bully. I am not sure I have ever heard an ad hominem attack on this list. For example a comment one might hear: X is a terrible bully, but sometimes, if you can get past the bullying, X makes a lot of sense. Another comment one might hear: I think I agree with what X is saying, but X is such a bully I am afraid that if I put my agreement in the wrong way I will get beat up for it. One could also say, I agree with a lot of what CX says, but X is just so mean. (I have versions of all of these about certain unnamed IGC participants) Those you accuse of ad hominem attacks against you, are among the greatest defenders off-list of some of the positions you represent. Many of us disagree with you but would never dare say so on the list for fear of starting a flame war. Many of the rest of us just try to hunker down and wait for the storm to pass. Someone/everyone, please stop the venom. It has rendered the IGC nearly irrelevant. When the IGC is discussed, pretty much the main content is the outrageousness of a few individuals. The words of a few serving to delegitimize the efforts of many. please stop Note to coordinators. I would never quit IGC, but sometimes I beleive being kicked of the list would bring great relief. I have heard others say similar things. And now back to hunkering down hoping the storm will pass. 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 joly at punkcast.com Fri Aug 2 08:21:23 2013 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 08:21:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] ANNOUNCEMENT: Internet Society Launches Questionnaire on Multistakeholder Participation in Internet Governance Message-ID: http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-launches-questionnaire-multistakeholder-participation-internet-governance Internet Society Launches Questionnaire on Multistakeholder Participation in Internet Governance Part of broader dialogue on open and multistakeholder governance for a sustainable Internet [Washington, D.C. and Geneva, Switzerland, 02 August 2013] -- The Internet Society today announced the launch of a survey to gain greater insights into multistakeholder governance perceptions and processes at all levels – national, regional, and international. The questionnaire, http://goo.gl/dGW1tv, is open to all interested participants and is available until 30 September 2013. The survey is one component of the Internet Society’s broader initiative focused on the open and sustainable Internet. While the Internet has proven its success from economic, development, technological, and societal perspectives, its continued growth as a multistakeholder platform cannot be taken for granted. The Internet Society strongly believes that to ensure a sustainable Internet, the Internet must maintain its core characteristics of open, global and interoperable technical standards for innovation; open access and freedom of expression for all users; openness for business and economic progress; based on a collaborative, inclusive, multistakeholder governance model. “The open Internet is challenged on many fronts and from many directions. There are attempts to change the very nature of the Internet to address policy problems in areas such as digital content, human rights, privacy, surveillance, and security,” said Markus Kummer, Vice President of Public Policy, Internet Society. “As technology evolves, as more people come online, as business models shift, and as policy priorities change, the Internet also evolves. These changes will have tremendous implications for the overall sustainability of the open Internet ecosystem. The inclusion of all stakeholders as participants in the Internet’s evolution – this is what we call the multistakeholder governance process – is essential.” The Internet Society questionnaire will gather information on the different practices and understandings of multistakeholder governance. Survey data will be used in publications on the evolution of multistakeholder participation and the Internet Society will incorporate the survey feedback into its preparations for upcoming Internet governance discussions, including the 2013 Internet Governance Forum (IGF), the 2014 ITU World Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC), and the World Summit on the Information Society Review (WSIS+10). A subsequent phase of the Open and Sustainable Internet initiative will include a call for research papers based on the survey data and engagements to promote the value of open Internet governance. In addition to collecting valuable insights and perspectives, the questionnaire is designed to serve as an informational guide on Internet governance. Constance Bommelaer, Internet Society Senior Director of Global Policy Partnerships, added, “The questions provide background information on key topics, and interactive links enable respondents to learn more about how the Internet works. We hope this survey will empower and encourage participants to engage in the multistakeholder dialogue and let their voices be heard.” About the Internet Society The Internet Society is the trusted independent source for Internet information and thought leadership from around the world. With its principled vision and substantial technological foundation, the Internet Society promotes open dialogue on Internet policy, technology, and future development among users, companies, governments, and other organizations. Working with its members and Chapters around the world, the Internet Society enables the continued evolution and growth of the Internet for everyone. For more information, visit www.internetsociety.org. Media contact: Wende Cover, cover at isoc.org, +1-703-439-2773 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Multistakeholder Dialogue 080213.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 63973 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Aug 2 11:49:03 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 21:19:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill>,<51FB30D7.6000209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51FBD4EF.7090608@itforchange.net> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: > "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for > regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are > listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". > > > Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? > > In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start > imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not > about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For > example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company > decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, > should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder > model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on board, NOT > necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners. Further, different > national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What works in > Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. Grace, Happy to clarify. First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those conditions be made applicable to national and regional IGFs that many of us here ( as also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others) agree that it is appropriate and necessary to apply to the UN IGF. Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures will be taken to ensure that there is not the least possibility of any quid pro quo at all for these donations, including providing positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ chairing slots, special recommendations for speaking slots, special invitations to what could otherwise be selectively closed high-level (policy related) meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual policy deliberation takes place, and so on.... Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that these above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that democratic propriety demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made applicable to national or regional IGFs? Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand what you are saying here, and you understand my position. parminder > > Rgds > GG > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 > From: parminder at itforchange.net > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call > > > Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the > isuue of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly > disapproved of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in > February itself, and for asking the local organising team to > discontinue it and take the document off their website. To make things > clear in such strong words is really good " the only thing that can be > sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, and that has to be at > a reasonable price". > > Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for > regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are > listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. > Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/ corporatist influences is > as important at regional and national levels as at the global level. > > As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of Asia > Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial Indonesian IGF > fund raising document as, and I quote > > ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The > deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship > arrangement." > > If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did then > the MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? > > I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see > enough reason to be concerned about it. If any clarification in this > regard is to be forthcoming, I would welcome it. > > There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs - > as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, monopolistic) > 'policy dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised form of > 'participation in governance' and a new experiment in participative > democracy - mean and how they must be organised, and strongly > insulated from private interests. And for this sake, one need to be > almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being slack and > accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such extreme > care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. > > parminder > > > On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an > observer.) > > Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to > 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There > are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries > to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, > there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which > for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get > so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be > held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is > willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some > preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to > recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. > > The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have > already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have > not booked yet. > > The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said > that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be > commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the > UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a > compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside > the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible > from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the > premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable > price. > > So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting > commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has > simply been declared dead. > > 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 george.sadowsky at gmail.com Fri Aug 2 12:05:50 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 18:05:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <51FBD4EF.7090608@itforchange.net> References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill>,<51FB30D7.6000209@itforchange.net> <51FBD4EF.7090608@itforchange.net> Message-ID: All, I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it. In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global IGF, not the other way around. This should not be a top down operation. The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs. Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or even a recommendation that should be made at a global level. On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: >> "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". >> >> >> Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? >> >> In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on board, NOT necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners. Further, different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. > > Grace, > > Happy to clarify. > > First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those conditions be made applicable to national and regional IGFs that many of us here ( as also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others) agree that it is appropriate and necessary to apply to the UN IGF. > > Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures will be taken to ensure that there is not the least possibility of any quid pro quo at all for these donations, including providing positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ chairing slots, special recommendations for speaking slots, special invitations to what could otherwise be selectively closed high-level (policy related) meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual policy deliberation takes place, and so on.... > > Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that these above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that democratic propriety demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made applicable to national or regional IGFs? > > Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand what you are saying here, and you understand my position. > > parminder > >> >> Rgds >> GG >> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 >> From: parminder at itforchange.net >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >> >> >> Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the isuue of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly disapproved of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in February itself, and for asking the local organising team to discontinue it and take the document off their website. To make things clear in such strong words is really good " the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, and that has to be at a reasonable price". >> >> Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/ corporatist influences is as important at regional and national levels as at the global level. >> >> As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of Asia Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial Indonesian IGF fund raising document as, and I quote >> >> ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship arrangement." >> >> If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did then the MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? >> >> I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see enough reason to be concerned about it. If any clarification in this regard is to be forthcoming, I would welcome it. >> >> There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs - as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, monopolistic) 'policy dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised form of 'participation in governance' and a new experiment in participative democracy - mean and how they must be organised, and strongly insulated from private interests. And for this sake, one need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being slack and accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such extreme care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an >> observer.) >> >> Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to >> 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There >> are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries >> to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, >> there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which >> for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get >> so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be >> held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is >> willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some >> preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to >> recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. >> >> The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have >> already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have >> not booked yet. >> >> The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said >> that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be >> commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the >> UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a >> compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside >> the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible >> from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the >> premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable >> price. >> >> So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting >> commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has >> simply been declared dead. >> >> 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 diegocanabarro at gmail.com Fri Aug 2 12:35:16 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 12:35:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk Message-ID: does not distinguish between DNS and higher layerz, but touches interesting points regarding confidence. Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk Friday August 02, 2013 http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6926/135/ One year ago, many Internet users were engaged in a contentious debate over the question of who should govern the Internet. The debate pitted the current model led by a United States based organization known as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (supported by the U.S.) against a government-led, United Nations-style model under which countries such as China and Russia could assert greater control over Internet governance. The differences between the two approaches were never as stark as some portrayed since the current model grants the U.S. considerable contractual power over ICANN, but the fear of greater foreign government control over the Internet led to strong political opposition to UN involvement. While supporters of the current model ultimately prevailed at a UN conference in Dubai last December where most Western democracies, including Canada, strongly rejected major Internet governance reforms, the issue was fundamentally about trust. Given that all governments have become more vocal about Internet matters, the debate was never over whether government would be involved, but rather about who the global Internet community trusted to lead on governance matters. My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) argues that the Internet governance choice was a relatively easy one at the time, but in recent weeks the revelations about widespread U.S. secret surveillance of the Internet may cause many to rethink their views. Starting with the first disclosures in early June about the collection of phone metadata, the past two months have been marked by a dizzying array of reports that reveal a massive U.S. surveillance infrastructure that covers the globe and seeks access to virtually all Internet-based communications. The surveillance programs include phone metadata collection that captures information on billions of calls, access to data from Internet giants such as Google, Facebook, and Microsoft (which may even include user passwords), and the monitoring of Internet traffic through undersea cables around the world. Moreover, the surveillance activities involve the active co-operation of the same governments that support the U.S. on Internet governance, including the United Kingdom and Canada. Not only do the surveillance programs themselves raise enormous privacy and civil liberties concerns, but oversight and review is conducted almost entirely in secret with little or no ability to guard against misuse. In fact, U.S. officials have now acknowledged providing inaccurate information on the programs to elected politicians, raising further questions about who is watching the watchers. The surveillance programs have emerged as a contentious political issue in the U.S. and there are several reasons why the reverberations are likely to extend to the global Internet governance community. First, the element of trust has been severely compromised. Supporters of the current Internet governance model frequently pointed to Internet surveillance and the lack of accountability within countries like China and Russia as evidence of the danger of a UN-led model. With the public now aware of the creation of a massive, secret U.S.-backed Internet surveillance program, the U.S. has ceded the moral high ground on the issue. Second, as the scope of the surveillance becomes increasingly clear, many countries are likely to opt for a balkanized Internet in which they do not trust other countries with the security or privacy of their networked communications. This could lead to new laws requiring companies to store their information domestically to counter surveillance of the data as it crosses borders or resides on computer servers located in the U.S. In fact, some may go further by resisting the interoperability of the Internet that we now take for granted. Third, some of those same countries may demand similar levels of access to personal information from the Internet giants. This could create a "privacy race to the bottom", where governments around the world create parallel surveillance programs, ensuring that online privacy and co-operative Internet governance is a thing of the past. -- 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Aug 2 13:05:19 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 13:05:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> <51FB30D7.6000209@itforchange.net> <51FBD4EF.7090608@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 12:05 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > All, > > I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the > decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the > needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a franchise > operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of the smaller > meetings presumably feeding into it. > > In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those smaller > meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global IGF, not the > other way around. This should not be a top down operation. > > The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the > global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules > apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs. > > Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or > non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it is > their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or even a > recommendation that should be made at a global level. > > > > +1 to all of the above! -- 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 toml at communisphere.com Fri Aug 2 14:48:22 2013 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 14:48:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill>,<51FB30D7.6000209@itforchange.net> <51FBD4EF.7090608@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51FBFEF6.3050909@communisphere.com> With regard to bottom up, I agree that "national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions." But transparency as to the source and process of resource acquisition should be required to use the IGF name. Tom Lowenhaupt On 8/2/2013 12:05 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > All, > > I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the > decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with > the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a > franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of > the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it. > > In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those > smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global > IGF, not the other way around. This should not be a top down operation. > > The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the > global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules > apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs. > > Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or > non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it > is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or > even a recommendation that should be made at a global level. > > > > > > On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: > >> >> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: >>> "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for >>> regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are >>> listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". >>> >>> >>> Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? >>> >>> In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start >>> imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not >>> about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For >>> example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company >>> decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, >>> should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder >>> model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on board, NOT >>> necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners. Further, >>> different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What >>> works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. >> >> Grace, >> >> Happy to clarify. >> >> First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those >> conditions be made applicable to national and regional IGFs that >> many of us here ( as also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others) agree >> that it is appropriate and necessary to apply to the UN IGF. >> >> Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can >> donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures >> will be taken to ensure that there is not the least possibility of >> any quid pro quo at all for these donations, including providing >> positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ chairing slots, special >> recommendations for speaking slots, special invitations to what could >> otherwise be selectively closed high-level (policy related) >> meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual policy >> deliberation takes place, and so on.... >> >> Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that >> these above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that >> democratic propriety demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made >> applicable to national or regional IGFs? >> >> Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand >> what you are saying here, and you understand my position. >> >> parminder >> >>> >>> Rgds >>> GG >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 >>> From: parminder at itforchange.net >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >>> >>> >>> Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the >>> isuue of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly >>> disapproved of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in >>> February itself, and for asking the local organising team to >>> discontinue it and take the document off their website. To make >>> things clear in such strong words is really good " the only thing >>> that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, and that >>> has to be at a reasonable price". >>> >>> Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for >>> regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are >>> listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. >>> Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/ corporatist influences >>> is as important at regional and national levels as at the global level. >>> >>> As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of >>> Asia Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial >>> Indonesian IGF fund raising document as, and I quote >>> >>> ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The >>> deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship >>> arrangement." >>> >>> If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did >>> then the MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? >>> >>> I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see >>> enough reason to be concerned about it. If any clarification in >>> this regard is to be forthcoming, I would welcome it. >>> >>> There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs >>> - as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, >>> monopolistic) 'policy dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised >>> form of 'participation in governance' and a new experiment in >>> participative democracy - mean and how they must be organised, and >>> strongly insulated from private interests. And for this sake, one >>> need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being slack and >>> accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such extreme >>> care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>> Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an >>> observer.) >>> >>> Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to >>> 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There >>> are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries >>> to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, >>> there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which >>> for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get >>> so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be >>> held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is >>> willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some >>> preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to >>> recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. >>> >>> The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have >>> already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have >>> not booked yet. >>> >>> The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said >>> that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be >>> commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the >>> UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a >>> compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside >>> the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible >>> from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the >>> premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable >>> price. >>> >>> So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting >>> commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has >>> simply been declared dead. >>> >>> 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 george.sadowsky at gmail.com Fri Aug 2 16:24:49 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 22:24:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <51FBFEF6.3050909@communisphere.com> References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill>,<51FB30D7.6000209@itforchange.net> <51FBD4EF.7090608@itforchange.net> <51FBFEF6.3050909@communisphere.com> Message-ID: Thomas, I agree with you, but I don't like the idea of singling out only IGFs for application of this policy. IGFs are like many other professional meetings, and should be treated as such. How about this as an alternative? Professional meetings of any type should be transparent regarding the sources and processes of resource acquisition for their events and their other activities. George On Aug 2, 2013, at 8:48 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > With regard to bottom up, I agree that "national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions." But transparency as to the source and process of resource acquisition should be required to use the IGF name. > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > On 8/2/2013 12:05 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: >> All, >> >> I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it. >> >> In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global IGF, not the other way around. This should not be a top down operation. >> >> The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs. >> >> Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or even a recommendation that should be made at a global level. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: >>>> "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". >>>> >>>> >>>> Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? >>>> >>>> In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on board, NOT necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners. Further, different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. >>> >>> Grace, >>> >>> Happy to clarify. >>> >>> First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those conditions be made applicable to national and regional IGFs that many of us here ( as also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others) agree that it is appropriate and necessary to apply to the UN IGF. >>> >>> Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures will be taken to ensure that there is not the least possibility of any quid pro quo at all for these donations, including providing positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ chairing slots, special recommendations for speaking slots, special invitations to what could otherwise be selectively closed high-level (policy related) meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual policy deliberation takes place, and so on.... >>> >>> Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that these above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that democratic propriety demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made applicable to national or regional IGFs? >>> >>> Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand what you are saying here, and you understand my position. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>>> >>>> Rgds >>>> GG >>>> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 >>>> From: parminder at itforchange.net >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >>>> >>>> >>>> Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the isuue of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly disapproved of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in February itself, and for asking the local organising team to discontinue it and take the document off their website. To make things clear in such strong words is really good " the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, and that has to be at a reasonable price". >>>> >>>> Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/ corporatist influences is as important at regional and national levels as at the global level. >>>> >>>> As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of Asia Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial Indonesian IGF fund raising document as, and I quote >>>> >>>> ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship arrangement." >>>> >>>> If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did then the MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? >>>> >>>> I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see enough reason to be concerned about it. If any clarification in this regard is to be forthcoming, I would welcome it. >>>> >>>> There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs - as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, monopolistic) 'policy dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised form of 'participation in governance' and a new experiment in participative democracy - mean and how they must be organised, and strongly insulated from private interests. And for this sake, one need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being slack and accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such extreme care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>> Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an >>>> observer.) >>>> >>>> Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to >>>> 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There >>>> are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries >>>> to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, >>>> there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which >>>> for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get >>>> so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be >>>> held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is >>>> willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some >>>> preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to >>>> recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. >>>> >>>> The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have >>>> already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have >>>> not booked yet. >>>> >>>> The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said >>>> that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be >>>> commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the >>>> UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a >>>> compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside >>>> the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible >>>> from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the >>>> premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable >>>> price. >>>> >>>> So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting >>>> commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has >>>> simply been declared dead. >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Fri Aug 2 16:35:58 2013 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 16:35:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill>,<51FB30D7.6000209@itforchange.net> <51FBD4EF.7090608@itforchange.net> <51FBFEF6.3050909@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <51FC182E.5010708@communisphere.com> George, Agreed. And that would be acting like a professional. Best, Tom On 8/2/2013 4:24 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > Thomas, > > I agree with you, but I don't like the idea of singling out only IGFs > for application of this policy. IGFs are like many other professional > meetings, and should be treated as such. > > How about this as an alternative? Professional meetings of any type > should be transparent regarding the sources and processes of resource > acquisition for their events and their other activities. > > George > > > > On Aug 2, 2013, at 8:48 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > >> With regard to bottom up, I agree that "national and regional IGFs >> should be able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their >> IGFs that are consistent with the needs an desires of those countries >> and regions." But transparency as to the source and process of >> resource acquisition should be required to use the IGF name. >> >> Tom Lowenhaupt >> >> On 8/2/2013 12:05 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: >>> All, >>> >>> I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the >>> decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent >>> with the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is >>> not a franchise operation within which the top can dictate the >>> behavior of the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it. >>> >>> In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those >>> smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global >>> IGF, not the other way around. This should not be a top down >>> operation. >>> >>> The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to >>> the global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN >>> rules apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs. >>> >>> Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or >>> non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that >>> it is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision >>> or even a recommendation that should be made at a global level. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: >>>>> "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for >>>>> regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are >>>>> listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? >>>>> >>>>> In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to >>>>> start imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is >>>>> multistakeholdersim not about getting all stakeholders on board to >>>>> discuss these issues? For example if say Kenya is holding the >>>>> Kenya IGF and a telco company decides it will put in money since >>>>> it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? At >>>>> KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the >>>>> corporate stakeholders on board, NOT necessarily to influence the >>>>> IGF but as partners. Further, different national IGFs have >>>>> different models of fundraising. What works in Kenya may not work >>>>> in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. >>>> >>>> Grace, >>>> >>>> Happy to clarify. >>>> >>>> First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those >>>> conditions be made applicable to national and regional IGFs that >>>> many of us here ( as also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others) agree >>>> that it is appropriate and necessary to apply to the UN IGF. >>>> >>>> Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can >>>> donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures >>>> will be taken to ensure that there is not the least possibility of >>>> any quid pro quo at all for these donations, including providing >>>> positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ chairing slots, special >>>> recommendations for speaking slots, special invitations to what >>>> could otherwise be selectively closed high-level (policy related) >>>> meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual policy >>>> deliberation takes place, and so on.... >>>> >>>> Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that >>>> these above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that >>>> democratic propriety demands UN IGF must observe, should not be >>>> made applicable to national or regional IGFs? >>>> >>>> Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand >>>> what you are saying here, and you understand my position. >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rgds >>>>> GG >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 >>>>> From: parminder at itforchange.net >>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on >>>>> the isuue of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having >>>>> strongly disapproved of the Indonesian fund raising document/ >>>>> strategy in February itself, and for asking the local organising >>>>> team to discontinue it and take the document off their website. To >>>>> make things clear in such strong words is really good " the only >>>>> thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, >>>>> and that has to be at a reasonable price". >>>>> >>>>> Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for >>>>> regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are >>>>> listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. >>>>> Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/ corporatist influences >>>>> is as important at regional and national levels as at the global >>>>> level. >>>>> >>>>> As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of >>>>> Asia Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial >>>>> Indonesian IGF fund raising document as, and I quote >>>>> >>>>> ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The >>>>> deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship >>>>> arrangement." >>>>> >>>>> If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did >>>>> then the MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? >>>>> >>>>> I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see >>>>> enough reason to be concerned about it. If any clarification in >>>>> this regard is to be forthcoming, I would welcome it. >>>>> >>>>> There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the >>>>> IGFs - as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, >>>>> monopolistic) 'policy dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised >>>>> form of 'participation in governance' and a new experiment in >>>>> participative democracy - mean and how they must be organised, and >>>>> strongly insulated from private interests. And for this sake, one >>>>> need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being slack >>>>> and accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such >>>>> extreme care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. >>>>> >>>>> parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an >>>>> observer.) >>>>> >>>>> Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to >>>>> 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There >>>>> are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries >>>>> to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, >>>>> there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which >>>>> for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get >>>>> so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be >>>>> held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is >>>>> willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some >>>>> preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to >>>>> recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. >>>>> >>>>> The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have >>>>> already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have >>>>> not booked yet. >>>>> >>>>> The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said >>>>> that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be >>>>> commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the >>>>> UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a >>>>> compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside >>>>> the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible >>>>> from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the >>>>> premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable >>>>> price. >>>>> >>>>> So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting >>>>> commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has >>>>> simply been declared dead. >>>>> >>>>> Greetings, >>>>> Norbert >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Aug 2 17:01:24 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 02:01:24 +0500 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <51FC182E.5010708@communisphere.com> References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> <51FB30D7.6000209@itforchange.net> <51FBD4EF.7090608@itforchange.net> <51FBFEF6.3050909@communisphere.com> <51FC182E.5010708@communisphere.com> Message-ID: One of the potential factors in organizing regional or local IGFs is that organizers are constrained by their context sensitive issues. For example, if a regional IGF was to be organized in Pakistan, we would have no one but corporate sponsors because that is the cultural environment here unless only one stakeholder group chipped in the finances such as civil society but for them to see any benefit in an IGF is yet far from reality. There could be a framework that keeps equity and justice in the centre but how organizers actually meet their targets for financing their local IGFs is really not the remit of the global IGF or its policies per se. Best Fouad On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > George, > > Agreed. And that would be acting like a professional. > > Best, > > Tom > > > On 8/2/2013 4:24 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > > Thomas, > > I agree with you, but I don't like the idea of singling out only IGFs for > application of this policy. IGFs are like many other professional meetings, > and should be treated as such. > > How about this as an alternative? Professional meetings of any type should > be transparent regarding the sources and processes of resource acquisition > for their events and their other activities. > > George > > > > On Aug 2, 2013, at 8:48 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > > With regard to bottom up, I agree that "national and regional IGFs should be > able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are > consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions." But > transparency as to the source and process of resource acquisition should be > required to use the IGF name. > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > On 8/2/2013 12:05 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > > All, > > I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions > regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an > desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a franchise operation > within which the top can dictate the behavior of the smaller meetings > presumably feeding into it. > > In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those smaller > meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global IGF, not the > other way around. This should not be a top down operation. > > The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the global > IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules apply. This > is not true for regional and national IGFs. > > Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or > non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it is > their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or even a > recommendation that should be made at a global level. > > > > > > On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: > > > On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: > > "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional > and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such > initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". > > > Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? > > In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start > imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not about > getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For example if > say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company decides it will put > in money since it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? > At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate > stakeholders on board, NOT necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners. > Further, different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What > works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. > > > Grace, > > Happy to clarify. > > First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those conditions be > made applicable to national and regional IGFs that many of us here ( as > also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others) agree that it is appropriate and > necessary to apply to the UN IGF. > > Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can donate > money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures will be taken > to ensure that there is not the least possibility of any quid pro quo at all > for these donations, including providing positions on the MAG, giving > speaking/ chairing slots, special recommendations for speaking slots, > special invitations to what could otherwise be selectively closed high-level > (policy related) meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual > policy deliberation takes place, and so on.... > > Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that these > above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that democratic propriety > demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made applicable to national or > regional IGFs? > > Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand what you > are saying here, and you understand my position. > > parminder > > > Rgds > GG > ________________________________ > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 > From: parminder at itforchange.net > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call > > > Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the isuue > of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly disapproved > of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in February itself, and > for asking the local organising team to discontinue it and take the document > off their website. To make things clear in such strong words is really good > " the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, > and that has to be at a reasonable price". > > Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and > national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such > initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. Safeguarding policy spaces > from commercial/ corporatist influences is as important at regional and > national levels as at the global level. > > As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of Asia > Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial Indonesian IGF fund > raising document as, and I quote > > ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The deal is > nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship arrangement." > > If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did then the > MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? > > I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see enough > reason to be concerned about it. If any clarification in this regard is to > be forthcoming, I would welcome it. > > There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs - as a > somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, monopolistic) 'policy > dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised form of 'participation in > governance' and a new experiment in participative democracy - mean and how > they must be organised, and strongly insulated from private interests. And > for this sake, one need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being > slack and accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such > extreme care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. > > parminder > > > On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an > observer.) > > Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to > 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There > are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries > to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, > there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which > for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get > so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be > held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is > willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some > preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to > recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. > > The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have > already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have > not booked yet. > > The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said > that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be > commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the > UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a > compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside > the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible > from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the > premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable > price. > > So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting > commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has > simply been declared dead. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- 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 toml at communisphere.com Fri Aug 2 17:14:18 2013 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 17:14:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> <51FB30D7.6000209@itforchange.net> <51FBD4EF.7090608@itforchange.net> <51FBFEF6.3050909@communisphere.com> <51FC182E.5010708@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <51FC212A.8060700@communisphere.com> Fouad, Perhaps in those situations where there is an under-developed civil society, and with other non-business sectors unable to pick up the slack, that organizers indicate and certify same, and in those instances organizers be required to subsidize a presence of the missing sector(s) with a portion of the business (or perhaps government) funding. Best, Tom P.S. I've a cultural bias built into the above that says civic society is right for all cultures. I am not certain of that. On 8/2/2013 5:01 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > One of the potential factors in organizing regional or local IGFs is > that organizers are constrained by their context sensitive issues. For > example, if a regional IGF was to be organized in Pakistan, we would > have no one but corporate sponsors because that is the cultural > environment here unless only one stakeholder group chipped in the > finances such as civil society but for them to see any benefit in an > IGF is yet far from reality. > > There could be a framework that keeps equity and justice in the centre > but how organizers actually meet their targets for financing their > local IGFs is really not the remit of the global IGF or its policies > per se. > > Best > > Fouad > > On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt > wrote: >> George, >> >> Agreed. And that would be acting like a professional. >> >> Best, >> >> Tom >> >> >> On 8/2/2013 4:24 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: >> >> Thomas, >> >> I agree with you, but I don't like the idea of singling out only IGFs for >> application of this policy. IGFs are like many other professional meetings, >> and should be treated as such. >> >> How about this as an alternative? Professional meetings of any type should >> be transparent regarding the sources and processes of resource acquisition >> for their events and their other activities. >> >> George >> >> >> >> On Aug 2, 2013, at 8:48 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: >> >> With regard to bottom up, I agree that "national and regional IGFs should be >> able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are >> consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions." But >> transparency as to the source and process of resource acquisition should be >> required to use the IGF name. >> >> Tom Lowenhaupt >> >> On 8/2/2013 12:05 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: >> >> All, >> >> I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions >> regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an >> desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a franchise operation >> within which the top can dictate the behavior of the smaller meetings >> presumably feeding into it. >> >> In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those smaller >> meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global IGF, not the >> other way around. This should not be a top down operation. >> >> The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the global >> IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules apply. This >> is not true for regional and national IGFs. >> >> Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or >> non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it is >> their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or even a >> recommendation that should be made at a global level. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> >> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: >> >> "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional >> and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such >> initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". >> >> >> Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? >> >> In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start >> imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not about >> getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For example if >> say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company decides it will put >> in money since it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? >> At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate >> stakeholders on board, NOT necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners. >> Further, different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What >> works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. >> >> >> Grace, >> >> Happy to clarify. >> >> First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those conditions be >> made applicable to national and regional IGFs that many of us here ( as >> also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others) agree that it is appropriate and >> necessary to apply to the UN IGF. >> >> Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can donate >> money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures will be taken >> to ensure that there is not the least possibility of any quid pro quo at all >> for these donations, including providing positions on the MAG, giving >> speaking/ chairing slots, special recommendations for speaking slots, >> special invitations to what could otherwise be selectively closed high-level >> (policy related) meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual >> policy deliberation takes place, and so on.... >> >> Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that these >> above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that democratic propriety >> demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made applicable to national or >> regional IGFs? >> >> Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand what you >> are saying here, and you understand my position. >> >> parminder >> >> >> Rgds >> GG >> ________________________________ >> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 >> From: parminder at itforchange.net >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >> >> >> Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the isuue >> of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly disapproved >> of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in February itself, and >> for asking the local organising team to discontinue it and take the document >> off their website. To make things clear in such strong words is really good >> " the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, >> and that has to be at a reasonable price". >> >> Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and >> national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such >> initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. Safeguarding policy spaces >> from commercial/ corporatist influences is as important at regional and >> national levels as at the global level. >> >> As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of Asia >> Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial Indonesian IGF fund >> raising document as, and I quote >> >> ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The deal is >> nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship arrangement." >> >> If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did then the >> MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? >> >> I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see enough >> reason to be concerned about it. If any clarification in this regard is to >> be forthcoming, I would welcome it. >> >> There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs - as a >> somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, monopolistic) 'policy >> dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised form of 'participation in >> governance' and a new experiment in participative democracy - mean and how >> they must be organised, and strongly insulated from private interests. And >> for this sake, one need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being >> slack and accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such >> extreme care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >> Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an >> observer.) >> >> Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to >> 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There >> are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries >> to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, >> there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which >> for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get >> so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be >> held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is >> willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some >> preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to >> recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. >> >> The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have >> already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have >> not booked yet. >> >> The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said >> that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be >> commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the >> UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a >> compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside >> the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible >> from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the >> premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable >> price. >> >> So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting >> commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has >> simply been declared dead. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Aug 2 18:34:46 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?c3VyZXNoQGhzZXJ1cy5uZXQ=?=) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2013 04:04:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Message-ID: Purely my personal opinion from earlier being on the apia board, that operates the apricot network operators conference. Let us just make a case for funding transparency and a clear documentation of sponsor benefits, which should under no circumstances be linked to conference content, rather than singling out business, government or civil society sources of funding. It leaves the door open for any organization, irrespective of its affiliation, to hijack the conference agenda if this firewall between sponsorship and content isn't built in, and enforced contractually. I agree with the rest of what George and Thomas have to say here. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Thomas Lowenhaupt" To: "Fouad Bajwa" Cc: Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Date: Sat, Aug 3, 2013 2:44 AM Fouad, Perhaps in those situations where there is an under-developed civil society, and with other non-business sectors unable to pick up the slack, that organizers indicate and certify same, and in those instances organizers be required to subsidize a presence of the missing sector(s) with a portion of the business (or perhaps government) funding. Best, Tom P.S. I've a cultural bias built into the above that says civic society is right for all cultures. I am not certain of that. On 8/2/2013 5:01 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > One of the potential factors in organizing regional or local IGFs is > that organizers are constrained by their context sensitive issues. For > example, if a regional IGF was to be organized in Pakistan, we would > have no one but corporate sponsors because that is the cultural > environment here unless only one stakeholder group chipped in the > finances such as civil society but for them to see any benefit in an > IGF is yet far from reality. > > There could be a framework that keeps equity and justice in the centre > but how organizers actually meet their targets for financing their > local IGFs is really not the remit of the global IGF or its policies > per se. > > Best > > Fouad > > On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 1:35 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt > wrote: >> George, >> >> Agreed. And that would be acting like a professional. >> >> Best, >> >> Tom >> >> >> On 8/2/2013 4:24 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: >> >> Thomas, >> >> I agree with you, but I don't like the idea of singling out only IGFs for >> application of this policy. IGFs are like many other professional meetings, >> and should be treated as such. >> >> How about this as an alternative? Professional meetings of any type should >> be transparent regarding the sources and processes of resource acquisition >> for their events and their other activities. >> >> George >> >> >> >> On Aug 2, 2013, at 8:48 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: >> >> With regard to bottom up, I agree that "national and regional IGFs should be >> able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are >> consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions." But >> transparency as to the source and process of resource acquisition should be >> required to use the IGF name. >> >> Tom Lowenhaupt >> >> On 8/2/2013 12:05 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: >> >> All, >> >> I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions >> regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an >> desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a franchise operation >> within which the top can dictate the behavior of the smaller meetings >> presumably feeding into it. >> >> In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those smaller >> meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global IGF, not the >> other way around. This should not be a top down operation. >> >> The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the global >> IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules apply. This >> is not true for regional and national IGFs. >> >> Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or >> non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it is >> their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or even a >> recommendation that should be made at a global level. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> >> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: >> >> "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional >> and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such >> initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". >> >> >> Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? >> >> In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start >> imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not about >> getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For example if >> say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company decides it will put >> in money since it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? >> At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate >> stakeholders on board, NOT necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners. >> Further, different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What >> works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. >> >> >> Grace, >> >> Happy to clarify. >> >> First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those conditions be >> made applicable to national and regional IGFs that many of us here ( as >> also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others) agree that it is appropriate and >> necessary to apply to the UN IGF. >> >> Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can donate >> money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures will be taken >> to ensure that there is not the least possibility of any quid pro quo at all >> for these donations, including providing positions on the MAG, giving >> speaking/ chairing slots, special recommendations for speaking slots, >> special invitations to what could otherwise be selectively closed high-level >> (policy related) meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual >> policy deliberation takes place, and so on.... >> >> Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that these >> above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that democratic propriety >> demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made applicable to national or >> regional IGFs? >> >> Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand what you >> are saying here, and you understand my position. >> >> parminder >> >> >> Rgds >> GG >> ________________________________ >> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 >> From: parminder at itforchange.net >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >> >> >> Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the isuue >> of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly disapproved >> of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in February itself, and >> for asking the local organising team to discontinue it and take the document >> off their website. To make things clear in such strong words is really good >> " the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, >> and that has to be at a reasonable price". >> >> Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and >> national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such >> initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. Safeguarding policy spaces >> from commercial/ corporatist influences is as important at regional and >> national levels as at the global level. >> >> As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of Asia >> Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial Indonesian IGF fund >> raising document as, and I quote >> >> ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The deal is >> nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship arrangement." >> >> If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did then the >> MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? >> >> I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see enough >> reason to be concerned about it. If any clarification in this regard is to >> be forthcoming, I would welcome it. >> >> There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs - as a >> somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, monopolistic) 'policy >> dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised form of 'participation in >> governance' and a new experiment in participative democracy - mean and how >> they must be organised, and strongly insulated from private interests. And >> for this sake, one need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being >> slack and accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such >> extreme care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >> Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an >> observer.) >> >> Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to >> 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There >> are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries >> to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, >> there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which >> for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get >> so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be >> held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is >> willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some >> preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to >> recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. >> >> The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have >> already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have >> not booked yet. >> >> The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said >> that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be >> commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the >> UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a >> compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside >> the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible >> from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the >> premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable >> price. >> >> So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting >> commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has >> simply been declared dead. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 2 21:32:43 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 08:32:43 +0700 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill>,<51FB30D7.6000209@itforchange.net> <51FBD4EF.7090608@itforchange.net> <51FBFEF6.3050909@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <031e01ce8fe9$669473c0$33bd5b40$@gmail.com> George, I'm not sure that the IGF would actually be definable (exclusively) as a "professional meeting". I'm travelling at the moment so can't verify exactly but I would guess that in the documentation somewhere there are definitions of the IGF as (at least quasi) places of "policy" deliberation which in the "governance" context would go somewhat beyond the simply "professional". In that context i.e. as policy deliberation forums the need for rules governing issues such as "capture" etc. would surely need to be rather stronger than those for strictly "professional" meetings. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 3:25 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Thomas Lowenhaupt Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Thomas, I agree with you, but I don't like the idea of singling out only IGFs for application of this policy. IGFs are like many other professional meetings, and should be treated as such. How about this as an alternative? Professional meetings of any type should be transparent regarding the sources and processes of resource acquisition for their events and their other activities. George On Aug 2, 2013, at 8:48 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: With regard to bottom up, I agree that "national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions." But transparency as to the source and process of resource acquisition should be required to use the IGF name. Tom Lowenhaupt On 8/2/2013 12:05 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: All, I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it. In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global IGF, not the other way around. This should not be a top down operation. The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs. Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or even a recommendation that should be made at a global level. On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on board, NOT necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners. Further, different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. Grace, Happy to clarify. First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those conditions be made applicable to national and regional IGFs that many of us here ( as also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others) agree that it is appropriate and necessary to apply to the UN IGF. Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures will be taken to ensure that there is not the least possibility of any quid pro quo at all for these donations, including providing positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ chairing slots, special recommendations for speaking slots, special invitations to what could otherwise be selectively closed high-level (policy related) meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual policy deliberation takes place, and so on.... Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that these above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that democratic propriety demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made applicable to national or regional IGFs? Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand what you are saying here, and you understand my position. parminder Rgds GG _____ Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 From: parminder at itforchange.net To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the isuue of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly disapproved of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in February itself, and for asking the local organising team to discontinue it and take the document off their website. To make things clear in such strong words is really good " the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, and that has to be at a reasonable price". Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/ corporatist influences is as important at regional and national levels as at the global level. As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of Asia Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial Indonesian IGF fund raising document as, and I quote ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship arrangement." If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did then the MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see enough reason to be concerned about it. If any clarification in this regard is to be forthcoming, I would welcome it. There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs - as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, monopolistic) 'policy dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised form of 'participation in governance' and a new experiment in participative democracy - mean and how they must be organised, and strongly insulated from private interests. And for this sake, one need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being slack and accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such extreme care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. parminder On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an observer.) Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have not booked yet. The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable price. So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has simply been declared dead. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Aug 2 21:32:43 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 08:32:43 +0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Seven telcos named as providing fiber optic cable access to UK spies In-Reply-To: <4AF0D280-A956-4E5D-8172-B15443CE7DFA@warpspeed.com> References: <4AF0D280-A956-4E5D-8172-B15443CE7DFA@warpspeed.com> Message-ID: <032301ce8fe9$693bc600$3bb35200$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On Behalf Of Dewayne Hendricks Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 8:01 AM To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Seven telcos named as providing fiber optic cable access to UK spies Seven telcos named as providing fiber optic cable access to UK spies New Snowden leaks show Verizon, Vodafone, and BT share direct data. By Cyrus Farivar Aug 2 2013 In the latest leak from the documents acquired by former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden, a German newspaper has published a list of the telecommunications companies that have provided British intelligence with direct access to their undersea fiber optic cables. The Süddeutsche Zeitung (Google Translate) and German public broadcaster NDR (Google Translate) published not only the names of the companies, but also their Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) nicknames: "Verizon ('Dacron'), BT ('Remedy'), Vodafone Cable ('Gerontic'), Global Crossing ('Pinnage'), Level 3 ('Little'), Viatel ('Vitreous') and Interoute ('Streetcar')." The German newspaper cited as its source an internal GCHQ presentation slide. It also slammed the GCHQ, the NSA's British counterpart, saying that the GCHQ had “lost all sense of proportion.” Under Britain's Regulatory and Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) of 2000, the government does have broad powers to conduct digital surveillance; however, many believe that this wholesale data sharing is outside the scope of targeted warrants as described under RIPA. In July 2013, Privacy International, a London-based advocacy group, sued the British government, alleging abuses under the law. NDR also pointed out that many of these companies operate major hubs and data centers in German cities, including Berlin, Hamburg, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, and Munich, and that a Global Crossing landing station even sits on the northern German island of Sylt. BT, Level 3, Viatel, Interoute, and Vodafone did not immediately respond to our request for comment. Many of the companies, however, did provide a brief statement to The Guardian, largely reiterating the same comments they've made since Snowden began leaking documents—that they were essentially forced to. [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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Aug 2 21:41:46 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2013 07:11:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Message-ID: <9sx4669l7cbns0abpc8kaane.1375493901110@email.android.com> In your opinion, would keeping program content firewalled from sponsorship and in some cases regulating where sponsored material such as banners, giveaways etc can be located not be enough? If not, what additional safeguard would you suggest?  Keeping in mind what imran and grace pointed out about funding sources for local igf events.  thanks  --srs -------- Original message -------- From: michael gurstein Date: 08/03/2013 7:02 AM (GMT+05:30) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,'George Sadowsky' ,'Thomas Lowenhaupt' Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call   George,   I'm not sure that the IGF would actually be definable (exclusively) as a "professional meeting"… I'm travelling at the moment so can't verify exactly but I would guess that in the documentation somewhere there are definitions of the IGF as (at least quasi) places of "policy" deliberation which in the "governance" context would go somewhat beyond the simply "professional".   In that context i.e. as policy deliberation forums the need for rules governing issues such as "capture" etc. would surely need to be rather stronger than those for strictly "professional" meetings.   M   From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 3:25 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Thomas Lowenhaupt Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call   Thomas,   I agree with you, but I don't like the idea of singling out only IGFs for application of this policy.  IGFs are like many other professional meetings, and should be treated as such.    How about this as an alternative?   Professional meetings of any type should be transparent regarding the sources and processes of resource acquisition for their events and their other activities.   George       On Aug 2, 2013, at 8:48 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote:   With regard to bottom up, I agree that "national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions." But transparency as to the source and process of resource acquisition should be required to use the IGF name. Tom Lowenhaupt On 8/2/2013 12:05 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: All,   I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it.   In fact, it would be more appropriate if  representatives of those smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global IGF, not the other way around.  This should not be a top down operation.    The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules apply.  This is not true for regional and national IGFs.   Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or even a recommendation that should be made at a global level.            On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote:     On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced".  Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence?    In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company  decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on board, NOT necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners.  Further, different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. Grace, Happy to clarify. First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those conditions be made applicable  to national and regional IGFs that many of us here ( as also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others)  agree that it is appropriate and necessary to apply to the UN IGF. Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures will be taken to ensure that there is not the least possibility of any quid pro quo at all for these donations, including providing positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ chairing slots, special recommendations for speaking slots, special invitations to what could otherwise be selectively closed high-level (policy related) meetings,  logos in and around the spaces where actual policy deliberation takes place, and so on.... Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that these above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that  democratic propriety demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made applicable to national or regional IGFs? Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand what you are saying here, and you understand my position. parminder   Rgds GG Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 From: parminder at itforchange.net To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the isuue of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly disapproved of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in February itself, and for asking the local organising team to discontinue it and take the document off their website. To make things clear in such strong words is really good " the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, and that has to be at a reasonable price". Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/ corporatist influences is as important at regional and national levels as at the global level. As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of Asia Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial Indonesian IGF fund raising document as, and I quote ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship arrangement." If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did then the MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see enough reason to be concerned about it.  If any clarification in this regard is to be forthcoming, I would welcome it. There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs - as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, monopolistic) 'policy dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised form of 'participation in governance' and a new experiment in participative democracy - mean and how they must be organised, and strongly insulated from private interests. And for this sake, one need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being slack and accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such extreme care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. parminder On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an observer.)   Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week.   The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have not booked yet.   The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable price.   So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has simply been declared dead.   Greetings, Norbert       ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t     ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Aug 2 21:52:07 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 08:52:07 +0700 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill>,<51FB30D7.6000209@itforchange.net> <51FBD4EF.7090608@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <033c01ce8fec$169e73e0$43db5ba0$@gmail.com> (Sorry, working through my mail front to back. I'm not sure I agree with this. The issue I think would be the degree to which the IGF -- either globally, regionally or nationally had a public policy component to it. The more the public policy element (or the expectation of a public policy output/outcome/influence of some sort) the more there is a need for some minimum standards concerning the inputs into the IGFs at whatever level (and presuming some degree of cascading upwards from the local to the global). Of course, if one is making the assumption that the IGF's are essentially valueless from a public policy perspective then there is no rules/standards necessary at all and seats/slots/etc.etc. can, as with normal commercial (and in many cases "professional") conferences be sold to the highest bidders. (BTW I think that the issues concerning "bottom up vs. top down" are really not relevant here in that I'm assuming the intention/basis for this discussion is to establish some broad based norms of conduct for the IGF's. Such norms are usually the result of broad based consensus on values/principles etc. as governing the activities of the community in question (in this instance the global Internet governance community). Adherence to these norms is a necessary element for inclusion in that community--non-adherence is reason for exclusion. These processes of norm setting are neither bottom up nor top down but horizontal processes of consensus building within the relevant community.) Mike From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 11:06 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Cc: Grace Githaiga Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call All, I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it. In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global IGF, not the other way around. This should not be a top down operation. The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs. Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or even a recommendation that should be made at a global level. On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on board, NOT necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners. Further, different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. Grace, Happy to clarify. First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those conditions be made applicable to national and regional IGFs that many of us here ( as also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others) agree that it is appropriate and necessary to apply to the UN IGF. Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures will be taken to ensure that there is not the least possibility of any quid pro quo at all for these donations, including providing positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ chairing slots, special recommendations for speaking slots, special invitations to what could otherwise be selectively closed high-level (policy related) meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual policy deliberation takes place, and so on.... Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that these above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that democratic propriety demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made applicable to national or regional IGFs? Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand what you are saying here, and you understand my position. parminder Rgds GG _____ Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 From: parminder at itforchange.net To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the isuue of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly disapproved of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in February itself, and for asking the local organising team to discontinue it and take the document off their website. To make things clear in such strong words is really good " the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, and that has to be at a reasonable price". Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/ corporatist influences is as important at regional and national levels as at the global level. As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of Asia Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial Indonesian IGF fund raising document as, and I quote ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship arrangement." If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did then the MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see enough reason to be concerned about it. If any clarification in this regard is to be forthcoming, I would welcome it. There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs - as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, monopolistic) 'policy dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised form of 'participation in governance' and a new experiment in participative democracy - mean and how they must be organised, and strongly insulated from private interests. And for this sake, one need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being slack and accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such extreme care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. parminder On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an observer.) Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have not booked yet. The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable price. So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has simply been declared dead. 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Aug 2 22:12:28 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2013 07:42:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Message-ID: As a counterpoint I have helped run, and so has paul wilson, a networking and operations conference for isps, sponsored mostly by vendors but with strictly enforced content neutrality rules, and in the collocated APNIC conference, consensus based governance and policy making, regardless of the sponsor. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "michael gurstein" To: , "'George Sadowsky'" , "'parminder'" Cc: "'Grace Githaiga'" Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Date: Sat, Aug 3, 2013 7:22 AM (Sorry, working through my mail front to back. I'm not sure I agree with this. The issue I think would be the degree to which the IGF -- either globally, regionally or nationally had a public policy component to it. The more the public policy element (or the expectation of a public policy output/outcome/influence of some sort) the more there is a need for some minimum standards concerning the inputs into the IGFs at whatever level (and presuming some degree of cascading upwards from the local to the global). Of course, if one is making the assumption that the IGF's are essentially valueless from a public policy perspective then there is no rules/standards necessary at all and seats/slots/etc.etc. can, as with normal commercial (and in many cases "professional") conferences be sold to the highest bidders. (BTW I think that the issues concerning "bottom up vs. top down" are really not relevant here in that I'm assuming the intention/basis for this discussion is to establish some broad based norms of conduct for the IGF's. Such norms are usually the result of broad based consensus on values/principles etc. as governing the activities of the community in question (in this instance the global Internet governance community). Adherence to these norms is a necessary element for inclusion in that community--non-adherence is reason for exclusion. These processes of norm setting are neither bottom up nor top down but horizontal processes of consensus building within the relevant community.) Mike From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 11:06 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Cc: Grace Githaiga Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call All, I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it. In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global IGF, not the other way around. This should not be a top down operation. The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs. Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or even a recommendation that should be made at a global level. On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on board, NOT necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners. Further, different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. Grace, Happy to clarify. First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those conditions be made applicable to national and regional IGFs that many of us here ( as also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others) agree that it is appropriate and necessary to apply to the UN IGF. Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures will be taken to ensure that there is not the least possibility of any quid pro quo at all for these donations, including providing positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ chairing slots, special recommendations for speaking slots, special invitations to what could otherwise be selectively closed high-level (policy related) meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual policy deliberation takes place, and so on.... Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that these above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that democratic propriety demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made applicable to national or regional IGFs? Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand what you are saying here, and you understand my position. parminder Rgds GG _____ Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 From: parminder at itforchange.net To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the isuue of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly disapproved of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in February itself, and for asking the local organising team to discontinue it and take the document off their website. To make things clear in such strong words is really good " the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, and that has to be at a reasonable price". Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/ corporatist influences is as important at regional and national levels as at the global level. As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of Asia Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial Indonesian IGF fund raising document as, and I quote ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship arrangement." If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did then the MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see enough reason to be concerned about it. If any clarification in this regard is to be forthcoming, I would welcome it. There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs - as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, monopolistic) 'policy dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised form of 'participation in governance' and a new experiment in participative democracy - mean and how they must be organised, and strongly insulated from private interests. And for this sake, one need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being slack and accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such extreme care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. parminder On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an observer.) Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have not booked yet. The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable price. So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has simply been declared dead. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Aug 2 22:33:01 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 09:33:01 +0700 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <9sx4669l7cbns0abpc8kaane.1375493901110@email.android.com> References: <9sx4669l7cbns0abpc8kaane.1375493901110@email.android.com> Message-ID: <036201ce8ff1$cf2a4fb0$6d7eef10$@gmail.com> I'm not sure at this point what would be required… If these are public policy processes of some sort (and I'm guessing most of us would agree that they are) then similar such firewalls to reduce/exclude commercial or other interests in inappropriately influencing those processes would be required. These will likely vary from country to country but given that we are talking about what I would consider extremely significant policy processes we as a group should probably opt for the most stringent current standards rather than opting for some common denominator or simply adopting holus bolus the standards of certain of the more significant parties involved. M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 8:42 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 'George Sadowsky'; 'Thomas Lowenhaupt' Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In your opinion, would keeping program content firewalled from sponsorship and in some cases regulating where sponsored material such as banners, giveaways etc can be located not be enough? If not, what additional safeguard would you suggest? Keeping in mind what imran and grace pointed out about funding sources for local igf events. thanks --srs -------- Original message -------- From: michael gurstein Date: 08/03/2013 7:02 AM (GMT+05:30) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,'George Sadowsky' ,'Thomas Lowenhaupt' Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call George, I'm not sure that the IGF would actually be definable (exclusively) as a "professional meeting"… I'm travelling at the moment so can't verify exactly but I would guess that in the documentation somewhere there are definitions of the IGF as (at least quasi) places of "policy" deliberation which in the "governance" context would go somewhat beyond the simply "professional". In that context i.e. as policy deliberation forums the need for rules governing issues such as "capture" etc. would surely need to be rather stronger than those for strictly "professional" meetings. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 3:25 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Thomas Lowenhaupt Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Thomas, I agree with you, but I don't like the idea of singling out only IGFs for application of this policy. IGFs are like many other professional meetings, and should be treated as such. How about this as an alternative? Professional meetings of any type should be transparent regarding the sources and processes of resource acquisition for their events and their other activities. George On Aug 2, 2013, at 8:48 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: With regard to bottom up, I agree that "national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions." But transparency as to the source and process of resource acquisition should be required to use the IGF name. Tom Lowenhaupt On 8/2/2013 12:05 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: All, I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it. In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global IGF, not the other way around. This should not be a top down operation. The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs. Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or even a recommendation that should be made at a global level. On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on board, NOT necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners. Further, different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. Grace, Happy to clarify. First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those conditions be made applicable to national and regional IGFs that many of us here ( as also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others) agree that it is appropriate and necessary to apply to the UN IGF. Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures will be taken to ensure that there is not the least possibility of any quid pro quo at all for these donations, including providing positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ chairing slots, special recommendations for speaking slots, special invitations to what could otherwise be selectively closed high-level (policy related) meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual policy deliberation takes place, and so on.... Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that these above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that democratic propriety demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made applicable to national or regional IGFs? Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand what you are saying here, and you understand my position. parminder Rgds GG _____ Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 From: parminder at itforchange.net To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the isuue of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly disapproved of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in February itself, and for asking the local organising team to discontinue it and take the document off their website. To make things clear in such strong words is really good " the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, and that has to be at a reasonable price". Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/ corporatist influences is as important at regional and national levels as at the global level. As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of Asia Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial Indonesian IGF fund raising document as, and I quote ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship arrangement." If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did then the MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see enough reason to be concerned about it. If any clarification in this regard is to be forthcoming, I would welcome it. There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs - as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, monopolistic) 'policy dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised form of 'participation in governance' and a new experiment in participative democracy - mean and how they must be organised, and strongly insulated from private interests. And for this sake, one need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being slack and accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such extreme care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. parminder On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an observer.) Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have not booked yet. The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable price. So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has simply been declared dead. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Aug 2 23:06:32 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 10:06:32 +0700 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <03a901ce8ff6$7b1e4070$715ac150$@gmail.com> Yes, and I think there is some ambiguity or misattribution when we use the term "policy"… I know that in the technical world "policy" refers to things like "engineering standards" http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/estatesprojects/policyandstandards/tps while in the public policy world "policy" refers to things like "governmental action" of various kinds and at various levels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policy I would guess that the ISP/APNIC conference(s) you are referring to would be generally using "policy" in the first sense above, while for many (most) the IGF is concerned with the latter… It is probably worthwhile in the context of MSism/the IGF for there to be some broader clarification/definitions around these issues (and I recognize that the disambiguatiion involved might raise significant issues concerning the nature of MSism and the IGF--one's moreover which I think are very much worth clarifying/discussing.) M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 9:12 AM To: Michael Gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; George Sadowsky; 'parminder' Cc: 'Grace Githaiga' Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call As a counterpoint I have helped run, and so has paul wilson, a networking and operations conference for isps, sponsored mostly by vendors but with strictly enforced content neutrality rules, and in the collocated APNIC conference, consensus based governance and policy making, regardless of the sponsor. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "michael gurstein" To: , "'George Sadowsky'" , "'parminder'" Cc: "'Grace Githaiga'" Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Date: Sat, Aug 3, 2013 7:22 AM (Sorry, working through my mail front to back. I'm not sure I agree with this. The issue I think would be the degree to which the IGF -- either globally, regionally or nationally had a public policy component to it. The more the public policy element (or the expectation of a public policy output/outcome/influence of some sort) the more there is a need for some minimum standards concerning the inputs into the IGFs at whatever level (and presuming some degree of cascading upwards from the local to the global). Of course, if one is making the assumption that the IGF's are essentially valueless from a public policy perspective then there is no rules/standards necessary at all and seats/slots/etc.etc. can, as with normal commercial (and in many cases "professional") conferences be sold to the highest bidders. (BTW I think that the issues concerning "bottom up vs. top down" are really not relevant here in that I'm assuming the intention/basis for this discussion is to establish some broad based norms of conduct for the IGF's. Such norms are usually the result of broad based consensus on values/principles etc. as governing the activities of the community in question (in this instance the global Internet governance community). Adherence to these norms is a necessary element for inclusion in that community--non-adherence is reason for exclusion. These processes of norm setting are neither bottom up nor top down but horizontal processes of consensus building within the relevant community.) Mike From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 11:06 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Cc: Grace Githaiga Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call All, I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it. In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global IGF, not the other way around. This should not be a top down operation. The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs. Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or even a recommendation that should be made at a global level. On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on board, NOT necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners. Further, different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. Grace, Happy to clarify. First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those conditions be made applicable to national and regional IGFs that many of us here ( as also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others) agree that it is appropriate and necessary to apply to the UN IGF. Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures will be taken to ensure that there is not the least possibility of any quid pro quo at all for these donations, including providing positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ chairing slots, special recommendations for speaking slots, special invitations to what could otherwise be selectively closed high-level (policy related) meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual policy deliberation takes place, and so on.... Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that these above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that democratic propriety demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made applicable to national or regional IGFs? Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand what you are saying here, and you understand my position. parminder Rgds GG _____ Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 From: parminder at itforchange.net To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the isuue of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly disapproved of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in February itself, and for asking the local organising team to discontinue it and take the document off their website. To make things clear in such strong words is really good " the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, and that has to be at a reasonable price". Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/ corporatist influences is as important at regional and national levels as at the global level. As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of Asia Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial Indonesian IGF fund raising document as, and I quote ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship arrangement." If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did then the MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see enough reason to be concerned about it. If any clarification in this regard is to be forthcoming, I would welcome it. There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs - as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, monopolistic) 'policy dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised form of 'participation in governance' and a new experiment in participative democracy - mean and how they must be organised, and strongly insulated from private interests. And for this sake, one need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being slack and accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such extreme care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. parminder On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an observer.) Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have not booked yet. The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable price. So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has simply been declared dead. 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Aug 2 23:23:08 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 08:53:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <03a901ce8ff6$7b1e4070$715ac150$@gmail.com> References: <03a901ce8ff6$7b1e4070$715ac150$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Both. Please remember that APNIC as one of the RIRs is responsible for allocation of IP addresses and autonomous systems. IP addresses are one of the critical resources of the internet - and APNIC / the other RIR's governance processes include policy rather than just technical standards. So they absolutely have to be, and definitely are, open, transparent and consensus based. --srs (iPad) On 03-Aug-2013, at 8:36, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Yes, and I think there is some ambiguity or misattribution when we use the term "policy"… > > I know that in the technical world "policy" refers to things like "engineering standards" http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/estatesprojects/policyandstandards/tps while in the public policy world "policy" refers to things like "governmental action" of various kinds and at various levels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policy > > I would guess that the ISP/APNIC conference(s) you are referring to would be generally using "policy" in the first sense above, while for many (most) the IGF is concerned with the latter… It is probably worthwhile in the context of MSism/the IGF for there to be some broader clarification/definitions around these issues (and I recognize that the disambiguatiion involved might raise significant issues concerning the nature of MSism and the IGF--one's moreover which I think are very much worth clarifying/discussing.) > > M > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 9:12 AM > To: Michael Gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; George Sadowsky; 'parminder' > Cc: 'Grace Githaiga' > Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call > > As a counterpoint I have helped run, and so has paul wilson, a networking and operations conference for isps, sponsored mostly by vendors but with strictly enforced content neutrality rules, and in the collocated APNIC conference, consensus based governance and policy making, regardless of the sponsor. > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "michael gurstein" > To: , "'George Sadowsky'" , "'parminder'" > Cc: "'Grace Githaiga'" > Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call > Date: Sat, Aug 3, 2013 7:22 AM > > > (Sorry, working through my mail front to back. > > > > I'm not sure I agree with this. The issue I think would be the degree to > which the IGF -- either globally, regionally or nationally had a public > policy component to it. The more the public policy element (or the > expectation of a public policy output/outcome/influence of some sort) the > more there is a need for some minimum standards concerning the inputs into > the IGFs at whatever level (and presuming some degree of cascading upwards > from the local to the global). > > > > Of course, if one is making the assumption that the IGF's are essentially > valueless from a public policy perspective then there is no rules/standards > necessary at all and seats/slots/etc.etc. can, as with normal commercial > (and in many cases "professional") conferences be sold to the highest > bidders. > > > > (BTW I think that the issues concerning "bottom up vs. top down" are really > not relevant here in that I'm assuming the intention/basis for this > discussion is to establish some broad based norms of conduct for the IGF's. > Such norms are usually the result of broad based consensus on > values/principles etc. as governing the activities of the community in > question (in this instance the global Internet governance community). > Adherence to these norms is a necessary element for inclusion in that > community--non-adherence is reason for exclusion. These processes of norm > setting are neither bottom up nor top down but horizontal processes of > consensus building within the relevant community.) > > > > Mike > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky > Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 11:06 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder > Cc: Grace Githaiga > Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call > > > > All, > > > > I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions > regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an > desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a franchise operation > within which the top can dictate the behavior of the smaller meetings > presumably feeding into it. > > > > In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those smaller > meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global IGF, not the > other way around. This should not be a top down operation. > > > > The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the global > IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules apply. This > is not true for regional and national IGFs. > > > > Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or > non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it is > their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or even a > recommendation that should be made at a global level. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > > > On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: > > "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional > and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such > initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". > > > Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? > > > > In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start > imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not about > getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For example if > say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company decides it will put > in money since it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? > At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate > stakeholders on board, NOT necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners. > Further, different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What > works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. > > > Grace, > > Happy to clarify. > > First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those conditions be > made applicable to national and regional IGFs that many of us here ( as > also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others) agree that it is appropriate and > necessary to apply to the UN IGF. > > Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can donate > money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures will be taken > to ensure that there is not the least possibility of any quid pro quo at all > for these donations, including providing positions on the MAG, giving > speaking/ chairing slots, special recommendations for speaking slots, > special invitations to what could otherwise be selectively closed high-level > (policy related) meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual > policy deliberation takes place, and so on.... > > Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that these > above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that democratic propriety > demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made applicable to national or > regional IGFs? > > Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand what you > are saying here, and you understand my position. > > parminder > > > > > > Rgds > > GG > > _____ > > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 > From: parminder at itforchange.net > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call > > > Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the isuue > of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly disapproved > of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in February itself, and > for asking the local organising team to discontinue it and take the document > off their website. To make things clear in such strong words is really good > " the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, > and that has to be at a reasonable price". > > Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and > national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such > initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. Safeguarding policy spaces > from commercial/ corporatist influences is as important at regional and > national levels as at the global level. > > As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of Asia > Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial Indonesian IGF fund > raising document as, and I quote > > ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The deal is > nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship arrangement." > > If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did then the > MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? > > I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see enough > reason to be concerned about it. If any clarification in this regard is to > be forthcoming, I would welcome it. > > There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs - as a > somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, monopolistic) 'policy > dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised form of 'participation in > governance' and a new experiment in participative democracy - mean and how > they must be organised, and strongly insulated from private interests. And > for this sake, one need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being > slack and accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such > extreme care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. > > parminder > > On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an > observer.) > > Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to > 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There > are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries > to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, > there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which > for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get > so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be > held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is > willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some > preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to > recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. > > The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have > already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have > not booked yet. > > The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said > that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be > commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the > UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a > compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside > the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible > from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the > premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable > price. > > So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting > commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has > simply been declared dead. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Aug 3 00:01:57 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:01:57 +0700 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: References: <03a901ce8ff6$7b1e4070$715ac150$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <03e701ce8ffe$3beac5b0$b3c05110$@gmail.com> Whether or not the "allocation of IP addresses and autonomous systems" is a matter of technical policy or a public policy is something worth discussing but my overall point was that if it is of purely "technical policy" interest then different standards/norms would likely need to prevail based on norms within the technical community (I'm not sufficiently familiar with those processes to comment) as compared to public policy processes as per ensuring a segregation as to potentially self-interested parties. (I believe however, that the issue of corporate capture has been of considerable signficance at various times in various standards processes for example.) M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 10:23 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: ; George Sadowsky; parminder; Grace Githaiga Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Both. Please remember that APNIC as one of the RIRs is responsible for allocation of IP addresses and autonomous systems. IP addresses are one of the critical resources of the internet - and APNIC / the other RIR's governance processes include policy rather than just technical standards. So they absolutely have to be, and definitely are, open, transparent and consensus based. --srs (iPad) On 03-Aug-2013, at 8:36, "michael gurstein" wrote: Yes, and I think there is some ambiguity or misattribution when we use the term "policy"… I know that in the technical world "policy" refers to things like "engineering standards" http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/estatesprojects/policyandstandards/tps while in the public policy world "policy" refers to things like "governmental action" of various kinds and at various levels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policy I would guess that the ISP/APNIC conference(s) you are referring to would be generally using "policy" in the first sense above, while for many (most) the IGF is concerned with the latter… It is probably worthwhile in the context of MSism/the IGF for there to be some broader clarification/definitions around these issues (and I recognize that the disambiguatiion involved might raise significant issues concerning the nature of MSism and the IGF--one's moreover which I think are very much worth clarifying/discussing.) M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 9:12 AM To: Michael Gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; George Sadowsky; 'parminder' Cc: 'Grace Githaiga' Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call As a counterpoint I have helped run, and so has paul wilson, a networking and operations conference for isps, sponsored mostly by vendors but with strictly enforced content neutrality rules, and in the collocated APNIC conference, consensus based governance and policy making, regardless of the sponsor. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "michael gurstein" To: , "'George Sadowsky'" , "'parminder'" Cc: "'Grace Githaiga'" Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Date: Sat, Aug 3, 2013 7:22 AM (Sorry, working through my mail front to back. I'm not sure I agree with this. The issue I think would be the degree to which the IGF -- either globally, regionally or nationally had a public policy component to it. The more the public policy element (or the expectation of a public policy output/outcome/influence of some sort) the more there is a need for some minimum standards concerning the inputs into the IGFs at whatever level (and presuming some degree of cascading upwards from the local to the global). Of course, if one is making the assumption that the IGF's are essentially valueless from a public policy perspective then there is no rules/standards necessary at all and seats/slots/etc.etc. can, as with normal commercial (and in many cases "professional") conferences be sold to the highest bidders. (BTW I think that the issues concerning "bottom up vs. top down" are really not relevant here in that I'm assuming the intention/basis for this discussion is to establish some broad based norms of conduct for the IGF's. Such norms are usually the result of broad based consensus on values/principles etc. as governing the activities of the community in question (in this instance the global Internet governance community). Adherence to these norms is a necessary element for inclusion in that community--non-adherence is reason for exclusion. These processes of norm setting are neither bottom up nor top down but horizontal processes of consensus building within the relevant community.) Mike From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 11:06 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Cc: Grace Githaiga Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call All, I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it. In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global IGF, not the other way around. This should not be a top down operation. The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs. Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or even a recommendation that should be made at a global level. On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on board, NOT necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners. Further, different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. Grace, Happy to clarify. First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those conditions be made applicable to national and regional IGFs that many of us here ( as also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others) agree that it is appropriate and necessary to apply to the UN IGF. Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures will be taken to ensure that there is not the least possibility of any quid pro quo at all for these donations, including providing positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ chairing slots, special recommendations for speaking slots, special invitations to what could otherwise be selectively closed high-level (policy related) meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual policy deliberation takes place, and so on.... Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that these above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that democratic propriety demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made applicable to national or regional IGFs? Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand what you are saying here, and you understand my position. parminder Rgds GG _____ Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 From: parminder at itforchange.net To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the isuue of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly disapproved of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in February itself, and for asking the local organising team to discontinue it and take the document off their website. To make things clear in such strong words is really good " the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, and that has to be at a reasonable price". Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/ corporatist influences is as important at regional and national levels as at the global level. As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of Asia Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial Indonesian IGF fund raising document as, and I quote ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship arrangement." If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did then the MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see enough reason to be concerned about it. If any clarification in this regard is to be forthcoming, I would welcome it. There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs - as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, monopolistic) 'policy dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised form of 'participation in governance' and a new experiment in participative democracy - mean and how they must be organised, and strongly insulated from private interests. And for this sake, one need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being slack and accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such extreme care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. parminder On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an observer.) Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have not booked yet. The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable price. So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has simply been declared dead. 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 suresh at hserus.net Sat Aug 3 00:13:59 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 09:43:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <03e701ce8ffe$3beac5b0$b3c05110$@gmail.com> References: <03a901ce8ff6$7b1e4070$715ac150$@gmail.com> <03e701ce8ffe$3beac5b0$b3c05110$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <722C9457-5B53-4410-B2FD-8D2C7BE486C8@hserus.net> It is a very real issue in technical standards bodies - given that a vendor's proprietary standard that gets adopted into a technical standard can lead to them cornering the market on products using that standard. It is an even larger issue in the RIRs and ICANN given the significant policy components and the perception of IP addresses as a critical internet resource, even, by some countries, as a national resource. Suffice to say that the same threats you describe do exist - and the enforcement mechanism to ward off those threats remains much the same, though it may well vary in degree depending on the nature of the conference. --srs (iPad) On 03-Aug-2013, at 9:31, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Whether or not the "allocation of IP addresses and autonomous systems" is a matter of technical policy or a public policy is something worth discussing but my overall point was that if it is of purely "technical policy" interest then different standards/norms would likely need to prevail based on norms within the technical community (I'm not sufficiently familiar with those processes to comment) as compared to public policy processes as per ensuring a segregation as to potentially self-interested parties. (I believe however, that the issue of corporate capture has been of considerable signficance at various times in various standards processes for example.) > > M > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 10:23 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: ; George Sadowsky; parminder; Grace Githaiga > Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call > > Both. Please remember that APNIC as one of the RIRs is responsible for allocation of IP addresses and autonomous systems. > > IP addresses are one of the critical resources of the internet - and APNIC / the other RIR's governance processes include policy rather than just technical standards. So they absolutely have to be, and definitely are, open, transparent and consensus based. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 03-Aug-2013, at 8:36, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Yes, and I think there is some ambiguity or misattribution when we use the term "policy"… > > I know that in the technical world "policy" refers to things like "engineering standards" http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/estatesprojects/policyandstandards/tps while in the public policy world "policy" refers to things like "governmental action" of various kinds and at various levels http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_policy > > I would guess that the ISP/APNIC conference(s) you are referring to would be generally using "policy" in the first sense above, while for many (most) the IGF is concerned with the latter… It is probably worthwhile in the context of MSism/the IGF for there to be some broader clarification/definitions around these issues (and I recognize that the disambiguatiion involved might raise significant issues concerning the nature of MSism and the IGF--one's moreover which I think are very much worth clarifying/discussing.) > > M > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 9:12 AM > To: Michael Gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; George Sadowsky; 'parminder' > Cc: 'Grace Githaiga' > Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call > > As a counterpoint I have helped run, and so has paul wilson, a networking and operations conference for isps, sponsored mostly by vendors but with strictly enforced content neutrality rules, and in the collocated APNIC conference, consensus based governance and policy making, regardless of the sponsor. > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "michael gurstein" > To: , "'George Sadowsky'" , "'parminder'" > Cc: "'Grace Githaiga'" > Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call > Date: Sat, Aug 3, 2013 7:22 AM > > > (Sorry, working through my mail front to back. > > > > I'm not sure I agree with this. The issue I think would be the degree to > which the IGF -- either globally, regionally or nationally had a public > policy component to it. The more the public policy element (or the > expectation of a public policy output/outcome/influence of some sort) the > more there is a need for some minimum standards concerning the inputs into > the IGFs at whatever level (and presuming some degree of cascading upwards > from the local to the global). > > > > Of course, if one is making the assumption that the IGF's are essentially > valueless from a public policy perspective then there is no rules/standards > necessary at all and seats/slots/etc.etc. can, as with normal commercial > (and in many cases "professional") conferences be sold to the highest > bidders. > > > > (BTW I think that the issues concerning "bottom up vs. top down" are really > not relevant here in that I'm assuming the intention/basis for this > discussion is to establish some broad based norms of conduct for the IGF's. > Such norms are usually the result of broad based consensus on > values/principles etc. as governing the activities of the community in > question (in this instance the global Internet governance community). > Adherence to these norms is a necessary element for inclusion in that > community--non-adherence is reason for exclusion. These processes of norm > setting are neither bottom up nor top down but horizontal processes of > consensus building within the relevant community.) > > > > Mike > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky > Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 11:06 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder > Cc: Grace Githaiga > Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call > > > > All, > > > > I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions > regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an > desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a franchise operation > within which the top can dictate the behavior of the smaller meetings > presumably feeding into it. > > > > In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those smaller > meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global IGF, not the > other way around. This should not be a top down operation. > > > > The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the global > IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules apply. This > is not true for regional and national IGFs. > > > > Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or > non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it is > their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or even a > recommendation that should be made at a global level. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > > > On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: > > "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional > and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such > initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". > > > Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? > > > > In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start > imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not about > getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For example if > say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company decides it will put > in money since it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? > At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate > stakeholders on board, NOT necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners. > Further, different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What > works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. > > > Grace, > > Happy to clarify. > > First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those conditions be > made applicable to national and regional IGFs that many of us here ( as > also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others) agree that it is appropriate and > necessary to apply to the UN IGF. > > Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can donate > money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures will be taken > to ensure that there is not the least possibility of any quid pro quo at all > for these donations, including providing positions on the MAG, giving > speaking/ chairing slots, special recommendations for speaking slots, > special invitations to what could otherwise be selectively closed high-level > (policy related) meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual > policy deliberation takes place, and so on.... > > Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that these > above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that democratic propriety > demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made applicable to national or > regional IGFs? > > Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand what you > are saying here, and you understand my position. > > parminder > > > > > > Rgds > > GG > > _____ > > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 > From: parminder at itforchange.net > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call > > > Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the isuue > of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly disapproved > of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in February itself, and > for asking the local organising team to discontinue it and take the document > off their website. To make things clear in such strong words is really good > " the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, > and that has to be at a reasonable price". > > Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and > national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such > initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. Safeguarding policy spaces > from commercial/ corporatist influences is as important at regional and > national levels as at the global level. > > As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of Asia > Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial Indonesian IGF fund > raising document as, and I quote > > ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The deal is > nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship arrangement." > > If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did then the > MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? > > I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see enough > reason to be concerned about it. If any clarification in this regard is to > be forthcoming, I would welcome it. > > There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs - as a > somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, monopolistic) 'policy > dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised form of 'participation in > governance' and a new experiment in participative democracy - mean and how > they must be organised, and strongly insulated from private interests. And > for this sake, one need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being > slack and accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such > extreme care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. > > parminder > > On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an > observer.) > > Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to > 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There > are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries > to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, > there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which > for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get > so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be > held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is > willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some > preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to > recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. > > The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have > already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have > not booked yet. > > The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said > that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be > commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the > UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a > compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside > the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible > from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the > premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable > price. > > So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting > commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has > simply been declared dead. > > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Aug 3 02:09:08 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2013 11:39:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill>,<51FB30D7.6000209@itforchange.net> <51FBD4EF.7090608@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51FC9E84.1030700@itforchange.net> It is important to first agree on what the IGF is.... One view may be that it is just an annual conference on IG (and George's latter email suggests that this is what he takes it to be). Another, and my, view, is to see the IGF as a new experiment in democracy.. In an earlier posting I had called it as representing version 3 of democracy where participative spaces are no longer ad hoc but attempted to be institutionalised, with an ongoing and a rather autonomous presence. Now, what norms we agree on for the IGF depends on how we see the IGF. One cannot be loosely shifting between these two conceptions, choosing norms that would rightly apply to one kind (for instance, the IGF being just a regular annual conference) and then, at other times, pushing its certain 'monopoly' legitimacy in the area of developing public policies.... That is the biggest problem in the current context. For those who consider the IGF just as any annual conference, my response is that the term 'IGF' came out of a world summit, and has a specific meaning and context attached to it. It cannot be loosely mis-used by anyone. And if they just want to arrange an annual conferece why do they not use any other name - why do they want to borrow from the special legitmacy of the IGF, given to it by a world summit, and thus seek to eat their cake and have it too.... This merits a clarification/ response. For those who really consider IGF as a special policy related body, they need to accept univeral democratic norms for public institutions, and there is nothing bottom up or top down about such democratic norms. Democracy is a human right, and human rights, and the norms related to them, are not open for different groups and communities to interpret as they would like to. Therefore, those who consider IGF just as an annual conference on IG are requested to chose another name for their conference, and not to usurp a term that the global community has already invested with a deep democratic meaning. And those who do consider the IGF as a key public policy related body, with an exclusive legitimacy of some kind, should then not swing between the above two possible conceptions of the IGF, and when it comes to funding try to see the IGF as just any conference, but for other purposes see it as a special policy related body. parminder On Friday 02 August 2013 09:35 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > All, > > I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the > decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with > the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a > franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of > the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it. > > In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those > smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global > IGF, not the other way around. This should not be a top down operation. > > The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the > global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules > apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs. > > Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or > non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it > is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or > even a recommendation that should be made at a global level. > > > > > > On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: > >> >> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: >>> "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for >>> regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are >>> listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". >>> >>> >>> Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? >>> >>> In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start >>> imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not >>> about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For >>> example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company >>> decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, >>> should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder >>> model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on board, NOT >>> necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners. Further, >>> different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What >>> works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. >> >> Grace, >> >> Happy to clarify. >> >> First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those >> conditions be made applicable to national and regional IGFs that >> many of us here ( as also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others) agree >> that it is appropriate and necessary to apply to the UN IGF. >> >> Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can >> donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures >> will be taken to ensure that there is not the least possibility of >> any quid pro quo at all for these donations, including providing >> positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ chairing slots, special >> recommendations for speaking slots, special invitations to what could >> otherwise be selectively closed high-level (policy related) >> meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual policy >> deliberation takes place, and so on.... >> >> Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that >> these above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that >> democratic propriety demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made >> applicable to national or regional IGFs? >> >> Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand >> what you are saying here, and you understand my position. >> >> parminder >> >>> >>> Rgds >>> GG >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 >>> From: parminder at itforchange.net >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >>> >>> >>> Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the >>> isuue of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly >>> disapproved of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in >>> February itself, and for asking the local organising team to >>> discontinue it and take the document off their website. To make >>> things clear in such strong words is really good " the only thing >>> that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, and that >>> has to be at a reasonable price". >>> >>> Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for >>> regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are >>> listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. >>> Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/ corporatist influences >>> is as important at regional and national levels as at the global level. >>> >>> As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of >>> Asia Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial >>> Indonesian IGF fund raising document as, and I quote >>> >>> ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The >>> deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship >>> arrangement." >>> >>> If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did >>> then the MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? >>> >>> I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see >>> enough reason to be concerned about it. If any clarification in >>> this regard is to be forthcoming, I would welcome it. >>> >>> There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs >>> - as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, >>> monopolistic) 'policy dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised >>> form of 'participation in governance' and a new experiment in >>> participative democracy - mean and how they must be organised, and >>> strongly insulated from private interests. And for this sake, one >>> need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being slack and >>> accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such extreme >>> care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>> Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an >>> observer.) >>> >>> Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to >>> 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There >>> are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries >>> to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, >>> there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which >>> for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get >>> so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be >>> held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is >>> willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some >>> preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to >>> recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. >>> >>> The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have >>> already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have >>> not booked yet. >>> >>> The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said >>> that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be >>> commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the >>> UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a >>> compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside >>> the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible >>> from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the >>> premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable >>> price. >>> >>> So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting >>> commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has >>> simply been declared dead. >>> >>> 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 suresh at hserus.net Sat Aug 3 02:30:28 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2013 12:00:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Message-ID: Regardless of the definition of IG and the nature of the IGF, it stands to reason that a multistakeholder process can accept funding from across stakeholder groups. There is nothing in either your definition or any others that you mentioned that precludes such funding as long as a firewall between sponsorship and content / agenda exists. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "parminder" To: Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Date: Sat, Aug 3, 2013 11:39 AM It is important to first agree on what the IGF is.... One view may be that it is just an annual conference on IG (and George's latter email suggests that this is what he takes it to be). Another, and my, view, is to see the IGF as a new experiment in democracy.. In an earlier posting I had called it as representing version 3 of democracy where participative spaces are no longer ad hoc but attempted to be institutionalised, with an ongoing and a rather autonomous presence. Now, what norms we agree on for the IGF depends on how we see the IGF. One cannot be loosely shifting between these two conceptions, choosing norms that would rightly apply to one kind (for instance, the IGF being just a regular annual conference) and then, at other times, pushing its certain 'monopoly' legitimacy in the area of developing public policies.... That is the biggest problem in the current context. For those who consider the IGF just as any annual conference, my response is that the term 'IGF' came out of a world summit, and has a specific meaning and context attached to it. It cannot be loosely mis-used by anyone. And if they just want to arrange an annual conferece why do they not use any other name - why do they want to borrow from the special legitmacy of the IGF, given to it by a world summit, and thus seek to eat their cake and have it too.... This merits a clarification/ response. For those who really consider IGF as a special policy related body, they need to accept univeral democratic norms for public institutions, and there is nothing bottom up or top down about such democratic norms. Democracy is a human right, and human rights, and the norms related to them, are not open for different groups and communities to interpret as they would like to. Therefore, those who consider IGF just as an annual conference on IG are requested to chose another name for their conference, and not to usurp a term that the global community has already invested with a deep democratic meaning. And those who do consider the IGF as a key public policy related body, with an exclusive legitimacy of some kind, should then not swing between the above two possible conceptions of the IGF, and when it comes to funding try to see the IGF as just any conference, but for other purposes see it as a special policy related body. parminder On Friday 02 August 2013 09:35 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > All, > > I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the > decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with > the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a > franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of > the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it. > > In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those > smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global > IGF, not the other way around. This should not be a top down operation. > > The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the > global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules > apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs. > > Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or > non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it > is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or > even a recommendation that should be made at a global level. > > > > > > On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: > >> >> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: >>> "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for >>> regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are >>> listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". >>> >>> >>> Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? >>> >>> In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start >>> imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not >>> about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For >>> example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company >>> decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, >>> should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder >>> model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on board, NOT >>> necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners. Further, >>> different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What >>> works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. >> >> Grace, >> >> Happy to clarify. >> >> First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those >> conditions be made applicable to national and regional IGFs that >> many of us here ( as also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others) agree >> that it is appropriate and necessary to apply to the UN IGF. >> >> Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can >> donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures >> will be taken to ensure that there is not the least possibility of >> any quid pro quo at all for these donations, including providing >> positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ chairing slots, special >> recommendations for speaking slots, special invitations to what could >> otherwise be selectively closed high-level (policy related) >> meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual policy >> deliberation takes place, and so on.... >> >> Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that >> these above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that >> democratic propriety demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made >> applicable to national or regional IGFs? >> >> Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand >> what you are saying here, and you understand my position. >> >> parminder >> >>> >>> Rgds >>> GG >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 >>> From: parminder at itforchange.net >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >>> >>> >>> Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the >>> isuue of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly >>> disapproved of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in >>> February itself, and for asking the local organising team to >>> discontinue it and take the document off their website. To make >>> things clear in such strong words is really good " the only thing >>> that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, and that >>> has to be at a reasonable price". >>> >>> Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for >>> regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are >>> listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. >>> Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/ corporatist influences >>> is as important at regional and national levels as at the global level. >>> >>> As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of >>> Asia Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial >>> Indonesian IGF fund raising document as, and I quote >>> >>> ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The >>> deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship >>> arrangement." >>> >>> If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did >>> then the MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? >>> >>> I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see >>> enough reason to be concerned about it. If any clarification in >>> this regard is to be forthcoming, I would welcome it. >>> >>> There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs >>> - as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, >>> monopolistic) 'policy dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised >>> form of 'participation in governance' and a new experiment in >>> participative democracy - mean and how they must be organised, and >>> strongly insulated from private interests. And for this sake, one >>> need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being slack and >>> accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such extreme >>> care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>> Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an >>> observer.) >>> >>> Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to >>> 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There >>> are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries >>> to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, >>> there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which >>> for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get >>> so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be >>> held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is >>> willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some >>> preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to >>> recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. >>> >>> The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have >>> already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have >>> not booked yet. >>> >>> The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said >>> that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be >>> commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the >>> UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a >>> compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside >>> the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible >>> from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the >>> premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable >>> price. >>> >>> So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting >>> commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has >>> simply been declared dead. >>> >>> 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Aug 3 02:52:54 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2013 12:22:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <51FC9E84.1030700@itforchange.net> References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill>,<51FB30D7.6000209@itforchange.net> <51FBD4EF.7090608@itforchange.net> <51FC9E84.1030700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51FCA8C6.4060705@itforchange.net> There is an interesting multistakeholderism* versus democracy dimension to this - in fact, that is the main thing behind this discussion. (I would use the term multistakeholderism* for that version of MSism which is dominant in the IG space, while I do otherwise associate this term MSism also with some rather benign versions that are subsumed within democracy and do not try to stand above it.) I have often argued on this list and other IG spaces that if we are so particular about public policies only being made, finally, by representatives of people and groups (however faulty that process of representation may be) why do we abandon this principle at the global level (which would mean giving UN a central role, and seeking progressive improvements as we do at national levels). The answer I get from MS-ism* proponents is that democracy may be well at the national level, but it does not work at the global level, and thus a MS model should be promoted . Well enough, maybe something is quite incongruent at the global level to be able to support democracy and its basic principles! But, in the present discussion the logic is fully inverted. We have established, and recently re-confirmed, democratic principles and norms about a public policy participative space called the IGF. When one insists that the same norms should apply at the regional level and the national level, we are told that the conditions at regional and national level are different..... And they may or may not support application of such basic democratic norms.... What comes out of this seem to be that: whenever multistakeholderism* confronts democracy, multistakeholderism* wins..... That is the biggest problem for me with MSism*.... Its attempt to trounce the democratic model rather than be subservient to it. As said, democracy is a human right, and all public policy processes should be subject to democratic norms and principles. To that extent, it is not a matter of taking bottom up decisions. Let me add another dimension to the MSism* versus democracy issue... UN IGF does make it a necessary principle that all regional and national IGFs should compulsorily be multistakeholder (whereby, I understand, inclusion of business reps in all proceedings will be enforced as a necessary criterion)... We may ask, why is this not left to a bottom up decision, but democratic norm of neutral funding of public policy spaces should be left to bottom up decision. (In fact, it normal, say in India, to hold various public policy meetings in various areas, and constitute committees etc - with only pulbic interest actors, i.e, government agencies and civil society, and often no one even thinks of including corporate players in all this.) Why and how can multistakeholderism* principles be imposed top-down, but not democratic principles, which should be left for each to decide for itself? Shows again, how the ideology of MSism* is becoming more powerful than that of democracy. And this is a matter of great concern to my organisation and the civil society networks that we work with.. parminder parminder On Saturday 03 August 2013 11:39 AM, parminder wrote: > > It is important to first agree on what the IGF is.... > > One view may be that it is just an annual conference on IG (and > George's latter email suggests that this is what he takes it to be). > > Another, and my, view, is to see the IGF as a new experiment in > democracy.. In an earlier posting I had called it as representing > version 3 of democracy where participative spaces are no longer ad hoc > but attempted to be institutionalised, with an ongoing and a rather > autonomous presence. > > Now, what norms we agree on for the IGF depends on how we see the IGF. > One cannot be loosely shifting between these two conceptions, choosing > norms that would rightly apply to one kind (for instance, the IGF > being just a regular annual conference) and then, at other times, > pushing its certain 'monopoly' legitimacy in the area of developing > public policies.... That is the biggest problem in the current context. > > For those who consider the IGF just as any annual conference, my > response is that the term 'IGF' came out of a world summit, and has a > specific meaning and context attached to it. It cannot be loosely > mis-used by anyone. And if they just want to arrange an annual > conferece why do they not use any other name - why do they want to > borrow from the special legitmacy of the IGF, given to it by a world > summit, and thus seek to eat their cake and have it too.... This > merits a clarification/ response. > > For those who really consider IGF as a special policy related body, > they need to accept univeral democratic norms for public institutions, > and there is nothing bottom up or top down about such democratic > norms. Democracy is a human right, and human rights, and the norms > related to them, are not open for different groups and communities to > interpret as they would like to. > > Therefore, those who consider IGF just as an annual conference on IG > are requested to chose another name for their conference, and not to > usurp a term that the global community has already invested with a > deep democratic meaning. > > And those who do consider the IGF as a key public policy related body, > with an exclusive legitimacy of some kind, should then not swing > between the above two possible conceptions of the IGF, and when it > comes to funding try to see the IGF as just any conference, but for > other purposes see it as a special policy related body. > > parminder > > On Friday 02 August 2013 09:35 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: >> All, >> >> I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the >> decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with >> the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a >> franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of >> the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it. >> >> In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those >> smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global >> IGF, not the other way around. This should not be a top down operation. >> >> The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the >> global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules >> apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs. >> >> Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or >> non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it >> is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or >> even a recommendation that should be made at a global level. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: >>>> "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for >>>> regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are >>>> listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". >>>> >>>> >>>> Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? >>>> >>>> In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to >>>> start imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is >>>> multistakeholdersim not about getting all stakeholders on board to >>>> discuss these issues? For example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya >>>> IGF and a telco company decides it will put in money since it has >>>> been part of the process, should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, >>>> we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate >>>> stakeholders on board, NOT necessarily to influence the IGF but as >>>> partners. Further, different national IGFs have different models >>>> of fundraising. What works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. >>>> Kindly clarify. >>> >>> Grace, >>> >>> Happy to clarify. >>> >>> First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those >>> conditions be made applicable to national and regional IGFs that >>> many of us here ( as also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others) agree >>> that it is appropriate and necessary to apply to the UN IGF. >>> >>> Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can >>> donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures >>> will be taken to ensure that there is not the least possibility of >>> any quid pro quo at all for these donations, including providing >>> positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ chairing slots, special >>> recommendations for speaking slots, special invitations to what >>> could otherwise be selectively closed high-level (policy related) >>> meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual policy >>> deliberation takes place, and so on.... >>> >>> Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that >>> these above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that >>> democratic propriety demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made >>> applicable to national or regional IGFs? >>> >>> Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand >>> what you are saying here, and you understand my position. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>>> >>>> Rgds >>>> GG >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 >>>> From: parminder at itforchange.net >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >>>> >>>> >>>> Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on >>>> the isuue of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having >>>> strongly disapproved of the Indonesian fund raising document/ >>>> strategy in February itself, and for asking the local organising >>>> team to discontinue it and take the document off their website. To >>>> make things clear in such strong words is really good " the only >>>> thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, >>>> and that has to be at a reasonable price". >>>> >>>> Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for >>>> regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are >>>> listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. >>>> Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/ corporatist influences >>>> is as important at regional and national levels as at the global level. >>>> >>>> As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of >>>> Asia Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial >>>> Indonesian IGF fund raising document as, and I quote >>>> >>>> ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The >>>> deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship >>>> arrangement." >>>> >>>> If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did >>>> then the MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? >>>> >>>> I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see >>>> enough reason to be concerned about it. If any clarification in >>>> this regard is to be forthcoming, I would welcome it. >>>> >>>> There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the >>>> IGFs - as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, >>>> monopolistic) 'policy dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised >>>> form of 'participation in governance' and a new experiment in >>>> participative democracy - mean and how they must be organised, and >>>> strongly insulated from private interests. And for this sake, one >>>> need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being slack and >>>> accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such extreme >>>> care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>> >>>> Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an >>>> observer.) >>>> >>>> Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to >>>> 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There >>>> are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries >>>> to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, >>>> there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which >>>> for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get >>>> so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be >>>> held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is >>>> willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some >>>> preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to >>>> recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. >>>> >>>> The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have >>>> already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have >>>> not booked yet. >>>> >>>> The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said >>>> that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be >>>> commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the >>>> UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a >>>> compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside >>>> the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible >>>> from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the >>>> premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable >>>> price. >>>> >>>> So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting >>>> commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has >>>> simply been declared dead. >>>> >>>> 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Aug 3 02:57:27 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2013 12:27:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51FCA9D7.6090305@itforchange.net> On Saturday 03 August 2013 12:00 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Regardless of the definition of IG and the nature of the IGF, it > stands to reason that a multistakeholder process can accept funding > from across stakeholder groups. > > There is nothing in either your definition or any others that you > mentioned that precludes such funding as long as a firewall between > sponsorship and content / agenda exists. from my email to Grace, less that 24 hours ago "Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures will be taken to ensure that there is not the least possibility of any quid pro quo at all for these donations, including providing positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ chairing slots, special recommendations for speaking slots, special invitations to what could otherwise be selectively closed high-level (policy related) meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual policy deliberation takes place, and so on.... " > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "parminder" > To: > Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call > Date: Sat, Aug 3, 2013 11:39 AM > > > > It is important to first agree on what the IGF is.... > > One view may be that it is just an annual conference on IG (and George's > latter email suggests that this is what he takes it to be). > > Another, and my, view, is to see the IGF as a new experiment in > democracy.. In an earlier posting I had called it as representing > version 3 of democracy where participative spaces are no longer ad hoc > but attempted to be institutionalised, with an ongoing and a rather > autonomous presence. > > Now, what norms we agree on for the IGF depends on how we see the IGF. > One cannot be loosely shifting between these two conceptions, choosing > norms that would rightly apply to one kind (for instance, the IGF being > just a regular annual conference) and then, at other times, pushing its > certain 'monopoly' legitimacy in the area of developing public > policies.... That is the biggest problem in the current context. > > For those who consider the IGF just as any annual conference, my > response is that the term 'IGF' came out of a world summit, and has a > specific meaning and context attached to it. It cannot be loosely > mis-used by anyone. And if they just want to arrange an annual conferece > why do they not use any other name - why do they want to borrow from the > special legitmacy of the IGF, given to it by a world summit, and thus > seek to eat their cake and have it too.... This merits a clarification/ > response. > > For those who really consider IGF as a special policy related body, they > need to accept univeral democratic norms for public institutions, and > there is nothing bottom up or top down about such democratic norms. > Democracy is a human right, and human rights, and the norms related to > them, are not open for different groups and communities to interpret as > they would like to. > > Therefore, those who consider IGF just as an annual conference on IG are > requested to chose another name for their conference, and not to usurp a > term that the global community has already invested with a deep > democratic meaning. > > And those who do consider the IGF as a key public policy related body, > with an exclusive legitimacy of some kind, should then not swing between > the above two possible conceptions of the IGF, and when it comes to > funding try to see the IGF as just any conference, but for other > purposes see it as a special policy related body. > > parminder > > On Friday 02 August 2013 09:35 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > > All, > > > > I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the > > decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with > > the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a > > franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of > > the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it. > > > > In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those > > smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global > > IGF, not the other way around. This should not be a top down operation. > > > > The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the > > global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules > > apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs. > > > > Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or > > non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it > > is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or > > even a recommendation that should be made at a global level. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: > > > >> > >> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: > >>> "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for > >>> regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are > >>> listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". > >>> > >>> > >>> Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? > >>> > >>> In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start > >>> imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not > >>> about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For > >>> example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company > >>> decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, > >>> should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder > >>> model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on board, NOT > >>> necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners. Further, > >>> different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What > >>> works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. > >> > >> Grace, > >> > >> Happy to clarify. > >> > >> First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those > >> conditions be made applicable to national and regional IGFs that > >> many of us here ( as also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others) agree > >> that it is appropriate and necessary to apply to the UN IGF. > >> > >> Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can > >> donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures > >> will be taken to ensure that there is not the least possibility of > >> any quid pro quo at all for these donations, including providing > >> positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ chairing slots, special > >> recommendations for speaking slots, special invitations to what could > >> otherwise be selectively closed high-level (policy related) > >> meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual policy > >> deliberation takes place, and so on.... > >> > >> Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that > >> these above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that > >> democratic propriety demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made > >> applicable to national or regional IGFs? > >> > >> Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand > >> what you are saying here, and you understand my position. > >> > >> parminder > >> > >>> > >>> Rgds > >>> GG > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 > >>> From: parminder at itforchange.net > >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call > >>> > >>> > >>> Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the > >>> isuue of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly > >>> disapproved of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in > >>> February itself, and for asking the local organising team to > >>> discontinue it and take the document off their website. To make > >>> things clear in such strong words is really good " the only thing > >>> that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, and that > >>> has to be at a reasonable price". > >>> > >>> Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for > >>> regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are > >>> listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. > >>> Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/ corporatist influences > >>> is as important at regional and national levels as at the global > level. > >>> > >>> As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of > >>> Asia Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial > >>> Indonesian IGF fund raising document as, and I quote > >>> > >>> ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The > >>> deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship > >>> arrangement." > >>> > >>> If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did > >>> then the MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? > >>> > >>> I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see > >>> enough reason to be concerned about it. If any clarification in > >>> this regard is to be forthcoming, I would welcome it. > >>> > >>> There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs > >>> - as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, > >>> monopolistic) 'policy dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised > >>> form of 'participation in governance' and a new experiment in > >>> participative democracy - mean and how they must be organised, and > >>> strongly insulated from private interests. And for this sake, one > >>> need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being slack and > >>> accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such extreme > >>> care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. > >>> > >>> parminder > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >>> > >>> Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an > >>> observer.) > >>> > >>> Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in > regard to > >>> 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an > option. There > >>> are two serious expressions of interest from potential host > countries > >>> to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, > >>> there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN > HQ, which > >>> for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult > to get > >>> so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting > could be > >>> held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. > Google/Vint Cerf is > >>> willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali > IGF. Some > >>> preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to > >>> recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. > >>> > >>> The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali > that have > >>> already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if > you have > >>> not booked yet. > >>> > >>> The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. > Markus said > >>> that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be > >>> commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the > premises of the > >>> UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an > example where a > >>> compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put > up outside > >>> the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were > visible > >>> from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold > on the > >>> premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a > reasonable > >>> price. > >>> > >>> So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting > >>> commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising > strategy has > >>> simply been declared dead. > >>> > >>> 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Aug 3 04:17:58 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2013 13:47:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <51FCA9D7.6090305@itforchange.net> References: <51FCA9D7.6090305@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51FCBCB6.1070506@itforchange.net> BTW, the IGF does impose the 'non commercial participation' condition in order to be recognised as national and regional IGFs from the website http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-initiatives "Regional and national IGF initiatives should follow the principles and practices of open, inclusive, non commercial, and multi-stakeholder participation in both formulation of the initiative and in any other initiative related events." I dont remember seeing the non commercial part earlier, so it could have been put recently, but I may be wrong.... The elaboration of 'no quid pro quo' that was described in my email to Grace should follow from theconditionof 'non commercial participation' principles and practices. .... Of course, thereby the model to be followed by the regional and national IGF in this regard is the model followed by the UN IGF, which was recently described by Markus. Maybe those who are opposed to such a top-down imposition can write to the IGF secretariat and the MAG about it.... parminder On Saturday 03 August 2013 12:27 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > On Saturday 03 August 2013 12:00 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Regardless of the definition of IG and the nature of the IGF, it >> stands to reason that a multistakeholder process can accept funding >> from across stakeholder groups. >> >> There is nothing in either your definition or any others that you >> mentioned that precludes such funding as long as a firewall between >> sponsorship and content / agenda exists. > > from my email to Grace, less that 24 hours ago > > "Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can > donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all > measures will be taken to ensure that there is not the least > possibility of any quid pro quo at all for these donations, > including providing positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ > chairing slots, special recommendations for speaking slots, > special invitations to what could otherwise be selectively closed > high-level (policy related) meetings, logos in and around the > spaces where actual policy deliberation takes place, and so on.... " > > > >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "parminder" >> To: >> Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >> Date: Sat, Aug 3, 2013 11:39 AM >> >> >> >> It is important to first agree on what the IGF is.... >> >> One view may be that it is just an annual conference on IG (and George's >> latter email suggests that this is what he takes it to be). >> >> Another, and my, view, is to see the IGF as a new experiment in >> democracy.. In an earlier posting I had called it as representing >> version 3 of democracy where participative spaces are no longer ad hoc >> but attempted to be institutionalised, with an ongoing and a rather >> autonomous presence. >> >> Now, what norms we agree on for the IGF depends on how we see the IGF. >> One cannot be loosely shifting between these two conceptions, choosing >> norms that would rightly apply to one kind (for instance, the IGF being >> just a regular annual conference) and then, at other times, pushing its >> certain 'monopoly' legitimacy in the area of developing public >> policies.... That is the biggest problem in the current context. >> >> For those who consider the IGF just as any annual conference, my >> response is that the term 'IGF' came out of a world summit, and has a >> specific meaning and context attached to it. It cannot be loosely >> mis-used by anyone. And if they just want to arrange an annual conferece >> why do they not use any other name - why do they want to borrow from the >> special legitmacy of the IGF, given to it by a world summit, and thus >> seek to eat their cake and have it too.... This merits a clarification/ >> response. >> >> For those who really consider IGF as a special policy related body, they >> need to accept univeral democratic norms for public institutions, and >> there is nothing bottom up or top down about such democratic norms. >> Democracy is a human right, and human rights, and the norms related to >> them, are not open for different groups and communities to interpret as >> they would like to. >> >> Therefore, those who consider IGF just as an annual conference on IG are >> requested to chose another name for their conference, and not to usurp a >> term that the global community has already invested with a deep >> democratic meaning. >> >> And those who do consider the IGF as a key public policy related body, >> with an exclusive legitimacy of some kind, should then not swing between >> the above two possible conceptions of the IGF, and when it comes to >> funding try to see the IGF as just any conference, but for other >> purposes see it as a special policy related body. >> >> parminder >> >> On Friday 02 August 2013 09:35 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: >> > All, >> > >> > I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the >> > decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with >> > the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a >> > franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of >> > the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it. >> > >> > In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those >> > smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global >> > IGF, not the other way around. This should not be a top down >> operation. >> > >> > The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the >> > global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules >> > apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs. >> > >> > Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or >> > non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it >> > is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or >> > even a recommendation that should be made at a global level. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: >> >>> "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for >> >>> regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are >> >>> listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? >> >>> >> >>> In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start >> >>> imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not >> >>> about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For >> >>> example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company >> >>> decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, >> >>> should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder >> >>> model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on board, NOT >> >>> necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners. Further, >> >>> different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What >> >>> works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. >> >> >> >> Grace, >> >> >> >> Happy to clarify. >> >> >> >> First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those >> >> conditions be made applicable to national and regional IGFs that >> >> many of us here ( as also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others) agree >> >> that it is appropriate and necessary to apply to the UN IGF. >> >> >> >> Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can >> >> donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures >> >> will be taken to ensure that there is not the least possibility of >> >> any quid pro quo at all for these donations, including providing >> >> positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ chairing slots, special >> >> recommendations for speaking slots, special invitations to what could >> >> otherwise be selectively closed high-level (policy related) >> >> meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual policy >> >> deliberation takes place, and so on.... >> >> >> >> Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that >> >> these above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that >> >> democratic propriety demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made >> >> applicable to national or regional IGFs? >> >> >> >> Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand >> >> what you are saying here, and you understand my position. >> >> >> >> parminder >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Rgds >> >>> GG >> >>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 >> >>> From: parminder at itforchange.net >> >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the >> >>> isuue of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly >> >>> disapproved of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in >> >>> February itself, and for asking the local organising team to >> >>> discontinue it and take the document off their website. To make >> >>> things clear in such strong words is really good " the only thing >> >>> that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, and that >> >>> has to be at a reasonable price". >> >>> >> >>> Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for >> >>> regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are >> >>> listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. >> >>> Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/ corporatist influences >> >>> is as important at regional and national levels as at the global >> level. >> >>> >> >>> As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of >> >>> Asia Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial >> >>> Indonesian IGF fund raising document as, and I quote >> >>> >> >>> ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The >> >>> deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship >> >>> arrangement." >> >>> >> >>> If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did >> >>> then the MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? >> >>> >> >>> I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see >> >>> enough reason to be concerned about it. If any clarification in >> >>> this regard is to be forthcoming, I would welcome it. >> >>> >> >>> There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs >> >>> - as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, >> >>> monopolistic) 'policy dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised >> >>> form of 'participation in governance' and a new experiment in >> >>> participative democracy - mean and how they must be organised, and >> >>> strongly insulated from private interests. And for this sake, one >> >>> need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being slack and >> >>> accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such extreme >> >>> care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. >> >>> >> >>> parminder >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an >> >>> observer.) >> >>> >> >>> Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in >> regard to >> >>> 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an >> option. There >> >>> are two serious expressions of interest from potential host >> countries >> >>> to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing >> that, >> >>> there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN >> HQ, which >> >>> for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be >> difficult to get >> >>> so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down >> meeting could be >> >>> held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. >> Google/Vint Cerf is >> >>> willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali >> IGF. Some >> >>> preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to >> >>> recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. >> >>> >> >>> The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali >> that have >> >>> already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if >> you have >> >>> not booked yet. >> >>> >> >>> The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. >> Markus said >> >>> that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be >> >>> commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the >> premises of the >> >>> UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an >> example where a >> >>> compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put >> up outside >> >>> the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were >> visible >> >>> from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be >> sold on the >> >>> premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a >> reasonable >> >>> price. >> >>> >> >>> So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting >> >>> commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising >> strategy has >> >>> simply been declared dead. >> >>> >> >>> 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 suresh at hserus.net Sat Aug 3 05:05:14 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2013 14:35:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Message-ID: I don't quite see where my position diverges from what you quoted. There is clearly an explicit firewall to guard against undue benefits given to sponsors irrespective of their affiliation to different stakeholder groups. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "parminder" To: Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Date: Sat, Aug 3, 2013 1:47 PM BTW, the IGF does impose the 'non commercial participation' condition in order to be recognised as national and regional IGFs from the website http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-initiatives "Regional and national IGF initiatives should follow the principles and practices of open, inclusive, non commercial, and multi-stakeholder participation in both formulation of the initiative and in any other initiative related events." I dont remember seeing the non commercial part earlier, so it could have been put recently, but I may be wrong.... The elaboration of 'no quid pro quo' that was described in my email to Grace should follow from theconditionof 'non commercial participation' principles and practices. .... Of course, thereby the model to be followed by the regional and national IGF in this regard is the model followed by the UN IGF, which was recently described by Markus. Maybe those who are opposed to such a top-down imposition can write to the IGF secretariat and the MAG about it.... parminder On Saturday 03 August 2013 12:27 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > On Saturday 03 August 2013 12:00 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Regardless of the definition of IG and the nature of the IGF, it >> stands to reason that a multistakeholder process can accept funding >> from across stakeholder groups. >> >> There is nothing in either your definition or any others that you >> mentioned that precludes such funding as long as a firewall between >> sponsorship and content / agenda exists. > > from my email to Grace, less that 24 hours ago > > "Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can > donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all > measures will be taken to ensure that there is not the least > possibility of any quid pro quo at all for these donations, > including providing positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ > chairing slots, special recommendations for speaking slots, > special invitations to what could otherwise be selectively closed > high-level (policy related) meetings, logos in and around the > spaces where actual policy deliberation takes place, and so on.... " > > > >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "parminder" >> To: >> Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >> Date: Sat, Aug 3, 2013 11:39 AM >> >> >> >> It is important to first agree on what the IGF is.... >> >> One view may be that it is just an annual conference on IG (and George's >> latter email suggests that this is what he takes it to be). >> >> Another, and my, view, is to see the IGF as a new experiment in >> democracy.. In an earlier posting I had called it as representing >> version 3 of democracy where participative spaces are no longer ad hoc >> but attempted to be institutionalised, with an ongoing and a rather >> autonomous presence. >> >> Now, what norms we agree on for the IGF depends on how we see the IGF. >> One cannot be loosely shifting between these two conceptions, choosing >> norms that would rightly apply to one kind (for instance, the IGF being >> just a regular annual conference) and then, at other times, pushing its >> certain 'monopoly' legitimacy in the area of developing public >> policies.... That is the biggest problem in the current context. >> >> For those who consider the IGF just as any annual conference, my >> response is that the term 'IGF' came out of a world summit, and has a >> specific meaning and context attached to it. It cannot be loosely >> mis-used by anyone. And if they just want to arrange an annual conferece >> why do they not use any other name - why do they want to borrow from the >> special legitmacy of the IGF, given to it by a world summit, and thus >> seek to eat their cake and have it too.... This merits a clarification/ >> response. >> >> For those who really consider IGF as a special policy related body, they >> need to accept univeral democratic norms for public institutions, and >> there is nothing bottom up or top down about such democratic norms. >> Democracy is a human right, and human rights, and the norms related to >> them, are not open for different groups and communities to interpret as >> they would like to. >> >> Therefore, those who consider IGF just as an annual conference on IG are >> requested to chose another name for their conference, and not to usurp a >> term that the global community has already invested with a deep >> democratic meaning. >> >> And those who do consider the IGF as a key public policy related body, >> with an exclusive legitimacy of some kind, should then not swing between >> the above two possible conceptions of the IGF, and when it comes to >> funding try to see the IGF as just any conference, but for other >> purposes see it as a special policy related body. >> >> parminder >> >> On Friday 02 August 2013 09:35 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: >> > All, >> > >> > I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the >> > decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with >> > the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a >> > franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of >> > the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it. >> > >> > In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those >> > smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global >> > IGF, not the other way around. This should not be a top down >> operation. >> > >> > The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the >> > global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules >> > apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs. >> > >> > Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or >> > non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it >> > is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or >> > even a recommendation that should be made at a global level. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: >> >>> "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for >> >>> regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are >> >>> listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? >> >>> >> >>> In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start >> >>> imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not >> >>> about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For >> >>> example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company >> >>> decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, >> >>> should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder >> >>> model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on board, NOT >> >>> necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners. Further, >> >>> different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What >> >>> works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. >> >> >> >> Grace, >> >> >> >> Happy to clarify. >> >> >> >> First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those >> >> conditions be made applicable to national and regional IGFs that >> >> many of us here ( as also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others) agree >> >> that it is appropriate and necessary to apply to the UN IGF. >> >> >> >> Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can >> >> donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures >> >> will be taken to ensure that there is not the least possibility of >> >> any quid pro quo at all for these donations, including providing >> >> positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ chairing slots, special >> >> recommendations for speaking slots, special invitations to what could >> >> otherwise be selectively closed high-level (policy related) >> >> meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual policy >> >> deliberation takes place, and so on.... >> >> >> >> Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that >> >> these above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that >> >> democratic propriety demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made >> >> applicable to national or regional IGFs? >> >> >> >> Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand >> >> what you are saying here, and you understand my position. >> >> >> >> parminder >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Rgds >> >>> GG >> >>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 >> >>> From: parminder at itforchange.net >> >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the >> >>> isuue of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly >> >>> disapproved of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in >> >>> February itself, and for asking the local organising team to >> >>> discontinue it and take the document off their website. To make >> >>> things clear in such strong words is really good " the only thing >> >>> that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, and that >> >>> has to be at a reasonable price". >> >>> >> >>> Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for >> >>> regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are >> >>> listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. >> >>> Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/ corporatist influences >> >>> is as important at regional and national levels as at the global >> level. >> >>> >> >>> As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of >> >>> Asia Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial >> >>> Indonesian IGF fund raising document as, and I quote >> >>> >> >>> ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The >> >>> deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship >> >>> arrangement." >> >>> >> >>> If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did >> >>> then the MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? >> >>> >> >>> I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see >> >>> enough reason to be concerned about it. If any clarification in >> >>> this regard is to be forthcoming, I would welcome it. >> >>> >> >>> There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs >> >>> - as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, >> >>> monopolistic) 'policy dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised >> >>> form of 'participation in governance' and a new experiment in >> >>> participative democracy - mean and how they must be organised, and >> >>> strongly insulated from private interests. And for this sake, one >> >>> need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being slack and >> >>> accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such extreme >> >>> care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. >> >>> >> >>> parminder >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an >> >>> observer.) >> >>> >> >>> Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in >> regard to >> >>> 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an >> option. There >> >>> are two serious expressions of interest from potential host >> countries >> >>> to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing >> that, >> >>> there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN >> HQ, which >> >>> for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be >> difficult to get >> >>> so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down >> meeting could be >> >>> held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. >> Google/Vint Cerf is >> >>> willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali >> IGF. Some >> >>> preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to >> >>> recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. >> >>> >> >>> The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali >> that have >> >>> already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if >> you have >> >>> not booked yet. >> >>> >> >>> The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. >> Markus said >> >>> that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be >> >>> commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the >> premises of the >> >>> UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an >> example where a >> >>> compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put >> up outside >> >>> the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were >> visible >> >>> from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be >> sold on the >> >>> premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a >> reasonable >> >>> price. >> >>> >> >>> So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting >> >>> commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising >> strategy has >> >>> simply been declared dead. >> >>> >> >>> 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 suresh at hserus.net Sat Aug 3 05:06:19 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2013 14:36:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Message-ID: I don't quite see where my position diverges from what you quoted. There is clearly an explicit firewall to guard against undue benefits given to sponsors irrespective of their affiliation to different stakeholder groups. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "parminder" To: Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Date: Sat, Aug 3, 2013 1:47 PM BTW, the IGF does impose the 'non commercial participation' condition in order to be recognised as national and regional IGFs from the website http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-initiatives "Regional and national IGF initiatives should follow the principles and practices of open, inclusive, non commercial, and multi-stakeholder participation in both formulation of the initiative and in any other initiative related events." I dont remember seeing the non commercial part earlier, so it could have been put recently, but I may be wrong.... The elaboration of 'no quid pro quo' that was described in my email to Grace should follow from theconditionof 'non commercial participation' principles and practices. .... Of course, thereby the model to be followed by the regional and national IGF in this regard is the model followed by the UN IGF, which was recently described by Markus. Maybe those who are opposed to such a top-down imposition can write to the IGF secretariat and the MAG about it.... parminder On Saturday 03 August 2013 12:27 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > On Saturday 03 August 2013 12:00 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Regardless of the definition of IG and the nature of the IGF, it >> stands to reason that a multistakeholder process can accept funding >> from across stakeholder groups. >> >> There is nothing in either your definition or any others that you >> mentioned that precludes such funding as long as a firewall between >> sponsorship and content / agenda exists. > > from my email to Grace, less that 24 hours ago > > "Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can > donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all > measures will be taken to ensure that there is not the least > possibility of any quid pro quo at all for these donations, > including providing positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ > chairing slots, special recommendations for speaking slots, > special invitations to what could otherwise be selectively closed > high-level (policy related) meetings, logos in and around the > spaces where actual policy deliberation takes place, and so on.... " > > > >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "parminder" >> To: >> Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >> Date: Sat, Aug 3, 2013 11:39 AM >> >> >> >> It is important to first agree on what the IGF is.... >> >> One view may be that it is just an annual conference on IG (and George's >> latter email suggests that this is what he takes it to be). >> >> Another, and my, view, is to see the IGF as a new experiment in >> democracy.. In an earlier posting I had called it as representing >> version 3 of democracy where participative spaces are no longer ad hoc >> but attempted to be institutionalised, with an ongoing and a rather >> autonomous presence. >> >> Now, what norms we agree on for the IGF depends on how we see the IGF. >> One cannot be loosely shifting between these two conceptions, choosing >> norms that would rightly apply to one kind (for instance, the IGF being >> just a regular annual conference) and then, at other times, pushing its >> certain 'monopoly' legitimacy in the area of developing public >> policies.... That is the biggest problem in the current context. >> >> For those who consider the IGF just as any annual conference, my >> response is that the term 'IGF' came out of a world summit, and has a >> specific meaning and context attached to it. It cannot be loosely >> mis-used by anyone. And if they just want to arrange an annual conferece >> why do they not use any other name - why do they want to borrow from the >> special legitmacy of the IGF, given to it by a world summit, and thus >> seek to eat their cake and have it too.... This merits a clarification/ >> response. >> >> For those who really consider IGF as a special policy related body, they >> need to accept univeral democratic norms for public institutions, and >> there is nothing bottom up or top down about such democratic norms. >> Democracy is a human right, and human rights, and the norms related to >> them, are not open for different groups and communities to interpret as >> they would like to. >> >> Therefore, those who consider IGF just as an annual conference on IG are >> requested to chose another name for their conference, and not to usurp a >> term that the global community has already invested with a deep >> democratic meaning. >> >> And those who do consider the IGF as a key public policy related body, >> with an exclusive legitimacy of some kind, should then not swing between >> the above two possible conceptions of the IGF, and when it comes to >> funding try to see the IGF as just any conference, but for other >> purposes see it as a special policy related body. >> >> parminder >> >> On Friday 02 August 2013 09:35 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: >> > All, >> > >> > I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the >> > decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with >> > the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a >> > franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of >> > the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it. >> > >> > In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those >> > smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global >> > IGF, not the other way around. This should not be a top down >> operation. >> > >> > The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the >> > global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules >> > apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs. >> > >> > Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or >> > non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it >> > is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or >> > even a recommendation that should be made at a global level. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: >> >>> "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for >> >>> regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are >> >>> listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? >> >>> >> >>> In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start >> >>> imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not >> >>> about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For >> >>> example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company >> >>> decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, >> >>> should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder >> >>> model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on board, NOT >> >>> necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners. Further, >> >>> different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What >> >>> works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. >> >> >> >> Grace, >> >> >> >> Happy to clarify. >> >> >> >> First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those >> >> conditions be made applicable to national and regional IGFs that >> >> many of us here ( as also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others) agree >> >> that it is appropriate and necessary to apply to the UN IGF. >> >> >> >> Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can >> >> donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures >> >> will be taken to ensure that there is not the least possibility of >> >> any quid pro quo at all for these donations, including providing >> >> positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ chairing slots, special >> >> recommendations for speaking slots, special invitations to what could >> >> otherwise be selectively closed high-level (policy related) >> >> meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual policy >> >> deliberation takes place, and so on.... >> >> >> >> Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that >> >> these above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that >> >> democratic propriety demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made >> >> applicable to national or regional IGFs? >> >> >> >> Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand >> >> what you are saying here, and you understand my position. >> >> >> >> parminder >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Rgds >> >>> GG >> >>> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 >> >>> From: parminder at itforchange.net >> >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the >> >>> isuue of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly >> >>> disapproved of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in >> >>> February itself, and for asking the local organising team to >> >>> discontinue it and take the document off their website. To make >> >>> things clear in such strong words is really good " the only thing >> >>> that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, and that >> >>> has to be at a reasonable price". >> >>> >> >>> Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for >> >>> regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are >> >>> listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. >> >>> Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/ corporatist influences >> >>> is as important at regional and national levels as at the global >> level. >> >>> >> >>> As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of >> >>> Asia Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial >> >>> Indonesian IGF fund raising document as, and I quote >> >>> >> >>> ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The >> >>> deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship >> >>> arrangement." >> >>> >> >>> If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did >> >>> then the MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? >> >>> >> >>> I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see >> >>> enough reason to be concerned about it. If any clarification in >> >>> this regard is to be forthcoming, I would welcome it. >> >>> >> >>> There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs >> >>> - as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, >> >>> monopolistic) 'policy dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised >> >>> form of 'participation in governance' and a new experiment in >> >>> participative democracy - mean and how they must be organised, and >> >>> strongly insulated from private interests. And for this sake, one >> >>> need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being slack and >> >>> accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such extreme >> >>> care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. >> >>> >> >>> parminder >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an >> >>> observer.) >> >>> >> >>> Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in >> regard to >> >>> 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an >> option. There >> >>> are two serious expressions of interest from potential host >> countries >> >>> to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing >> that, >> >>> there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN >> HQ, which >> >>> for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be >> difficult to get >> >>> so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down >> meeting could be >> >>> held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. >> Google/Vint Cerf is >> >>> willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali >> IGF. Some >> >>> preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to >> >>> recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. >> >>> >> >>> The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali >> that have >> >>> already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if >> you have >> >>> not booked yet. >> >>> >> >>> The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. >> Markus said >> >>> that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be >> >>> commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the >> premises of the >> >>> UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an >> example where a >> >>> compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put >> up outside >> >>> the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were >> visible >> >>> from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be >> sold on the >> >>> premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a >> reasonable >> >>> price. >> >>> >> >>> So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting >> >>> commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising >> strategy has >> >>> simply been declared dead. >> >>> >> >>> 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 george.sadowsky at gmail.com Sat Aug 3 05:10:10 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 11:10:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <51FC9E84.1030700@itforchange.net> References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill>,<51FB30D7.6000209@itforchange.net> <51FBD4EF.7090608@itforchange.net> <51FC9E84.1030700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Aug 3, 2013, at 8:09 AM, parminder wrote: > > It is important to first agree on what the IGF is.... > > One view may be that it is just an annual conference on IG (and George's latter email suggests that this is what he takes it to be). I understand that my e-mail may have suggested that to you, but I take the IGF to be somewhat different, and I describe it more fully below. However, it does share a number of characteristics with a conference. it brings people together around a common subject. It facilitates the exchange of information and of views regarding common problems in the space that it addresses. It promotes continual networking among people who share views. It permits the discussion and potential resolution of problems. It has the possibility to create more shared understanding of issues. It involves multiple sectors (stakeholders) of activity. The objectives of different sectors, as well as those within each sector, will vary. Finally, it is not a decision making body which, in my opinion, is one of the essential reasons for its success. I don't think it is important to define specific agreement on what IGF is. Different participants will come with different expectations, and will get different things out of the experience. You are correct in that it is important to agree that the Internet and its governance is the central theme, and that in itself surely defines a critical and comprehensive scope. It is certainly a space for free and rank discussion of points of view, as well as a space for education in aspects of an increasingly complex topic space. > > Another, and my, view, is to see the IGF as a new experiment in democracy.. In an earlier posting I had called it as representing version 3 of democracy where participative spaces are no longer ad hoc but attempted to be institutionalised, with an ongoing and a rather autonomous presence. > > Now, what norms we agree on for the IGF depends on how we see the IGF. One cannot be loosely shifting between these two conceptions, choosing norms that would rightly apply to one kind (for instance, the IGF being just a regular annual conference) and then, at other times, pushing its certain 'monopoly' legitimacy in the area of developing public policies.... That is the biggest problem in the current context. But what happens when there are different points of view within the group? Is it reasonable to force one view for the purpose of defining norms, or when there are different views of what the IGF is? Or is the variation in views a part of a healthy environment that should be valued in making progress toward better understanding? > > For those who consider the IGF just as any annual conference, my response is that the term 'IGF' came out of a world summit, and has a specific meaning and context attached to it. It cannot be loosely mis-used by anyone. And if they just want to arrange an annual conferece why do they not use any other name - why do they want to borrow from the special legitmacy of the IGF, given to it by a world summit, and thus seek to eat their cake and have it too.... This merits a clarification/ response. > > For those who really consider IGF as a special policy related body, they need to accept univeral democratic norms for public institutions, and there is nothing bottom up or top down about such democratic norms. Democracy is a human right, and human rights, and the norms related to them, are not open for different groups and communities to interpret as they would like to. > > Therefore, those who consider IGF just as an annual conference on IG are requested to chose another name for their conference, and not to usurp a term that the global community has already invested with a deep democratic meaning. There is a black and white dichotomy to this discussion that i think does not fully reflect reality, which generally contains many dimensions, each of which contains shades of gray in addition to pure end positions. The suggestion seems to be that if one doesn't subscribe to a specific notion, they should leave in order to make this group homogeneous. I suggest that this makes it appropriate to turn the question around. Rather than asking what the IGF is, perhaps it's more relevant to ask what this civil society group is and what its purpose is, and to what extent diversity of views can and should be tolerated within such a civil society group. Specifically, should this list be restricted to those who have one specific outlook to the exclusion of others, as may be inferred from the suggestion below? And, as a corollary is the narrowing or elimination of diversity _within_ civil society really important compared to an objective of convergence across multiple sectors and stakeholders? Perhaps I don't understand the point here. If that's how my comments are perceived, then clarification might well be helpful. > > And those who do consider the IGF as a key public policy related body, with an exclusive legitimacy of some kind, should then not swing between the above two possible conceptions of the IGF, and when it comes to funding try to see the IGF as just any conference, but for other purposes see it as a special policy related body. I see the IGF as a key public policy related discussion space, not a body, with considerable but hardly exclusive legitimacy. This is a halfway position within the spectrum of views suggested above. Does this group tolerate such positions that appear to be seen by some as compromise positions or equivocation? Is there room in this group for diverse views, or do they just get in the way of creating unified positions vis-à-vis other stakeholder groups? There is a larger issue suggested here, which is the manner in which the various representatives of stakeholder groups regard the other groups and their representatives, but that's a semi-independent issue that is more appropriately the subject for a separate message. George > > parminder > > On Friday 02 August 2013 09:35 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: >> All, >> >> I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it. >> >> In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global IGF, not the other way around. This should not be a top down operation. >> >> The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs. >> >> Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or even a recommendation that should be made at a global level. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: >>>> "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". >>>> >>>> >>>> Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? >>>> >>>> In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on board, NOT necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners. Further, different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. >>> >>> Grace, >>> >>> Happy to clarify. >>> >>> First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those conditions be made applicable to national and regional IGFs that many of us here ( as also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others) agree that it is appropriate and necessary to apply to the UN IGF. >>> >>> Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures will be taken to ensure that there is not the least possibility of any quid pro quo at all for these donations, including providing positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ chairing slots, special recommendations for speaking slots, special invitations to what could otherwise be selectively closed high-level (policy related) meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual policy deliberation takes place, and so on.... >>> >>> Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that these above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that democratic propriety demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made applicable to national or regional IGFs? >>> >>> Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand what you are saying here, and you understand my position. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>>> >>>> Rgds >>>> GG >>>> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 >>>> From: parminder at itforchange.net >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >>>> >>>> >>>> Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the isuue of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly disapproved of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in February itself, and for asking the local organising team to discontinue it and take the document off their website. To make things clear in such strong words is really good " the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, and that has to be at a reasonable price". >>>> >>>> Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/ corporatist influences is as important at regional and national levels as at the global level. >>>> >>>> As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of Asia Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial Indonesian IGF fund raising document as, and I quote >>>> >>>> ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship arrangement." >>>> >>>> If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did then the MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? >>>> >>>> I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see enough reason to be concerned about it. If any clarification in this regard is to be forthcoming, I would welcome it. >>>> >>>> There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs - as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, monopolistic) 'policy dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised form of 'participation in governance' and a new experiment in participative democracy - mean and how they must be organised, and strongly insulated from private interests. And for this sake, one need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being slack and accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such extreme care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>> Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an >>>> observer.) >>>> >>>> Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to >>>> 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There >>>> are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries >>>> to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, >>>> there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which >>>> for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get >>>> so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be >>>> held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is >>>> willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some >>>> preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to >>>> recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. >>>> >>>> The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have >>>> already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have >>>> not booked yet. >>>> >>>> The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said >>>> that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be >>>> commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the >>>> UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a >>>> compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside >>>> the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible >>>> from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the >>>> premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable >>>> price. >>>> >>>> So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting >>>> commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has >>>> simply been declared dead. >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Aug 3 06:24:22 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 18:24:22 +0800 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> <51FB30D7.6000209@itforchange.net> <51FBD4EF.7090608@itforchange.net> <51FC9E84.1030700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <26636C02-FBC1-4DA8-A554-21FE2306DCC3@ciroap.org> On 3 Aug, 2013, at 5:10 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > On Aug 3, 2013, at 8:09 AM, parminder wrote: > >> It is important to first agree on what the IGF is.... >> >> One view may be that it is just an annual conference on IG (and George's latter email suggests that this is what he takes it to be). > > I understand that my e-mail may have suggested that to you, but I take the IGF to be somewhat different, and I describe it more fully below. ... Finally, it is not a decision making body which, in my opinion, is one of the essential reasons for its success. Even as a conference, it's not looking like much of a success at the moment. Indeed it's been so successful that people who do real policy view it as a joke or a distraction (I've heard this many times), the next meeting is on the verge of cancellation, with the entire IGF likely to follow it when its mandate comes up again for renewal. > But what happens when there are different points of view within the group? Is it reasonable to force one view for the purpose of defining norms, or when there are different views of what the IGF is? Or is the variation in views a part of a healthy environment that should be valued in making progress toward better understanding? The just-a-conference" group have successfully "forced their view" on the others until now, by vetoing changes necessary for the IGF to fulfil the rest of its mandate. Maybe the others should have a few years to try things their way and see if the can outdo the "success" that we've seen so far. > Does this group tolerate such positions that appear to be seen by some as compromise positions or equivocation? Is there room in this group for diverse views, or do they just get in the way of creating unified positions vis-à-vis other stakeholder groups? We haven't seen that spirit of tolerance within the MAG or Secretariat. If there hasn't been a consensus in favour of trying things that deviate too far from the conference format (and there never will be a consensus, due to the technical community and friends), the default has been not to try, rather than to give it a shot for the sake of tolerance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Aug 3 06:29:03 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2013 15:59:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Message-ID: It appears matched and even beaten by the spirit of intolerance and politicking that I see pervade some sections of the community. Extremist viewpoints will attract far more opposition than genuine attempts to seek consensus and that is just what we are seeing here. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Jeremy Malcolm" To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "George Sadowsky" Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Date: Sat, Aug 3, 2013 3:54 PM On 3 Aug, 2013, at 5:10 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > On Aug 3, 2013, at 8:09 AM, parminder wrote: > >> It is important to first agree on what the IGF is.... >> >> One view may be that it is just an annual conference on IG (and George's latter email suggests that this is what he takes it to be). > > I understand that my e-mail may have suggested that to you, but I take the IGF to be somewhat different, and I describe it more fully below. ... Finally, it is not a decision making body which, in my opinion, is one of the essential reasons for its success. Even as a conference, it's not looking like much of a success at the moment. Indeed it's been so successful that people who do real policy view it as a joke or a distraction (I've heard this many times), the next meeting is on the verge of cancellation, with the entire IGF likely to follow it when its mandate comes up again for renewal. > But what happens when there are different points of view within the group? Is it reasonable to force one view for the purpose of defining norms, or when there are different views of what the IGF is? Or is the variation in views a part of a healthy environment that should be valued in making progress toward better understanding? The just-a-conference" group have successfully "forced their view" on the others until now, by vetoing changes necessary for the IGF to fulfil the rest of its mandate. Maybe the others should have a few years to try things their way and see if the can outdo the "success" that we've seen so far. > Does this group tolerate such positions that appear to be seen by some as compromise positions or equivocation? Is there room in this group for diverse views, or do they just get in the way of creating unified positions vis-à-vis other stakeholder groups? We haven't seen that spirit of tolerance within the MAG or Secretariat. If there hasn't been a consensus in favour of trying things that deviate too far from the conference format (and there never will be a consensus, due to the technical community and friends), the default has been not to try, rather than to give it a shot for the sake of tolerance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Sat Aug 3 09:02:29 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 15:02:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <033c01ce8fec$169e73e0$43db5ba0$@gmail.com> References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill>,<51FB30D7.6000209@itforchange.net> <51FBD4EF.7090608@itforchange.net> <033c01ce8fec$169e73e0$43db5ba0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <891D7DE7-F317-4DED-BF3B-D73A0CDC944C@gmail.com> Michael, I believe that the best defense against capture is a thorough understanding of exactly what interests each party in a group brings to the table. In the west, as you know, conferences and meetings of various genres are often sponsored by business interests of some kind. In some conferences the quid pro quo is not clear, and as a result it's quite possible that messages become distorted without many in the audience realizing it. Those of us who do understand that there is a hidden quid pro quo treat these events as infomercials and either avoid them or consciously filter out what we believe are the evidence and the effects of the favoritism. On the other hand, the "Computers, Freedom an Privacy " conference held annually in the US is squarely in the area of what I think you and I would agree is policy, and that has sponsors from multiple sectors. Participants in that conference would be quite aware if amy sponsoring organizations were trying to use the event to distort presentations and outcomes. The cooperation between sectors works, and one of the contributing factors is that some the interests of the business community parallel those of segments of civil society. There is an underlying theme here that's worth exploring, and that is the perception by a stakeholder group or its members that the views, motives and goals of other groups are homogeoenous. In fact, while there may be some core principles within each group that are universally or nearly universally accepted by members of a group, there is also a wide variety of opinion, often conflicting, regarding other issues. For example, those of us who have dealt with governments quickly learn this, and identify paths through governmental structures that allow us to advance the causes that we espouse. I have a concern that by partitioning our world conceptually into stakeholder groups, we blur our ability to see that there are wide varieties of opinion in other stakeholder groups, and that some of the stakeholders and of the positions are consistent with ours. This can lead to a situation in which other groups are considered as adversaries, as a class. That in turn could lead to a demonization of "outsiders", rather than a recognition that our society is composed of different groups, all with their own interests, and that it may be more important to explore what mutual accommodation could provide rather than looking for issues to fight over. In the particular case of relationships between civil society and the private sector, the rules are clear for the IGF. They are set by the UN and forbid specific types of recognition for private sector donors. In other cases where private sector donors support an event or an activity, some form of recognition is expected, even if it consists only of oral thanks in a session. If we accept Suresh's criterion of a non-intervention firewall between financial support and the presentation of substance in the program of the event or activity, to which I subscribe, then surely we should be able to accept that the private sector's motivation and aims just might be consistent in specific ways with ours; otherwise why would they be providing support. Perhaps this last example is too simplistic, and if it is, I'm sure that someone on the list will tell me so. However the more general point, that opinions within stakeholder groups are varied, and that we should not perceive differences between groups in black and white terms that would lead to suspicion of others, is fundamental to working out differences. The latter employs the same mechanism as prejudice; characterizing all members of a group stereotypically rather than understanding that members of the group are individuals and should be assessed as such. By the way, it should be obvious, but I want to state that I speak only for myself here. These are my opinions and not necessarily those of any other person or group. Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Aug 3, 2013, at 3:52 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > (Sorry, working through my mail front to back… > > I'm not sure I agree with this… The issue I think would be the degree to which the IGF -- either globally, regionally or nationally had a public policy component to it… The more the public policy element (or the expectation of a public policy output/outcome/influence of some sort) the more there is a need for some minimum standards concerning the inputs into the IGFs at whatever level (and presuming some degree of cascading upwards from the local to the global). > > Of course, if one is making the assumption that the IGF's are essentially valueless from a public policy perspective then there is no rules/standards necessary at all and seats/slots/etc.etc. can, as with normal commercial (and in many cases "professional") conferences be sold to the highest bidders. > > (BTW I think that the issues concerning "bottom up vs. top down" are really not relevant here in that I'm assuming the intention/basis for this discussion is to establish some broad based norms of conduct for the IGF's. Such norms are usually the result of broad based consensus on values/principles etc. as governing the activities of the community in question (in this instance the global Internet governance community)… Adherence to these norms is a necessary element for inclusion in that community--non-adherence is reason for exclusion… These processes of norm setting are neither bottom up nor top down but horizontal processes of consensus building within the relevant community.) > > Mike > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky > Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 11:06 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder > Cc: Grace Githaiga > Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call > > All, > > I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it. > > In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global IGF, not the other way around. This should not be a top down operation. > > The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs. > > Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or even a recommendation that should be made at a global level. > > > > > > On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: > "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". > > > Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? > > In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on board, NOT necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners. Further, different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. > > Grace, > > Happy to clarify. > > First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those conditions be made applicable to national and regional IGFs that many of us here ( as also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others) agree that it is appropriate and necessary to apply to the UN IGF. > > Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures will be taken to ensure that there is not the least possibility of any quid pro quo at all for these donations, including providing positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ chairing slots, special recommendations for speaking slots, special invitations to what could otherwise be selectively closed high-level (policy related) meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual policy deliberation takes place, and so on.... > > Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that these above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that democratic propriety demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made applicable to national or regional IGFs? > > Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand what you are saying here, and you understand my position. > > parminder > > > > Rgds > GG > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 > From: parminder at itforchange.net > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call > > > Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the isuue of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly disapproved of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in February itself, and for asking the local organising team to discontinue it and take the document off their website. To make things clear in such strong words is really good " the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, and that has to be at a reasonable price". > > Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/ corporatist influences is as important at regional and national levels as at the global level. > > As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of Asia Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial Indonesian IGF fund raising document as, and I quote > > ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship arrangement." > > If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did then the MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? > > I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see enough reason to be concerned about it. If any clarification in this regard is to be forthcoming, I would welcome it. > > There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs - as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, monopolistic) 'policy dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised form of 'participation in governance' and a new experiment in participative democracy - mean and how they must be organised, and strongly insulated from private interests. And for this sake, one need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being slack and accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such extreme care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. > > parminder > > On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an > observer.) > > Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to > 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There > are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries > to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, > there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which > for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get > so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be > held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is > willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some > preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to > recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. > > The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have > already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have > not booked yet. > > The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said > that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be > commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the > UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a > compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside > the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible > from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the > premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable > price. > > So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting > commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has > simply been declared dead. > > 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Aug 3 09:54:45 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 09:54:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Twitter Message-ID: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23559605 So the medium does sometimes hold itself accountable for the message? 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 andersj at elon.edu Sat Aug 3 12:02:52 2013 From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 16:02:52 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet Society Hall of Fame Induction livestreaming now In-Reply-To: <891D7DE7-F317-4DED-BF3B-D73A0CDC944C@gmail.com> Message-ID: The Internet Hall of Fame induction is being livestreamed starting at noon Eastern U.S. time – right now. http://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/2013internethalloffame Best regards, Janna -- Janna Quitney Anderson Director, Imagining the Internet Center www.imaginingtheinternet.org Associate Professor School of Communications Elon University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 3 20:00:17 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 07:00:17 +0700 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <891D7DE7-F317-4DED-BF3B-D73A0CDC944C@gmail.com> References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill>,<51FB30D7.6000209@itforchange.net> <51FBD4EF.7090608@itforchange.net> <033c01ce8fec$169e73e0$43db5ba0$@gmail.com> <891D7DE7-F317-4DED-BF3B-D73A0CDC944C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <013001ce90a5$a103afa0$e30b0ee0$@gmail.com> A few inline comments George, From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 8:02 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Michael, I believe that the best defense against capture is a thorough understanding of exactly what interests each party in a group brings to the table. [MG>] certainly this is one defense amongst others and its success will very much depend on the context, the issue and the parties involved (simple knowledge for example wouldn't be much of a defense against overwhelming force, overwhelming deployment of financial and other resources for example -- the current discussions concerning the "capture" of the FCC by the incumbent telcos is one clear example of this. In the west, as you know, conferences and meetings of various genres are often sponsored by business interests of some kind. In some conferences the quid pro quo is not clear, and as a result it's quite possible that messages become distorted without many in the audience realizing it. Those of us who do understand that there is a hidden quid pro quo treat these events as infomercials and either avoid them or consciously filter out what we believe are the evidence and the effects of the favoritism. [MG>] yes, certainly, but see above and one cannot reasonably rely on everyone being as aware of (or resistant to) the overt/covert nature of the messages being transmitted/influence being peddled as others On the other hand, the "Computers, Freedom an Privacy " conference held annually in the US is squarely in the area of what I think you and I would agree is policy, and that has sponsors from multiple sectors. Participants in that conference would be quite aware if amy sponsoring organizations were trying to use the event to distort presentations and outcomes. The cooperation between sectors works, and one of the contributing factors is that some the interests of the business community parallel those of segments of civil society. [MG>] I think there there is a difference between "policy conferences" and conferences "about policy". I think that to at least some degree the IGF is a "policy conference" i.e. a conference meant to influence or enable the development of Internet governance related policy while the CFP conference is one where folks are talking about the various policy options which are available and whose outcome is informational for the various parties involved. There is an underlying theme here that's worth exploring, and that is the perception by a stakeholder group or its members that the views, motives and goals of other groups are homogeoenous. In fact, while there may be some core principles within each group that are universally or nearly universally accepted by members of a group, there is also a wide variety of opinion, often conflicting, regarding other issues. For example, those of us who have dealt with governments quickly learn this, and identify paths through governmental structures that allow us to advance the causes that we espouse. [MG>] yes, but the notion of MSism is that the various stakeholders have "stakes" (interests) which at some level they are pursuing based on some level of consensus as to the nature of the stake/interest under discussion. So while there may be disagreement on details there is a presumption of a broad agreement on the nature of the stakes involved. I have a concern that by partitioning our world conceptually into stakeholder groups, we blur our ability to see that there are wide varieties of opinion in other stakeholder groups, and that some of the stakeholders and of the positions are consistent with ours. This can lead to a situation in which other groups are considered as adversaries, as a class. That in turn could lead to a demonization of "outsiders", rather than a recognition that our society is composed of different groups, all with their own interests, and that it may be more important to explore what mutual accommodation could provide rather than looking for issues to fight over. [MG>] Yes, and of course, you are correct in this but this again is at the level of tactics. From a strategic perspective I think it makes most sense to recognize the difference of interests involved as between the various stakeholder groups (while of course recognizing that there are differences in details within each of these groups) and act accordingly making alliances where this is possible and recognizing differences and what is implied by this where necessary. In the particular case of relationships between civil society and the private sector, the rules are clear for the IGF. They are set by the UN and forbid specific types of recognition for private sector donors. In other cases where private sector donors support an event or an activity, some form of recognition is expected, even if it consists only of oral thanks in a session. If we accept Suresh's criterion of a non-intervention firewall between financial support and the presentation of substance in the program of the event or activity, to which I subscribe, then surely we should be able to accept that the private sector's motivation and aims just might be consistent in specific ways with ours; otherwise why would they be providing support. [MG>] I'm not sure what you are saying here. Yes, there needs to be firewalls--full stop. Beyond that what else is there to say. Perhaps this last example is too simplistic, and if it is, I'm sure that someone on the list will tell me so. However the more general point, that opinions within stakeholder groups are varied, and that we should not perceive differences between groups in black and white terms that would lead to suspicion of others, is fundamental to working out differences. The latter employs the same mechanism as prejudice; characterizing all members of a group stereotypically rather than understanding that members of the group are individuals and should be assessed as such. [MG>] Yes, and I'm sure that the folks in the NSA and the various governments globally that are complicit in the building of the Surveillance State are very nice and reasonable people by and large. That doesn't change very much about the nature of their work and the overall and very real threat that that implies to human rights at a global level. By the way, it should be obvious, but I want to state that I speak only for myself here. These are my opinions and not necessarily those of any other person or group. [MG>] Best, Mike Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ On Aug 3, 2013, at 3:52 AM, michael gurstein wrote: (Sorry, working through my mail front to back. I'm not sure I agree with this. The issue I think would be the degree to which the IGF -- either globally, regionally or nationally had a public policy component to it. The more the public policy element (or the expectation of a public policy output/outcome/influence of some sort) the more there is a need for some minimum standards concerning the inputs into the IGFs at whatever level (and presuming some degree of cascading upwards from the local to the global). Of course, if one is making the assumption that the IGF's are essentially valueless from a public policy perspective then there is no rules/standards necessary at all and seats/slots/etc.etc. can, as with normal commercial (and in many cases "professional") conferences be sold to the highest bidders. (BTW I think that the issues concerning "bottom up vs. top down" are really not relevant here in that I'm assuming the intention/basis for this discussion is to establish some broad based norms of conduct for the IGF's. Such norms are usually the result of broad based consensus on values/principles etc. as governing the activities of the community in question (in this instance the global Internet governance community). Adherence to these norms is a necessary element for inclusion in that community--non-adherence is reason for exclusion. These processes of norm setting are neither bottom up nor top down but horizontal processes of consensus building within the relevant community.) Mike From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 11:06 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Cc: Grace Githaiga Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call All, I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it. In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global IGF, not the other way around. This should not be a top down operation. The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs. Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or even a recommendation that should be made at a global level. On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on board, NOT necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners. Further, different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. Grace, Happy to clarify. First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those conditions be made applicable to national and regional IGFs that many of us here ( as also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others) agree that it is appropriate and necessary to apply to the UN IGF. Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures will be taken to ensure that there is not the least possibility of any quid pro quo at all for these donations, including providing positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ chairing slots, special recommendations for speaking slots, special invitations to what could otherwise be selectively closed high-level (policy related) meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual policy deliberation takes place, and so on.... Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that these above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that democratic propriety demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made applicable to national or regional IGFs? Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand what you are saying here, and you understand my position. parminder Rgds GG _____ Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 From: parminder at itforchange.net To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the isuue of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly disapproved of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in February itself, and for asking the local organising team to discontinue it and take the document off their website. To make things clear in such strong words is really good " the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, and that has to be at a reasonable price". Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/ corporatist influences is as important at regional and national levels as at the global level. As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of Asia Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial Indonesian IGF fund raising document as, and I quote ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship arrangement." If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did then the MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see enough reason to be concerned about it. If any clarification in this regard is to be forthcoming, I would welcome it. There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs - as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, monopolistic) 'policy dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised form of 'participation in governance' and a new experiment in participative democracy - mean and how they must be organised, and strongly insulated from private interests. And for this sake, one need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being slack and accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such extreme care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. parminder On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an observer.) Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have not booked yet. The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable price. So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has simply been declared dead. 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 suresh at hserus.net Sat Aug 3 20:42:05 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2013 06:12:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Message-ID: I am sorry but which of the several stakeholder groups here is getting compared to the NSA and is full of nice and reasonable people but with evil aims?  You are talking about the policies of various governments there which aren't set by any one individual that is likely to attend the IGF but even there, tarring governments with the same brush for the actions taken by specific governments, isn't on. And human rights violations and invasions of privacy span a broad spectrum so I am not so sure such a simplistic world view would work.  It certainly isn't a brush that you could reasonably use to paint all of industry or all of civil society the uniform black.  --srs -------- Original message -------- From: michael gurstein Date: 08/04/2013 5:30 AM (GMT+05:30) To: 'George Sadowsky' Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call   A few inline comments George,   From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 8:02 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call   Michael,   I believe that the best defense against capture is a thorough understanding of exactly what interests each party in a group brings to the table. [MG>] certainly this is one defense amongst others and its success will very much depend on the context, the issue and the parties involved (simple knowledge for example wouldn't be much of a defense against overwhelming force, overwhelming deployment of financial and other resources for example -- the current discussions concerning the "capture" of the FCC by the incumbent telcos is one clear example of this…   In the west, as you know, conferences and meetings of various genres are often sponsored by business interests of some kind.  In some conferences the quid pro quo is not clear, and as a result it's quite possible that messages become distorted without many in the audience realizing it.  Those of us who do understand that there is a hidden quid pro quo treat these events as infomercials and either avoid them or consciously filter out what we believe are the evidence and the effects of the favoritism. [MG>] yes, certainly, but see above and one cannot reasonably rely on everyone being as aware of (or resistant to) the overt/covert nature of the messages being transmitted/influence being peddled as others   On the other hand, the "Computers, Freedom an Privacy " conference held annually in the US is squarely in the area of what I think you and I would agree is policy, and that has sponsors from multiple sectors.  Participants in that conference would be quite aware if amy sponsoring organizations were trying to use the event to distort presentations and outcomes.  The cooperation between sectors works, and one of the contributing factors is that some the interests of the business community parallel those of segments of civil society. [MG>] I think there there is a difference between "policy conferences" and conferences "about policy"… I think that to at least some degree the IGF is a "policy conference" i.e. a conference meant to influence or enable the development of Internet governance related policy while the CFP conference is one where folks are talking about the various policy options which are available and whose outcome is informational for the various parties involved…   There is an underlying theme here that's worth exploring, and that is the perception by a stakeholder group or its members that the views, motives and goals of other groups are homogeoenous.  In fact, while there may be some core principles within each group that are universally or nearly universally accepted by members of a group, there is also a wide variety of opinion, often conflicting, regarding other issues.  For example, those of us who have dealt with governments quickly learn this, and identify paths through governmental structures that allow us to advance the causes that we espouse. [MG>] yes, but the notion of MSism is that the various stakeholders have "stakes" (interests) which at some level they are pursuing based on some level of consensus as to the nature of the stake/interest under discussion. So while there may be disagreement on details there is a presumption of a broad agreement on the nature of the stakes involved.   I have a concern that by partitioning our world conceptually into stakeholder groups, we blur our ability to see that there are wide varieties of opinion in other stakeholder groups, and that some of the stakeholders and of the positions are consistent with ours.  This can lead to a situation in which other groups are considered as adversaries, as a class. That in turn could lead to a demonization of "outsiders", rather than a recognition that our society is composed of different groups, all with their own interests, and that it may be more important to explore what mutual accommodation could provide rather than looking for issues to fight over. [MG>] Yes, and of course, you are correct in this but this again is at the level of tactics. From a strategic perspective I think it makes most sense to recognize the difference of interests involved as between the various stakeholder groups (while of course recognizing that there are differences in details within each of these groups) and act accordingly making alliances where this is possible and recognizing differences and what is implied by this where necessary.   In the particular case of relationships between civil society and the private sector, the rules are clear for the IGF.  They are set by  the UN and forbid specific types of recognition for private sector donors.  In other cases where private sector donors support an event or an activity, some form of  recognition is expected, even if it consists only of oral thanks in a session.  If we accept Suresh's criterion of a non-intervention firewall between financial support and the presentation of substance in the program of the event or activity, to which I subscribe, then surely we should be able to accept that the private sector's motivation and aims just might be consistent in specific ways with ours; otherwise why would they be providing support. [MG>] I'm not sure what you are saying here. Yes, there needs to be firewalls--full stop. Beyond that what else is there to say.   Perhaps this last example is too simplistic, and if it is, I'm sure that someone on the list will tell me so.    However the more general point, that opinions within stakeholder groups are varied, and that we should not perceive differences between groups in black and white terms that would lead to suspicion of others, is fundamental to working out differences.  The latter employs the same mechanism as prejudice; characterizing all members of a group stereotypically rather than understanding that members of the group are individuals and should be assessed as such. [MG>] Yes, and I'm sure that the folks in the NSA and the various governments globally that are complicit in the building of the Surveillance State are very nice and reasonable people by and large.  That doesn't change very much about the nature of their work and the overall and very real threat that that implies to human rights at a global level.   By the way, it should be obvious, but I want to state that I speak only for myself here.  These are my opinions and not necessarily those of any other person or group. [MG>] Best,   Mike   Regards,   George   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   On Aug 3, 2013, at 3:52 AM, michael gurstein wrote: (Sorry, working through my mail front to back…   I'm not sure I agree with this… The issue I think would be the degree to which the IGF -- either globally, regionally or nationally had a public policy component to it… The more the public policy element (or the expectation of a public policy output/outcome/influence of some sort) the more there is a need for some minimum standards concerning the inputs into the IGFs at whatever level (and presuming some degree of cascading upwards from the local to the global).   Of course, if one is making the assumption that the IGF's are essentially valueless from a public policy perspective then there is no rules/standards necessary at all and seats/slots/etc.etc. can, as with normal commercial (and in many cases "professional") conferences be sold to the highest bidders.   (BTW I think that the issues concerning "bottom up vs. top down" are really not relevant here in that I'm assuming the intention/basis for this discussion is to establish some broad based norms of conduct for the IGF's. Such norms are usually the result of broad based consensus on values/principles etc. as governing the activities of the community in question (in this instance the global Internet governance community)… Adherence to these norms is a necessary element for inclusion in that community--non-adherence is reason for exclusion… These processes of norm setting are neither bottom up nor top down but horizontal processes of consensus building within the relevant community.)   Mike   From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 11:06 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Cc: Grace Githaiga Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call   All,   I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it.   In fact, it would be more appropriate if  representatives of those smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global IGF, not the other way around.  This should not be a top down operation.    The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules apply.  This is not true for regional and national IGFs.   Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or even a recommendation that should be made at a global level.            On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote:     On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced".  Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence?    In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company  decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on board, NOT necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners.  Further, different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. Grace, Happy to clarify.  First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those conditions be made applicable  to national and regional IGFs that many of us here ( as also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others)  agree that it is appropriate and necessary to apply to the UN IGF. Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures will be taken to ensure that there is not the least possibility of any quid pro quo at all for these donations, including providing positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ chairing slots, special recommendations for speaking slots, special invitations to what could otherwise be selectively closed high-level (policy related) meetings,  logos in and around the spaces where actual policy deliberation takes place, and so on....  Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that these above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that  democratic propriety demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made applicable to national or regional IGFs?  Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand what you are saying here, and you understand my position. parminder   Rgds GG Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 From: parminder at itforchange.net To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the isuue of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly disapproved of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in February itself, and for asking the local organising team to discontinue it and take the document off their website. To make things clear in such strong words is really good " the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, and that has to be at a reasonable price". Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/ corporatist influences is as important at regional and national levels as at the global level. As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of Asia Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial Indonesian IGF fund raising document as, and I quote ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship arrangement." If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did then the MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal?  I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see enough reason to be concerned about it.  If any clarification in this regard is to be forthcoming, I would welcome it. There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs - as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, monopolistic) 'policy dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised form of 'participation in governance' and a new experiment in participative democracy - mean and how they must be organised, and strongly insulated from private interests. And for this sake, one need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being slack and accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such extreme care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. parminder On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an observer.)   Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week.   The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have not booked yet.   The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable price.   So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has simply been declared dead.   Greetings, Norbert       ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t     -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Aug 3 21:03:35 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 08:03:35 +0700 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <014a01ce90ae$750d2cb0$5f278610$@gmail.com> I think you have misread my point, which I assumed was obvious from the context, and was simply meant to respond to George's assertion that "characterizing all members of a group stereotypically rather than understanding that members of the group are individuals and should be assessed as such". I did not mention civil society etc.etc. Nice people in specific normatively/organizationally defined contexts can be understood to do nasty things and shouldn't be let off the hook simply because they are "nice and reasonable people"… That of course, holds for CS, the corporate sector and governments equally with others. M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2013 7:42 AM To: michael gurstein; 'George Sadowsky' Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call I am sorry but which of the several stakeholder groups here is getting compared to the NSA and is full of nice and reasonable people but with evil aims? You are talking about the policies of various governments there which aren't set by any one individual that is likely to attend the IGF but even there, tarring governments with the same brush for the actions taken by specific governments, isn't on. And human rights violations and invasions of privacy span a broad spectrum so I am not so sure such a simplistic world view would work. It certainly isn't a brush that you could reasonably use to paint all of industry or all of civil society the uniform black. --srs -------- Original message -------- From: michael gurstein Date: 08/04/2013 5:30 AM (GMT+05:30) To: 'George Sadowsky' Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call A few inline comments George, From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 8:02 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Michael, I believe that the best defense against capture is a thorough understanding of exactly what interests each party in a group brings to the table. [MG>] certainly this is one defense amongst others and its success will very much depend on the context, the issue and the parties involved (simple knowledge for example wouldn't be much of a defense against overwhelming force, overwhelming deployment of financial and other resources for example -- the current discussions concerning the "capture" of the FCC by the incumbent telcos is one clear example of this… In the west, as you know, conferences and meetings of various genres are often sponsored by business interests of some kind. In some conferences the quid pro quo is not clear, and as a result it's quite possible that messages become distorted without many in the audience realizing it. Those of us who do understand that there is a hidden quid pro quo treat these events as infomercials and either avoid them or consciously filter out what we believe are the evidence and the effects of the favoritism. [MG>] yes, certainly, but see above and one cannot reasonably rely on everyone being as aware of (or resistant to) the overt/covert nature of the messages being transmitted/influence being peddled as others On the other hand, the "Computers, Freedom an Privacy " conference held annually in the US is squarely in the area of what I think you and I would agree is policy, and that has sponsors from multiple sectors. Participants in that conference would be quite aware if amy sponsoring organizations were trying to use the event to distort presentations and outcomes. The cooperation between sectors works, and one of the contributing factors is that some the interests of the business community parallel those of segments of civil society. [MG>] I think there there is a difference between "policy conferences" and conferences "about policy"… I think that to at least some degree the IGF is a "policy conference" i.e. a conference meant to influence or enable the development of Internet governance related policy while the CFP conference is one where folks are talking about the various policy options which are available and whose outcome is informational for the various parties involved… There is an underlying theme here that's worth exploring, and that is the perception by a stakeholder group or its members that the views, motives and goals of other groups are homogeoenous. In fact, while there may be some core principles within each group that are universally or nearly universally accepted by members of a group, there is also a wide variety of opinion, often conflicting, regarding other issues. For example, those of us who have dealt with governments quickly learn this, and identify paths through governmental structures that allow us to advance the causes that we espouse. [MG>] yes, but the notion of MSism is that the various stakeholders have "stakes" (interests) which at some level they are pursuing based on some level of consensus as to the nature of the stake/interest under discussion. So while there may be disagreement on details there is a presumption of a broad agreement on the nature of the stakes involved. I have a concern that by partitioning our world conceptually into stakeholder groups, we blur our ability to see that there are wide varieties of opinion in other stakeholder groups, and that some of the stakeholders and of the positions are consistent with ours. This can lead to a situation in which other groups are considered as adversaries, as a class. That in turn could lead to a demonization of "outsiders", rather than a recognition that our society is composed of different groups, all with their own interests, and that it may be more important to explore what mutual accommodation could provide rather than looking for issues to fight over. [MG>] Yes, and of course, you are correct in this but this again is at the level of tactics. From a strategic perspective I think it makes most sense to recognize the difference of interests involved as between the various stakeholder groups (while of course recognizing that there are differences in details within each of these groups) and act accordingly making alliances where this is possible and recognizing differences and what is implied by this where necessary. In the particular case of relationships between civil society and the private sector, the rules are clear for the IGF. They are set by the UN and forbid specific types of recognition for private sector donors. In other cases where private sector donors support an event or an activity, some form of recognition is expected, even if it consists only of oral thanks in a session. If we accept Suresh's criterion of a non-intervention firewall between financial support and the presentation of substance in the program of the event or activity, to which I subscribe, then surely we should be able to accept that the private sector's motivation and aims just might be consistent in specific ways with ours; otherwise why would they be providing support. [MG>] I'm not sure what you are saying here. Yes, there needs to be firewalls--full stop. Beyond that what else is there to say. Perhaps this last example is too simplistic, and if it is, I'm sure that someone on the list will tell me so. However the more general point, that opinions within stakeholder groups are varied, and that we should not perceive differences between groups in black and white terms that would lead to suspicion of others, is fundamental to working out differences. The latter employs the same mechanism as prejudice; characterizing all members of a group stereotypically rather than understanding that members of the group are individuals and should be assessed as such. [MG>] Yes, and I'm sure that the folks in the NSA and the various governments globally that are complicit in the building of the Surveillance State are very nice and reasonable people by and large. That doesn't change very much about the nature of their work and the overall and very real threat that that implies to human rights at a global level. By the way, it should be obvious, but I want to state that I speak only for myself here. These are my opinions and not necessarily those of any other person or group. [MG>] Best, Mike Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Aug 3, 2013, at 3:52 AM, michael gurstein wrote: (Sorry, working through my mail front to back… I'm not sure I agree with this… The issue I think would be the degree to which the IGF -- either globally, regionally or nationally had a public policy component to it… The more the public policy element (or the expectation of a public policy output/outcome/influence of some sort) the more there is a need for some minimum standards concerning the inputs into the IGFs at whatever level (and presuming some degree of cascading upwards from the local to the global). Of course, if one is making the assumption that the IGF's are essentially valueless from a public policy perspective then there is no rules/standards necessary at all and seats/slots/etc.etc. can, as with normal commercial (and in many cases "professional") conferences be sold to the highest bidders. (BTW I think that the issues concerning "bottom up vs. top down" are really not relevant here in that I'm assuming the intention/basis for this discussion is to establish some broad based norms of conduct for the IGF's. Such norms are usually the result of broad based consensus on values/principles etc. as governing the activities of the community in question (in this instance the global Internet governance community)… Adherence to these norms is a necessary element for inclusion in that community--non-adherence is reason for exclusion… These processes of norm setting are neither bottom up nor top down but horizontal processes of consensus building within the relevant community.) Mike From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 11:06 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Cc: Grace Githaiga Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call All, I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it. In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global IGF, not the other way around. This should not be a top down operation. The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs. Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or even a recommendation that should be made at a global level. On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on board, NOT necessarily to influence the IGF but as partners. Further, different national IGFs have different models of fundraising. What works in Kenya may not work in say Tanzania. Kindly clarify. Grace, Happy to clarify. First of all, it should be clear that I only seek that those conditions be made applicable to national and regional IGFs that many of us here ( as also the UN IGF MAG Chair and others) agree that it is appropriate and necessary to apply to the UN IGF. Inter alia, such conditions are that while private companies can donate money to the IGF, which goes into a trust fund, all measures will be taken to ensure that there is not the least possibility of any quid pro quo at all for these donations, including providing positions on the MAG, giving speaking/ chairing slots, special recommendations for speaking slots, special invitations to what could otherwise be selectively closed high-level (policy related) meetings, logos in and around the spaces where actual policy deliberation takes place, and so on.... Do you indeed disagree with my position, whereby do you think that these above conditions, with regard to policy spaces, that democratic propriety demands UN IGF must observe, should not be made applicable to national or regional IGFs? Before I go on, I just want to make sure that I really understand what you are saying here, and you understand my position. parminder Rgds GG _____ Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 09:38:55 +0530 From: parminder at itforchange.net To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Kudos to Markus for making a such clear affirmative statement on the isuue of commercialisation of IGF...... And for also having strongly disapproved of the Indonesian fund raising document/ strategy in February itself, and for asking the local organising team to discontinue it and take the document off their website. To make things clear in such strong words is really good " the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food, and that has to be at a reasonable price". Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced. Safeguarding policy spaces from commercial/ corporatist influences is as important at regional and national levels as at the global level. As mentioned earlier, I remain rather concerned that the Chair of Asia Pacific IGF called the provisions in the controversial Indonesian IGF fund raising document as, and I quote ".....providing some traditional "value" back to contributors. The deal is nothing new - it seems to be a rather standard sponsorship arrangement." If indeed it was a rather standard sponsorship document, why did then the MAG Chair disapprove of it and ask for its withdrawal? I am not sure therefore how they do it at the AP IGF, but I do see enough reason to be concerned about it. If any clarification in this regard is to be forthcoming, I would welcome it. There seems to be a consdierable lack of clarity about what the IGFs - as a somewhat formal (and therefore, and to that extent, monopolistic) 'policy dialogue space' and a new insitutionalised form of 'participation in governance' and a new experiment in participative democracy - mean and how they must be organised, and strongly insulated from private interests. And for this sake, one need to be almost paranoidly pro-active rather than being slack and accommodative. Insitutions of democracy are built with such extreme care and caution, and being stickler to basic norms. parminder On Wednesday 31 July 2013 06:32 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an observer.) Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have not booked yet. The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable price. So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has simply been declared dead. 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 suresh at hserus.net Sat Aug 3 21:23:59 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2013 06:53:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Message-ID: <2kfr4es2etosm0ugmcjy8ri3.1375579325998@email.android.com> We agree. However George did make the point that stereotypes abound, as does a circle the wagons and exclude outsiders mentality  --srs -------- Original message -------- From: michael gurstein Date: 08/04/2013 6:33 AM (GMT+05:30) To: 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' ,'George Sadowsky' Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call I think you have misread my point, which I assumed was obvious from the context, and was simply meant to respond to George's assertion that "characterizing all members of a group stereotypically rather than understanding that members of the group are individuals and should be assessed as such". I did not mention civil society  etc.etc. Nice people in specific normatively/organizationally defined contexts can be understood to do nasty things and shouldn't be let off the hook simply because they are "nice and reasonable people"… That of course, holds for CS, the corporate sector and governments equally with others.   M   From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2013 7:42 AM To: michael gurstein; 'George Sadowsky' Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call   I am sorry but which of the several stakeholder groups here is getting compared to the NSA and is full of nice and reasonable people but with evil aims?    You are talking about the policies of various governments there which aren't set by any one individual that is likely to attend the IGF but even there, tarring governments with the same brush for the actions taken by specific governments, isn't on. And human rights violations and invasions of privacy span a broad spectrum so I am not so sure such a simplistic world view would work.    It certainly isn't a brush that you could reasonably use to paint all of industry or all of civil society the uniform black.    --srs -------- Original message -------- From: michael gurstein Date: 08/04/2013 5:30 AM (GMT+05:30) To: 'George Sadowsky' Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call   A few inline comments George,   From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 8:02 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call   Michael,   I believe that the best defense against capture is a thorough understanding of exactly what interests each party in a group brings to the table. [MG>] certainly this is one defense amongst others and its success will very much depend on the context, the issue and the parties involved (simple knowledge for example wouldn't be much of a defense against overwhelming force, overwhelming deployment of financial and other resources for example -- the current discussions concerning the "capture" of the FCC by the incumbent telcos is one clear example of this…   In the west, as you know, conferences and meetings of various genres are often sponsored by business interests of some kind.  In some conferences the quid pro quo is not clear, and as a result it's quite possible that messages become distorted without many in the audience realizing it.  Those of us who do understand that there is a hidden quid pro quo treat these events as infomercials and either avoid them or consciously filter out what we believe are the evidence and the effects of the favoritism. [MG>] yes, certainly, but see above and one cannot reasonably rely on everyone being as aware of (or resistant to) the overt/covert nature of the messages being transmitted/influence being peddled as others   On the other hand, the "Computers, Freedom an Privacy " conference held annually in the US is squarely in the area of what I think you and I would agree is policy, and that has sponsors from multiple sectors.  Participants in that conference would be quite aware if amy sponsoring organizations were trying to use the event to distort presentations and outcomes.  The cooperation between sectors works, and one of the contributing factors is that some the interests of the business community parallel those of segments of civil society. [MG>] I think there there is a difference between "policy conferences" and conferences "about policy"… I think that to at least some degree the IGF is a "policy conference" i.e. a conference meant to influence or enable the development of Internet governance related policy while the CFP conference is one where folks are talking about the various policy options which are available and whose outcome is informational for the various parties involved…   There is an underlying theme here that's worth exploring, and that is the perception by a stakeholder group or its members that the views, motives and goals of other groups are homogeoenous.  In fact, while there may be some core principles within each group that are universally or nearly universally accepted by members of a group, there is also a wide variety of opinion, often conflicting, regarding other issues.  For example, those of us who have dealt with governments quickly learn this, and identify paths through governmental structures that allow us to advance the causes that we espouse. [MG>] yes, but the notion of MSism is that the various stakeholders have "stakes" (interests) which at some level they are pursuing based on some level of consensus as to the nature of the stake/interest under discussion. So while there may be disagreement on details there is a presumption of a broad agreement on the nature of the stakes involved.   I have a concern that by partitioning our world conceptually into stakeholder groups, we blur our ability to see that there are wide varieties of opinion in other stakeholder groups, and that some of the stakeholders and of the positions are consistent with ours.  This can lead to a situation in which other groups are considered as adversaries, as a class. That in turn could lead to a demonization of "outsiders", rather than a recognition that our society is composed of different groups, all with their own interests, and that it may be more important to explore what mutual accommodation could provide rather than looking for issues to fight over. [MG>] Yes, and of course, you are correct in this but this again is at the level of tactics. From a strategic perspective I think it makes most sense to recognize the difference of interests involved as between the various stakeholder groups (while of course recognizing that there are differences in details within each of these groups) and act accordingly making alliances where this is possible and recognizing differences and what is implied by this where necessary.   In the particular case of relationships between civil society and the private sector, the rules are clear for the IGF.  They are set by  the UN and forbid specific types of recognition for private sector donors.  In other cases where private sector donors support an event or an activity, some form of  recognition is expected, even if it consists only of oral thanks in a session.  If we accept Suresh's criterion of a non-intervention firewall between financial support and the presentation of substance in the program of the event or activity, to which I subscribe, then surely we should be able to accept that the private sector's motivation and aims just might be consistent in specific ways with ours; otherwise why would they be providing support. [MG>] I'm not sure what you are saying here. Yes, there needs to be firewalls--full stop. Beyond that what else is there to say.   Perhaps this last example is too simplistic, and if it is, I'm sure that someone on the list will tell me so.    However the more general point, that opinions within stakeholder groups are varied, and that we should not perceive differences between groups in black and white terms that would lead to suspicion of others, is fundamental to working out differences.  The latter employs the same mechanism as prejudice; characterizing all members of a group stereotypically rather than understanding that members of the group are individuals and should be assessed as such. [MG>] Yes, and I'm sure that the folks in the NSA and the various governments globally that are complicit in the building of the Surveillance State are very nice and reasonable people by and large.  That doesn't change very much about the nature of their work and the overall and very real threat that that implies to human rights at a global level.   By the way, it should be obvious, but I want to state that I speak only for myself here.  These are my opinions and not necessarily those of any other person or group. [MG>] Best,   Mike   Regards,   George   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   On Aug 3, 2013, at 3:52 AM, michael gurstein wrote: (Sorry, working through my mail front to back…   I'm not sure I agree with this… The issue I think would be the degree to which the IGF -- either globally, regionally or nationally had a public policy component to it… The more the public policy element (or the expectation of a public policy output/outcome/influence of some sort) the more there is a need for some minimum standards concerning the inputs into the IGFs at whatever level (and presuming some degree of cascading upwards from the local to the global).   Of course, if one is making the assumption that the IGF's are essentially valueless from a public policy perspective then there is no rules/standards necessary at all and seats/slots/etc.etc. can, as with normal commercial (and in many cases "professional") conferences be sold to the highest bidders.   (BTW I think that the issues concerning "bottom up vs. top down" are really not relevant here in that I'm assuming the intention/basis for this discussion is to establish some broad based norms of conduct for the IGF's. Such norms are usually the result of broad based consensus on values/principles etc. as governing the activities of the community in question (in this instance the global Internet governance community)… Adherence to these norms is a necessary element for inclusion in that community--non-adherence is reason for exclusion… These processes of norm setting are neither bottom up nor top down but horizontal processes of consensus building within the relevant community.)   Mike   From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 11:06 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Cc: Grace Githaiga Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call   All,   I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it.   In fact, it would be more appropriate if  representatives of those smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global IGF, not the other way around.  This should not be a top down operation.    The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules apply.  This is not true for regional and national IGFs.   Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or even a recommendation that should be made at a global level.            On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote:     On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced".  Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence?    In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company  decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on boar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 3 21:43:10 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 08:43:10 +0700 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <2kfr4es2etosm0ugmcjy8ri3.1375579325998@email.android.com> References: <2kfr4es2etosm0ugmcjy8ri3.1375579325998@email.android.com> Message-ID: <016a01ce90b4$00fa74d0$02ef5e70$@gmail.com> Stereotyping is about the characterization of individuals. If there is such a discussion of individuals on this list then (as has been the case in the past) this is something calling for intervention from the Co-Co's. Finding and articulating normative consensus (perhaps another way of saying "circling the wagons") so as to draw a boundary between those party to that consensus and those who aren't is a necessary function of any grouping of this kind and specifically for the formulation and expression of collective positions on the part of the various stakeholders. I fail to see what might be negative about a process of that kind. M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2013 8:24 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 'George Sadowsky' Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call We agree. However George did make the point that stereotypes abound, as does a circle the wagons and exclude outsiders mentality --srs -------- Original message -------- From: michael gurstein Date: 08/04/2013 6:33 AM (GMT+05:30) To: 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' ,'George Sadowsky' Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call I think you have misread my point, which I assumed was obvious from the context, and was simply meant to respond to George's assertion that "characterizing all members of a group stereotypically rather than understanding that members of the group are individuals and should be assessed as such". I did not mention civil society etc.etc. Nice people in specific normatively/organizationally defined contexts can be understood to do nasty things and shouldn't be let off the hook simply because they are "nice and reasonable people"… That of course, holds for CS, the corporate sector and governments equally with others. M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2013 7:42 AM To: michael gurstein; 'George Sadowsky' Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call I am sorry but which of the several stakeholder groups here is getting compared to the NSA and is full of nice and reasonable people but with evil aims? You are talking about the policies of various governments there which aren't set by any one individual that is likely to attend the IGF but even there, tarring governments with the same brush for the actions taken by specific governments, isn't on. And human rights violations and invasions of privacy span a broad spectrum so I am not so sure such a simplistic world view would work. It certainly isn't a brush that you could reasonably use to paint all of industry or all of civil society the uniform black. --srs -------- Original message -------- From: michael gurstein Date: 08/04/2013 5:30 AM (GMT+05:30) To: 'George Sadowsky' Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call A few inline comments George, From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 8:02 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Michael, I believe that the best defense against capture is a thorough understanding of exactly what interests each party in a group brings to the table. [MG>] certainly this is one defense amongst others and its success will very much depend on the context, the issue and the parties involved (simple knowledge for example wouldn't be much of a defense against overwhelming force, overwhelming deployment of financial and other resources for example -- the current discussions concerning the "capture" of the FCC by the incumbent telcos is one clear example of this… In the west, as you know, conferences and meetings of various genres are often sponsored by business interests of some kind. In some conferences the quid pro quo is not clear, and as a result it's quite possible that messages become distorted without many in the audience realizing it. Those of us who do understand that there is a hidden quid pro quo treat these events as infomercials and either avoid them or consciously filter out what we believe are the evidence and the effects of the favoritism. [MG>] yes, certainly, but see above and one cannot reasonably rely on everyone being as aware of (or resistant to) the overt/covert nature of the messages being transmitted/influence being peddled as others On the other hand, the "Computers, Freedom an Privacy " conference held annually in the US is squarely in the area of what I think you and I would agree is policy, and that has sponsors from multiple sectors. Participants in that conference would be quite aware if amy sponsoring organizations were trying to use the event to distort presentations and outcomes. The cooperation between sectors works, and one of the contributing factors is that some the interests of the business community parallel those of segments of civil society. [MG>] I think there there is a difference between "policy conferences" and conferences "about policy"… I think that to at least some degree the IGF is a "policy conference" i.e. a conference meant to influence or enable the development of Internet governance related policy while the CFP conference is one where folks are talking about the various policy options which are available and whose outcome is informational for the various parties involved… There is an underlying theme here that's worth exploring, and that is the perception by a stakeholder group or its members that the views, motives and goals of other groups are homogeoenous. In fact, while there may be some core principles within each group that are universally or nearly universally accepted by members of a group, there is also a wide variety of opinion, often conflicting, regarding other issues. For example, those of us who have dealt with governments quickly learn this, and identify paths through governmental structures that allow us to advance the causes that we espouse. [MG>] yes, but the notion of MSism is that the various stakeholders have "stakes" (interests) which at some level they are pursuing based on some level of consensus as to the nature of the stake/interest under discussion. So while there may be disagreement on details there is a presumption of a broad agreement on the nature of the stakes involved. I have a concern that by partitioning our world conceptually into stakeholder groups, we blur our ability to see that there are wide varieties of opinion in other stakeholder groups, and that some of the stakeholders and of the positions are consistent with ours. This can lead to a situation in which other groups are considered as adversaries, as a class. That in turn could lead to a demonization of "outsiders", rather than a recognition that our society is composed of different groups, all with their own interests, and that it may be more important to explore what mutual accommodation could provide rather than looking for issues to fight over. [MG>] Yes, and of course, you are correct in this but this again is at the level of tactics. From a strategic perspective I think it makes most sense to recognize the difference of interests involved as between the various stakeholder groups (while of course recognizing that there are differences in details within each of these groups) and act accordingly making alliances where this is possible and recognizing differences and what is implied by this where necessary. In the particular case of relationships between civil society and the private sector, the rules are clear for the IGF. They are set by the UN and forbid specific types of recognition for private sector donors. In other cases where private sector donors support an event or an activity, some form of recognition is expected, even if it consists only of oral thanks in a session. If we accept Suresh's criterion of a non-intervention firewall between financial support and the presentation of substance in the program of the event or activity, to which I subscribe, then surely we should be able to accept that the private sector's motivation and aims just might be consistent in specific ways with ours; otherwise why would they be providing support. [MG>] I'm not sure what you are saying here. Yes, there needs to be firewalls--full stop. Beyond that what else is there to say. Perhaps this last example is too simplistic, and if it is, I'm sure that someone on the list will tell me so. However the more general point, that opinions within stakeholder groups are varied, and that we should not perceive differences between groups in black and white terms that would lead to suspicion of others, is fundamental to working out differences. The latter employs the same mechanism as prejudice; characterizing all members of a group stereotypically rather than understanding that members of the group are individuals and should be assessed as such. [MG>] Yes, and I'm sure that the folks in the NSA and the various governments globally that are complicit in the building of the Surveillance State are very nice and reasonable people by and large. That doesn't change very much about the nature of their work and the overall and very real threat that that implies to human rights at a global level. By the way, it should be obvious, but I want to state that I speak only for myself here. These are my opinions and not necessarily those of any other person or group. [MG>] Best, Mike Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Aug 3, 2013, at 3:52 AM, michael gurstein wrote: (Sorry, working through my mail front to back… I'm not sure I agree with this… The issue I think would be the degree to which the IGF -- either globally, regionally or nationally had a public policy component to it… The more the public policy element (or the expectation of a public policy output/outcome/influence of some sort) the more there is a need for some minimum standards concerning the inputs into the IGFs at whatever level (and presuming some degree of cascading upwards from the local to the global). Of course, if one is making the assumption that the IGF's are essentially valueless from a public policy perspective then there is no rules/standards necessary at all and seats/slots/etc.etc. can, as with normal commercial (and in many cases "professional") conferences be sold to the highest bidders. (BTW I think that the issues concerning "bottom up vs. top down" are really not relevant here in that I'm assuming the intention/basis for this discussion is to establish some broad based norms of conduct for the IGF's. Such norms are usually the result of broad based consensus on values/principles etc. as governing the activities of the community in question (in this instance the global Internet governance community)… Adherence to these norms is a necessary element for inclusion in that community--non-adherence is reason for exclusion… These processes of norm setting are neither bottom up nor top down but horizontal processes of consensus building within the relevant community.) Mike From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 11:06 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Cc: Grace Githaiga Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call All, I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it. In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global IGF, not the other way around. This should not be a top down operation. The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs. Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or even a recommendation that should be made at a global level. On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on boar -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 3 21:55:42 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 14:55:42 -1100 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <016a01ce90b4$00fa74d0$02ef5e70$@gmail.com> References: <2kfr4es2etosm0ugmcjy8ri3.1375579325998@email.android.com> <016a01ce90b4$00fa74d0$02ef5e70$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <78C90130-88C9-49E7-BA7A-43489B9D68F7@gmail.com> Dear All, The discussions are disintegrating and becoming non- productive. It is perfectly normal to hold and have diverse conflicting view points. Why don't we consider developing considerations ( does not have to be principles at this stage) for IGF workshop convenors. We can start by listing things that have been shared through this emai thread and also other past discussions on the list on the subject. This can be put to the IGC and if there is consensus, we can move to have this sent to the MAG. A material point of distinction would of course be to mention the prism of the IGF, some see it as a policy body some see it as a conference, some want concrete outcomes and others are happy to let it be just a forum where diverse stakeholders can come together. The attacks on the APRIGF Chair were totally uncalled for and so was the alleged stereotyping...this is not the place for personal attacks. Let's keep the discussions professional and it is really great to see some of the considerations come up but by now we expect a level of maturity that accepts that we will always have people who do not think like us and frankly we do not expect them too. Once a point has been made, it is an " overkill" to continue to hammer them down our throats. I apologise for the delayed response, have been reading these but without a chance to respond as I was with intermittent access as I was in the Cook Islands. I am now in Niue and have time to respond better. Sala T (Co-coordinator) Sent from my iPad On Aug 3, 2013, at 2:43 PM, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Stereotyping is about the characterization of individuals. If there is such a discussion of individuals on this list then (as has been the case in the past) this is something calling for intervention from the Co-Co's. > > Finding and articulating normative consensus (perhaps another way of saying "circling the wagons") so as to draw a boundary between those party to that consensus and those who aren't is a necessary function of any grouping of this kind and specifically for the formulation and expression of collective positions on the part of the various stakeholders. I fail to see what might be negative about a process of that kind. > > M > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2013 8:24 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 'George Sadowsky' > Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call > > We agree. However George did make the point that stereotypes abound, as does a circle the wagons and exclude outsiders mentality > > --srs > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: michael gurstein > Date: 08/04/2013 6:33 AM (GMT+05:30) > To: 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' ,'George Sadowsky' > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call > > > I think you have misread my point, which I assumed was obvious from the context, and was simply meant to respond to George's assertion that "characterizing all members of a group stereotypically rather than understanding that members of the group are individuals and should be assessed as such". I did not mention civil society etc.etc. Nice people in specific normatively/organizationally defined contexts can be understood to do nasty things and shouldn't be let off the hook simply because they are "nice and reasonable people"… That of course, holds for CS, the corporate sector and governments equally with others. > > M > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2013 7:42 AM > To: michael gurstein; 'George Sadowsky' > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call > > I am sorry but which of the several stakeholder groups here is getting compared to the NSA and is full of nice and reasonable people but with evil aims? > > You are talking about the policies of various governments there which aren't set by any one individual that is likely to attend the IGF but even there, tarring governments with the same brush for the actions taken by specific governments, isn't on. And human rights violations and invasions of privacy span a broad spectrum so I am not so sure such a simplistic world view would work. > > It certainly isn't a brush that you could reasonably use to paint all of industry or all of civil society the uniform black. > > --srs > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: michael gurstein > Date: 08/04/2013 5:30 AM (GMT+05:30) > To: 'George Sadowsky' > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call > > > A few inline comments George, > > From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 8:02 PM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call > > Michael, > > I believe that the best defense against capture is a thorough understanding of exactly what interests each party in a group brings to the table. > [MG>] certainly this is one defense amongst others and its success will very much depend on the context, the issue and the parties involved (simple knowledge for example wouldn't be much of a defense against overwhelming force, overwhelming deployment of financial and other resources for example -- the current discussions concerning the "capture" of the FCC by the incumbent telcos is one clear example of this… > > In the west, as you know, conferences and meetings of various genres are often sponsored by business interests of some kind. In some conferences the quid pro quo is not clear, and as a result it's quite possible that messages become distorted without many in the audience realizing it. Those of us who do understand that there is a hidden quid pro quo treat these events as infomercials and either avoid them or consciously filter out what we believe are the evidence and the effects of the favoritism. > [MG>] yes, certainly, but see above and one cannot reasonably rely on everyone being as aware of (or resistant to) the overt/covert nature of the messages being transmitted/influence being peddled as others > > On the other hand, the "Computers, Freedom an Privacy " conference held annually in the US is squarely in the area of what I think you and I would agree is policy, and that has sponsors from multiple sectors. Participants in that conference would be quite aware if amy sponsoring organizations were trying to use the event to distort presentations and outcomes. The cooperation between sectors works, and one of the contributing factors is that some the interests of the business community parallel those of segments of civil society. > [MG>] I think there there is a difference between "policy conferences" and conferences "about policy"… I think that to at least some degree the IGF is a "policy conference" i.e. a conference meant to influence or enable the development of Internet governance related policy while the CFP conference is one where folks are talking about the various policy options which are available and whose outcome is informational for the various parties involved… > > There is an underlying theme here that's worth exploring, and that is the perception by a stakeholder group or its members that the views, motives and goals of other groups are homogeoenous. In fact, while there may be some core principles within each group that are universally or nearly universally accepted by members of a group, there is also a wide variety of opinion, often conflicting, regarding other issues. For example, those of us who have dealt with governments quickly learn this, and identify paths through governmental structures that allow us to advance the causes that we espouse. > [MG>] yes, but the notion of MSism is that the various stakeholders have "stakes" (interests) which at some level they are pursuing based on some level of consensus as to the nature of the stake/interest under discussion. So while there may be disagreement on details there is a presumption of a broad agreement on the nature of the stakes involved. > > I have a concern that by partitioning our world conceptually into stakeholder groups, we blur our ability to see that there are wide varieties of opinion in other stakeholder groups, and that some of the stakeholders and of the positions are consistent with ours. This can lead to a situation in which other groups are considered as adversaries, as a class. That in turn could lead to a demonization of "outsiders", rather than a recognition that our society is composed of different groups, all with their own interests, and that it may be more important to explore what mutual accommodation could provide rather than looking for issues to fight over. > [MG>] Yes, and of course, you are correct in this but this again is at the level of tactics. From a strategic perspective I think it makes most sense to recognize the difference of interests involved as between the various stakeholder groups (while of course recognizing that there are differences in details within each of these groups) and act accordingly making alliances where this is possible and recognizing differences and what is implied by this where necessary. > > In the particular case of relationships between civil society and the private sector, the rules are clear for the IGF. They are set by the UN and forbid specific types of recognition for private sector donors. In other cases where private sector donors support an event or an activity, some form of recognition is expected, even if it consists only of oral thanks in a session. If we accept Suresh's criterion of a non-intervention firewall between financial support and the presentation of substance in the program of the event or activity, to which I subscribe, then surely we should be able to accept that the private sector's motivation and aims just might be consistent in specific ways with ours; otherwise why would they be providing support. > [MG>] I'm not sure what you are saying here. Yes, there needs to be firewalls--full stop. Beyond that what else is there to say. > > Perhaps this last example is too simplistic, and if it is, I'm sure that someone on the list will tell me so. > > However the more general point, that opinions within stakeholder groups are varied, and that we should not perceive differences between groups in black and white terms that would lead to suspicion of others, is fundamental to working out differences. The latter employs the same mechanism as prejudice; characterizing all members of a group stereotypically rather than understanding that members of the group are individuals and should be assessed as such. > [MG>] Yes, and I'm sure that the folks in the NSA and the various governments globally that are complicit in the building of the Surveillance State are very nice and reasonable people by and large. That doesn't change very much about the nature of their work and the overall and very real threat that that implies to human rights at a global level. > > By the way, it should be obvious, but I want to state that I speak only for myself here. These are my opinions and not necessarily those of any other person or group. > [MG>] > Best, > > Mike > > Regards, > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > On Aug 3, 2013, at 3:52 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > > > (Sorry, working through my mail front to back… > > I'm not sure I agree with this… The issue I think would be the degree to which the IGF -- either globally, regionally or nationally had a public policy component to it… The more the public policy element (or the expectation of a public policy output/outcome/influence of some sort) the more there is a need for some minimum standards concerning the inputs into the IGFs at whatever level (and presuming some degree of cascading upwards from the local to the global). > > Of course, if one is making the assumption that the IGF's are essentially valueless from a public policy perspective then there is no rules/standards necessary at all and seats/slots/etc.etc. can, as with normal commercial (and in many cases "professional") conferences be sold to the highest bidders. > > (BTW I think that the issues concerning "bottom up vs. top down" are really not relevant here in that I'm assuming the intention/basis for this discussion is to establish some broad based norms of conduct for the IGF's. Such norms are usually the result of broad based consensus on values/principles etc. as governing the activities of the community in question (in this instance the global Internet governance community)… Adherence to these norms is a necessary element for inclusion in that community--non-adherence is reason for exclusion… These processes of norm setting are neither bottom up nor top down but horizontal processes of consensus building within the relevant community.) > > Mike > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky > Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 11:06 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder > Cc: Grace Githaiga > Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call > > All, > > I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it. > > In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global IGF, not the other way around. This should not be a top down operation. > > The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs. > > Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or even a recommendation that should be made at a global level. > > > > > > On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: > "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". > > > Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? > > In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on boar > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Aug 3 22:03:38 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 07:33:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <016a01ce90b4$00fa74d0$02ef5e70$@gmail.com> References: <2kfr4es2etosm0ugmcjy8ri3.1375579325998@email.android.com> <016a01ce90b4$00fa74d0$02ef5e70$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, August 4, 2013 7:13 am, michael gurstein wrote: > Stereotyping is about the characterization of individuals. If there is ... or communities, or stakeholder groups for that matter. I see some (unspoken) undercurrents run through a lot of the discourse here. "Government is invariably invasive of privacy and generally evil" "Industry is greedy, selfish and focused only on their own profits. They could support civil society good causes and the IGF with an amount that wouldn't even be a rounding error on their balance sheet" [etc] Why does it become acceptable to engage in this behavior for stakeholder communities when it is long past established that doing this to describe specific races or orientations is highly offensive? > Finding and articulating normative consensus (perhaps another way of > saying "circling the wagons") so as to draw a boundary between those > party to that consensus and those who aren't is a necessary function of A normative consensus is NOT circling the wagons, sorry if I wasn't sufficiently clear. When you circle the wagons, you craft a specific ideology and then stick to it - defend it at all costs, treat defense of this ideology as a political goal to be achieved at any and every cost (innuendo, "creative rewording" of others' words, browbeating etc). To the extent that new ideas, participants from other stakeholder groups etc get to feel alienated and "not part of the group" - which leads more or less to them forming their own such groups. This isn't restricted to civil society, I have seen much the same behavior from sections of all the stakeholder groups here - and it is painful for those who try to build bridges between stakeholder communities. If there's still a perception gap here, I am afraid I haven't expressed myself as clearly as I should have. It is early here and I've had a very late night yesterday with friends, so let that be my sole excuse for not expressing myself clearly enough. --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 george.sadowsky at gmail.com Sun Aug 4 01:11:00 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 07:11:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <78C90130-88C9-49E7-BA7A-43489B9D68F7@gmail.com> References: <2kfr4es2etosm0ugmcjy8ri3.1375579325998@email.android.com> <016a01ce90b4$00fa74d0$02ef5e70$@gmail.com> <78C90130-88C9-49E7-BA7A-43489B9D68F7@gmail.com> Message-ID: Sala, I am surprised to be saying this, but I do not think that the recent discussion has been disintegrating, at least not with respect to the points that I raised. Somewhat passionate argument does not imply disintegration; in fact, sometimes it helps to clarify the situation. Let me be blunt. I think that there is a tendency in some of the feelings expressed on this list to characterize other sectors wholesale, as being essentially the enemy, i.e. stereotyping entire groups on the basis of incidents involving a few. My point is that there are individuals and organizational stakeholders in every group that have means and goals that are quite consistent with what a broad view of civil society would endorse. I think that this focus on negative incidents and stereotyping is counterproductive for all parties involved, and that we would all be much better off if we looked for points of closeness of approach and possibly convergence across groups. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Aug 4, 2013, at 3:55 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > The discussions are disintegrating and becoming non- productive. It is perfectly normal to hold and have diverse conflicting view points. Why don't we consider developing considerations ( does not have to be principles at this stage) for IGF workshop convenors. We can start by listing things that have been shared through this emai thread and also other past discussions on the list on the subject. > > This can be put to the IGC and if there is consensus, we can move to have this sent to the MAG. > > A material point of distinction would of course be to mention the prism of the IGF, some see it as a policy body some see it as a conference, some want concrete outcomes and others are happy to let it be just a forum where diverse stakeholders can come together. > > The attacks on the APRIGF Chair were totally uncalled for and so was the alleged stereotyping...this is not the place for personal attacks. Let's keep the discussions professional and it is really great to see some of the considerations come up but by now we expect a level of maturity that accepts that we will always have people who do not think like us and frankly we do not expect them too. > > Once a point has been made, it is an " overkill" to continue to hammer them down our throats. I apologise for the delayed response, have been reading these but without a chance to respond as I was with intermittent access as I was in the Cook Islands. I am now in Niue and have time to respond better. > > Sala T > > (Co-coordinator) > > Sent from my iPad > > On Aug 3, 2013, at 2:43 PM, "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> Stereotyping is about the characterization of individuals. If there is such a discussion of individuals on this list then (as has been the case in the past) this is something calling for intervention from the Co-Co's. >> >> Finding and articulating normative consensus (perhaps another way of saying "circling the wagons") so as to draw a boundary between those party to that consensus and those who aren't is a necessary function of any grouping of this kind and specifically for the formulation and expression of collective positions on the part of the various stakeholders. I fail to see what might be negative about a process of that kind. >> >> M >> >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] >> Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2013 8:24 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 'George Sadowsky' >> Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >> >> We agree. However George did make the point that stereotypes abound, as does a circle the wagons and exclude outsiders mentality >> >> --srs >> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: michael gurstein >> Date: 08/04/2013 6:33 AM (GMT+05:30) >> To: 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' ,'George Sadowsky' >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >> >> >> I think you have misread my point, which I assumed was obvious from the context, and was simply meant to respond to George's assertion that "characterizing all members of a group stereotypically rather than understanding that members of the group are individuals and should be assessed as such". I did not mention civil society etc.etc. Nice people in specific normatively/organizationally defined contexts can be understood to do nasty things and shouldn't be let off the hook simply because they are "nice and reasonable people"… That of course, holds for CS, the corporate sector and governments equally with others. >> >> M >> >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] >> Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2013 7:42 AM >> To: michael gurstein; 'George Sadowsky' >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >> >> I am sorry but which of the several stakeholder groups here is getting compared to the NSA and is full of nice and reasonable people but with evil aims? >> >> You are talking about the policies of various governments there which aren't set by any one individual that is likely to attend the IGF but even there, tarring governments with the same brush for the actions taken by specific governments, isn't on. And human rights violations and invasions of privacy span a broad spectrum so I am not so sure such a simplistic world view would work. >> >> It certainly isn't a brush that you could reasonably use to paint all of industry or all of civil society the uniform black. >> >> --srs >> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: michael gurstein >> Date: 08/04/2013 5:30 AM (GMT+05:30) >> To: 'George Sadowsky' >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >> >> >> A few inline comments George, >> >> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com] >> Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 8:02 PM >> To: michael gurstein >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >> >> Michael, >> >> I believe that the best defense against capture is a thorough understanding of exactly what interests each party in a group brings to the table. >> [MG>] certainly this is one defense amongst others and its success will very much depend on the context, the issue and the parties involved (simple knowledge for example wouldn't be much of a defense against overwhelming force, overwhelming deployment of financial and other resources for example -- the current discussions concerning the "capture" of the FCC by the incumbent telcos is one clear example of this… >> >> In the west, as you know, conferences and meetings of various genres are often sponsored by business interests of some kind. In some conferences the quid pro quo is not clear, and as a result it's quite possible that messages become distorted without many in the audience realizing it. Those of us who do understand that there is a hidden quid pro quo treat these events as infomercials and either avoid them or consciously filter out what we believe are the evidence and the effects of the favoritism. >> [MG>] yes, certainly, but see above and one cannot reasonably rely on everyone being as aware of (or resistant to) the overt/covert nature of the messages being transmitted/influence being peddled as others >> >> On the other hand, the "Computers, Freedom an Privacy " conference held annually in the US is squarely in the area of what I think you and I would agree is policy, and that has sponsors from multiple sectors. Participants in that conference would be quite aware if amy sponsoring organizations were trying to use the event to distort presentations and outcomes. The cooperation between sectors works, and one of the contributing factors is that some the interests of the business community parallel those of segments of civil society. >> [MG>] I think there there is a difference between "policy conferences" and conferences "about policy"… I think that to at least some degree the IGF is a "policy conference" i.e. a conference meant to influence or enable the development of Internet governance related policy while the CFP conference is one where folks are talking about the various policy options which are available and whose outcome is informational for the various parties involved… >> >> There is an underlying theme here that's worth exploring, and that is the perception by a stakeholder group or its members that the views, motives and goals of other groups are homogeoenous. In fact, while there may be some core principles within each group that are universally or nearly universally accepted by members of a group, there is also a wide variety of opinion, often conflicting, regarding other issues. For example, those of us who have dealt with governments quickly learn this, and identify paths through governmental structures that allow us to advance the causes that we espouse. >> [MG>] yes, but the notion of MSism is that the various stakeholders have "stakes" (interests) which at some level they are pursuing based on some level of consensus as to the nature of the stake/interest under discussion. So while there may be disagreement on details there is a presumption of a broad agreement on the nature of the stakes involved. >> >> I have a concern that by partitioning our world conceptually into stakeholder groups, we blur our ability to see that there are wide varieties of opinion in other stakeholder groups, and that some of the stakeholders and of the positions are consistent with ours. This can lead to a situation in which other groups are considered as adversaries, as a class. That in turn could lead to a demonization of "outsiders", rather than a recognition that our society is composed of different groups, all with their own interests, and that it may be more important to explore what mutual accommodation could provide rather than looking for issues to fight over. >> [MG>] Yes, and of course, you are correct in this but this again is at the level of tactics. From a strategic perspective I think it makes most sense to recognize the difference of interests involved as between the various stakeholder groups (while of course recognizing that there are differences in details within each of these groups) and act accordingly making alliances where this is possible and recognizing differences and what is implied by this where necessary. >> >> In the particular case of relationships between civil society and the private sector, the rules are clear for the IGF. They are set by the UN and forbid specific types of recognition for private sector donors. In other cases where private sector donors support an event or an activity, some form of recognition is expected, even if it consists only of oral thanks in a session. If we accept Suresh's criterion of a non-intervention firewall between financial support and the presentation of substance in the program of the event or activity, to which I subscribe, then surely we should be able to accept that the private sector's motivation and aims just might be consistent in specific ways with ours; otherwise why would they be providing support. >> [MG>] I'm not sure what you are saying here. Yes, there needs to be firewalls--full stop. Beyond that what else is there to say. >> >> Perhaps this last example is too simplistic, and if it is, I'm sure that someone on the list will tell me so. >> >> However the more general point, that opinions within stakeholder groups are varied, and that we should not perceive differences between groups in black and white terms that would lead to suspicion of others, is fundamental to working out differences. The latter employs the same mechanism as prejudice; characterizing all members of a group stereotypically rather than understanding that members of the group are individuals and should be assessed as such. >> [MG>] Yes, and I'm sure that the folks in the NSA and the various governments globally that are complicit in the building of the Surveillance State are very nice and reasonable people by and large. That doesn't change very much about the nature of their work and the overall and very real threat that that implies to human rights at a global level. >> >> By the way, it should be obvious, but I want to state that I speak only for myself here. These are my opinions and not necessarily those of any other person or group. >> [MG>] >> Best, >> >> Mike >> >> Regards, >> >> George >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> On Aug 3, 2013, at 3:52 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> >> >> >> (Sorry, working through my mail front to back… >> >> I'm not sure I agree with this… The issue I think would be the degree to which the IGF -- either globally, regionally or nationally had a public policy component to it… The more the public policy element (or the expectation of a public policy output/outcome/influence of some sort) the more there is a need for some minimum standards concerning the inputs into the IGFs at whatever level (and presuming some degree of cascading upwards from the local to the global). >> >> Of course, if one is making the assumption that the IGF's are essentially valueless from a public policy perspective then there is no rules/standards necessary at all and seats/slots/etc.etc. can, as with normal commercial (and in many cases "professional") conferences be sold to the highest bidders. >> >> (BTW I think that the issues concerning "bottom up vs. top down" are really not relevant here in that I'm assuming the intention/basis for this discussion is to establish some broad based norms of conduct for the IGF's. Such norms are usually the result of broad based consensus on values/principles etc. as governing the activities of the community in question (in this instance the global Internet governance community)… Adherence to these norms is a necessary element for inclusion in that community--non-adherence is reason for exclusion… These processes of norm setting are neither bottom up nor top down but horizontal processes of consensus building within the relevant community.) >> >> Mike >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky >> Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 11:06 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder >> Cc: Grace Githaiga >> Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >> >> All, >> >> I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it. >> >> In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global IGF, not the other way around. This should not be a top down operation. >> >> The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs. >> >> Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or even a recommendation that should be made at a global level. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: >> "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". >> >> >> Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? >> >> In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on boar >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 4 02:37:57 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2013 12:07:57 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] IGF - and the corporatisation scandal In-Reply-To: References: <2644E3B1-85A5-4363-A74D-39FB7155FE34@uzh.ch> <51F6C49C.4010007@itforchange.net> <51F6CA94.5040205@apc.org> <51F7EFD5.1050702@itforchange.net> <20130730170540.GA961@tarvainen.info> <51F7F644.7020304@itforchange.net> <14031fd5fcc.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <51F8BDAF.6090902@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51FDF6C5.90307@itforchange.net> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 31 Jul 2013, at 09:33, parminder wrote: > >> ad hominem comment > (to misquote an old IETF adage - comments made wearing asbestos - > i tried to ignore this the first time hoping it would just go away and we could all get back to rational calm conversations) > > an ad hominem attack would be an attack that: because someone is a bully, their views are illegitimate/irrelevant. > It does not include the content of calling a bully a bully. > > I am not sure I have ever heard an ad hominem attack on this list. Then you are not quite right in your understanding of what is ad hominem. Literally, attack against man, it occurs when, in a discussion, someone attacks a person's character or personal traits, instead of, and with a view to undermine, her/ his argument. You are making a specious distinction above that does not hold. In middle of a discussion, personal attacks are almost always made - certainly in conditions like of this list, where people otherwise have little or no offline relationship and thus no particular reason for animosity - with a view to undermine that person's argument. On the other hand there is indeed some difference between just an allegation and an ad hominem attack. Saying something like , to stick to present case of Anriette's email to me, 'you are twisting my words' is an allegation. (Allegations themselves could become quite serious, like you are deceiving, lying, cheating etc, whereby they may be tending towards ad hominem.) , Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist people's words in order to score political points". That is attacking someone in terms of ones character and personal traits, and as in this case, obviously to distract from the argument made - which in this case what that Anriette seemed to see nothing wrong or new with the Indonesian document, which I said was problematic to me for a CS rep on the MAG to say, which is just my view. Nothing personal here. > For example a comment one might hear: X is a terrible bully, but sometimes, if you can get past the bullying, X makes a lot of sense. > Another comment one might hear: I think I agree with what X is saying, but X is such a bully I am afraid that if I put my agreement in the wrong way I will get beat up for it. > > One could also say, I agree with a lot of what CX says, but X is just so mean. > > (I have versions of all of these about certain unnamed IGC participants) > > Those you accuse of ad hominem attacks against you, are among the greatest defenders off-list of some of the positions you represent. > Many of us disagree with you but would never dare say so on the list for fear of starting a flame war. > Many of the rest of us just try to hunker down and wait for the storm to pass. BTW, it is ad hominen whether the attack on one's character is made directly or rather more subtly. Your above statements themselves tends towards such an ad hominem attack, and you have very often said such things about me. And I claim you say it to undermine my arguments rather than anything else. However, I would give you an opportunity to disprove my claim. And I hope you will take this challenge. Please point out the precise language in the current exchange over the last few days that you find problematic in my emails, that is something other than a critique of someone's views, that I have a right to make, and rather of the nature of a personal attack. Please just give even one example. You may even go back further to earlier emails, becuase from the above it appears you are a very good record keeping and retrieval methods. Ok, I promise, I will not argue with the example/ instance you provide, I wont even respond, I just want it to out for everyone to see, rather that your be subject to your insinuations. > Someone/everyone, please stop the venom. > It has rendered the IGC nearly irrelevant. I have a different theory of what has rendered IGC irrelevant, which I am ready to enter a discussion about. > When the IGC is discussed, pretty much the main content is the outrageousness of a few individuals. Certainly, I do often express strong feelings on some views - not people, never - that I feel strongly about. (And the fact is that there enough degree of difference in views on this list that at times one side and at other times the other side will feel strongly about things.) But, never against any person as such, unlike what I am almost regularly subjected to. Again, I am open to be given an instance to prove my statement wrong. As for personal attacks on me, apart from Anriette's email, even your reference above of not responding to me with the fear of starting a flame war is such an attack, although a somewhat lighter one, given the normal standards. (Another thing - yes, I have a structural critique of the role and positions of a good part of civil society involved in IG space - often dominant in its expression - and its support for certain power structures, which I do often voice, which I understand may not go well with some people. But I always voice it in a collective structural manner and never directed at an individual, or even a set f them. This is the view I have - and I consider it very important in the current global circumstances - and I cannot desist from offering when the occasion so demands.) > The words of a few serving to delegitimize the efforts of many. Well, that, who are 'few' and who 'many' itself needs to examined.... That is always the million dollar democratic question! parminder > please stop > > Note to coordinators. I would never quit IGC, but sometimes I beleive being kicked of the list would bring great relief. > I have heard others say similar things. > > And now back to hunkering down hoping the storm will pass. > > avri > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Aug 4 03:43:57 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2013 13:13:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <78C90130-88C9-49E7-BA7A-43489B9D68F7@gmail.com> References: <2kfr4es2etosm0ugmcjy8ri3.1375579325998@email.android.com> <016a01ce90b4$00fa74d0$02ef5e70$@gmail.com> <78C90130-88C9-49E7-BA7A-43489B9D68F7@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51FE063D.9030402@itforchange.net> On Sunday 04 August 2013 07:25 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > The discussions are disintegrating and becoming non- productive. It is > perfectly normal to hold and have diverse conflicting view points. Why > don't we consider developing considerations ( does not have to be > principles at this stage) for IGF workshop convenors. We can start by > listing things that have been shared through this emai thread and also > other past discussions on the list on the subject. > > This can be put to the IGC and if there is consensus, we can move to > have this sent to the MAG. > > A material point of distinction would of course be to mention the > prism of the IGF, some see it as a policy body some see it as a > conference, some want concrete outcomes and others are happy to let it > be just a forum where diverse stakeholders can come together. > > The attacks on the APRIGF Chair were totally uncalled for and so was > the alleged stereotyping...this is not the place for personal attacks. Sala, I note that this email is written in your official capacity as co-coordinator. Pl clarify what you call as 'the attacks on APIGF chair' because you are presumably talking about me here. The below is my version of what happened. I made a public interest exposure of a problematic fund raising document of the local IGF organising committee. This document was spoken of later by the MAG chair (of UN IGF) in terms of 'commercialisation of the IGF' and fully disapproved (in fact, he has already asked the committee to remove it). The exposure led to discussions both inside and outside this group, and also in the MAG.... As a result of this exposure, the document was hurriedly taken off the host country IGF website. The ensuing discussions, in many spaces,, in my humble opinion, must have significantly contributed to establishing/ strengthening norms against commercialisation or corporatisation of the IGF. I dont know what you think of it, but I think that these are a set of considerable achievements, which happened only because the initial exposure took place. (I have no intention to blow my own trumpet, but neither can I take lying down such concerted targeting for having undertaken a public interest work.) When the exposure was first made, two persons associated with organising the UN IGF and a chair of a regional IGF said, quickly one after the other, that there was nothing new with such an approach - which, in the circumstances, I take to mean there was really nothing terribly wrong with it. Paul, the mentioned AP IGF Chair, went further to explain that he considers it just an innocent act to "attract funding by providing some traditional "value" back to contributors". 'There is nothing wrong with it' was written all over these responses. The person making the exposure would obviously take issue with such 'defences', which would have the effect of stopping in its track the process of exposure and demand for amendments. What else do you expect him to do. Be cowered down? I expressed deep disappointment at the fact that prominent people with official roles in managing IGF are taking such a position. I also expressed further disappointment that regional IGF head could say that there is nothing new or wrong with such an approach, which I took as an indication that the malaise of accepting commercialisation of policy spaces has really gone deep. Please explain to me where is a personal attack here... I see your 'judgement' as taking sides in the important exchange as above between someone who made an important public interest exposure, and those who defended the problematic actions as nothing new or nothing wrong.... . I further take your above judgement to, willy nilly, be causing a chilling effect vis a vis engagement with certain kinds of issues on this list. It seems that certain biggies of multistakeholder power structures are not to be pulled into any argument and counter-view making here..... You are stopping me from discussing an issue which i consider to be among those of the highest importance to safeguarding democracy, which I do consider threatened by certain versions of MSism. I await you clarification. Since you make this judgement in your official capacity, unless you withdraw it, I mean to take it to the appeals committee. (BTW, perhaps you did not read all emails as you say you were out, but try reading those from Anriette, Suresh and Avri.) Also, please clarify what is the 'alleged stereo-typing' that you have judged as uncalled for..... (BTW, I have long standing differences with the organisers of AP IGF on somewhat connected issues which I have often discussed with them. Because of these differences I have not attended the last few AP IGFs despite invitations. Your email/ judgement has the effect of suppressing my dissent on this count. This is not acceptable. As an aside, I must say, however, that things are improving with the AP IG, and so is my engagement. Just my view.) parminder > Let's keep the discussions professional and it is really great to see > some of the considerations come up but by now we expect a level of > maturity that accepts that we will always have people who do not think > like us and frankly we do not expect them too. > > Once a point has been made, it is an " overkill" to continue to hammer > them down our throats. I apologise for the delayed response, have been > reading these but without a chance to respond as I was with > intermittent access as I was in the Cook Islands. I am now in Niue and > have time to respond better. > > Sala T > > (Co-coordinator) > > Sent from my iPad > > On Aug 3, 2013, at 2:43 PM, "michael gurstein" > wrote: > >> Stereotyping is about the characterization of individuals. If there >> is such a discussion of individuals on this list then (as has been >> the case in the past) this is something calling for intervention from >> the Co-Co's. >> >> Finding and articulating normative consensus (perhaps another way of >> saying "circling the wagons") so as to draw a boundary between those >> party to that consensus and those who aren't is a necessary function >> of any grouping of this kind and specifically for the formulation and >> expression of collective positions on the part of the various >> stakeholders. I fail to see what might be negative about a process >> of that kind. >> >> M >> >> *From:*Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] >> *Sent:* Sunday, August 04, 2013 8:24 AM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> ; michael gurstein; 'George >> Sadowsky' >> *Subject:* RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >> >> We agree. However George did make the point that stereotypes abound, >> as does a circle the wagons and exclude outsiders mentality >> >> --srs >> >> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: michael gurstein > >> Date: 08/04/2013 6:33 AM (GMT+05:30) >> To: 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' > >,'George Sadowsky' >> > >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >> >> I think you have misread my point, which I assumed was obvious from >> the context, and was simply meant to respond to George's assertion >> that "characterizing all members of a group stereotypically rather >> than understanding that members of the group are individuals and >> should be assessed as such". I did not mention civil society >> etc.etc. Nice people in specific normatively/organizationally defined >> contexts can be understood to do nasty things and shouldn't be let >> off the hook simply because they are "nice and reasonable people"… >> That of course, holds for CS, the corporate sector and governments >> equally with others. >> >> M >> >> *From:*Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] >> *Sent:* Sunday, August 04, 2013 7:42 AM >> *To:* michael gurstein; 'George Sadowsky' >> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> *Subject:* RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >> >> I am sorry but which of the several stakeholder groups here is >> getting compared to the NSA and is full of nice and reasonable people >> but with evil aims? >> >> You are talking about the policies of various governments there which >> aren't set by any one individual that is likely to attend the IGF but >> even there, tarring governments with the same brush for the actions >> taken by specific governments, isn't on. And human rights violations >> and invasions of privacy span a broad spectrum so I am not so sure >> such a simplistic world view would work. >> >> It certainly isn't a brush that you could reasonably use to paint all >> of industry or all of civil society the uniform black. >> >> --srs >> >> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: michael gurstein > >> Date: 08/04/2013 5:30 AM (GMT+05:30) >> To: 'George Sadowsky' > > >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >> >> A few inline comments George, >> >> *From:*George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Saturday, August 03, 2013 8:02 PM >> *To:* michael gurstein >> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >> >> Michael, >> >> I believe that the best defense against capture is a thorough >> understanding of exactly what interests each party in a group brings >> to the table. >> >> */[MG>] certainly this is one defense amongst others and its success >> will very much depend on the context, the issue and the parties >> involved (simple knowledge for example wouldn't be much of a defense >> against overwhelming force, overwhelming deployment of financial and >> other resources for example -- the current discussions concerning the >> "capture" of the FCC by the incumbent telcos is one clear example of >> this…/* >> >> In the west, as you know, conferences and meetings of various genres >> are often sponsored by business interests of some kind. In some >> conferences the quid pro quo is not clear, and as a result it's quite >> possible that messages become distorted without many in the audience >> realizing it. Those of us who do understand that there is a hidden >> quid pro quo treat these events as infomercials and either avoid them >> or consciously filter out what we believe are the evidence and the >> effects of the favoritism. >> >> */[MG>] yes, certainly, but see above and one cannot reasonably rely >> on everyone being as aware of (or resistant to) the overt/covert >> nature of the messages being transmitted/influence being peddled as >> others/* >> >> On the other hand, the "Computers, Freedom an Privacy " conference >> held annually in the US is squarely in the area of what I think you >> and I would agree is policy, and that has sponsors from multiple >> sectors. Participants in that conference would be quite aware if amy >> sponsoring organizations were trying to use the event to distort >> presentations and outcomes. The cooperation between sectors works, >> and one of the contributing factors is that some the interests of the >> business community parallel those of segments of civil society. >> >> */[MG>] I think there there is a difference between "policy >> conferences" and conferences "about policy"… I think that to at least >> some degree the IGF is a "policy conference" i.e. a conference meant >> to influence or enable the development of Internet governance related >> policy while the CFP conference is one where folks are talking about >> the various policy options which are available and whose outcome is >> informational for the various parties involved… /* >> >> There is an underlying theme here that's worth exploring, and that is >> the perception by a stakeholder group or its members that the views, >> motives and goals of other groups are homogeoenous. In fact, while >> there may be some core principles within each group that are >> universally or nearly universally accepted by members of a group, >> there is also a wide variety of opinion, often conflicting, regarding >> other issues. For example, those of us who have dealt with >> governments quickly learn this, and identify paths through >> governmental structures that allow us to advance the causes that we >> espouse. >> >> */[MG>] yes, but the notion of MSism is that the various stakeholders >> have "stakes" (interests) which at some level they are pursuing based >> on some level of consensus as to the nature of the stake/interest >> under discussion. So while there may be disagreement on details there >> is a presumption of a broad agreement on the nature of the stakes >> involved./* >> >> I have a concern that by partitioning our world conceptually into >> stakeholder groups, we blur our ability to see that there are wide >> varieties of opinion in other stakeholder groups, and that some of >> the stakeholders and of the positions are consistent with ours. This >> can lead to a situation in which other groups are considered as >> adversaries, as a class. That in turn could lead to a demonization of >> "outsiders", rather than a recognition that our society is composed >> of different groups, all with their own interests, and that it may be >> more important to explore what mutual accommodation could provide >> rather than looking for issues to fight over. >> >> */[MG>] Yes, and of course, you are correct in this but this again is >> at the level of tactics. From a strategic perspective I think it >> makes most sense to recognize the difference of interests involved as >> between the various stakeholder groups (while of course recognizing >> that there are differences in details within each of these groups) >> and act accordingly making alliances where this is possible and >> recognizing differences and what is implied by this where necessary./* >> >> In the particular case of relationships between civil society and the >> private sector, the rules are clear for the IGF. They are set by >> the UN and forbid specific types of recognition for private sector >> donors. In other cases where private sector donors support an event >> or an activity, some form of recognition is expected, even if it >> consists only of oral thanks in a session. If we accept Suresh's >> criterion of a non-intervention firewall between financial support >> and the presentation of substance in the program of the event or >> activity, to which I subscribe, then surely we should be able to >> accept that the private sector's motivation and aims just might be >> consistent in specific ways with ours; otherwise why would they be >> providing support. >> >> */[MG>] I'm not sure what you are saying here. Yes, there needs to be >> firewalls--full stop. Beyond that what else is there to say./* >> >> Perhaps this last example is too simplistic, and if it is, I'm sure >> that someone on the list will tell me so. >> >> However the more general point, that opinions within stakeholder >> groups are varied, and that we should not perceive differences >> between groups in black and white terms that would lead to suspicion >> of others, is fundamental to working out differences. The latter >> employs the same mechanism as prejudice; characterizing all members >> of a group stereotypically rather than understanding that members of >> the group are individuals and should be assessed as such. >> >> */[MG>] Yes, and I'm sure that the folks in the NSA and the various >> governments globally that are complicit in the building of the >> Surveillance State are very nice and reasonable people by and large. >> That doesn't change very much about the nature of their work and the >> overall and very real threat that that implies to human rights at a >> global level./* >> >> By the way, it should be obvious, but I want to state that I speak >> only for myself here. These are my opinions and not necessarily >> those of any other person or group. >> >> */[MG>] /* >> >> */Best,/* >> >> *//* >> >> */Mike/* >> >> Regards, >> >> George >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> On Aug 3, 2013, at 3:52 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> >> >> >> (Sorry, working through my mail front to back… >> >> I'm not sure I agree with this… The issue I think would be the degree >> to which the IGF -- either globally, regionally or nationally had a >> public policy component to it… The more the public policy element (or >> the expectation of a public policy output/outcome/influence of some >> sort) the more there is a need for some minimum standards concerning >> the inputs into the IGFs at whatever level (and presuming some degree >> of cascading upwards from the local to the global). >> >> Of course, if one is making the assumption that the IGF's are >> essentially valueless from a public policy perspective then there is >> no rules/standards necessary at all and seats/slots/etc.etc. can, as >> with normal commercial (and in many cases "professional") conferences >> be sold to the highest bidders. >> >> (BTW I think that the issues concerning "bottom up vs. top down" are >> really not relevant here in that I'm assuming the intention/basis for >> this discussion is to establish some broad based norms of conduct for >> the IGF's. Such norms are usually the result of broad based consensus >> on values/principles etc. as governing the activities of the >> community in question (in this instance the global Internet >> governance community)… Adherence to these norms is a necessary >> element for inclusion in that community--non-adherence is reason for >> exclusion… These processes of norm setting are neither bottom up nor >> top down but horizontal processes of consensus building within the >> relevant community.) >> >> Mike >> >> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org]*On >> Behalf Of*George Sadowsky >> *Sent:*Friday, August 02, 2013 11:06 PM >> *To:*governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> ; parminder >> *Cc:*Grace Githaiga >> *Subject:*Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >> >> All, >> >> I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the >> decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with >> the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a >> franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of >> the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it. >> >> In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those >> smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global >> IGF, not the other way around. This should not be a top down operation. >> >> The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the >> global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules >> apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs. >> >> Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or >> non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it >> is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or >> even a recommendation that should be made at a global level. >> >> On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: >> >> "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for >> regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are >> listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". >> >> >> Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? >> >> In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to >> start imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is >> multistakeholdersim not about getting all stakeholders on board >> to discuss these issues? For example if say Kenya is holding the >> Kenya IGF and a telco company decides it will put in money since >> it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? At >> KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the >> corporate stakeholders on boar >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 4 05:26:32 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 22:26:32 -1100 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <51FE063D.9030402@itforchange.net> References: <2kfr4es2etosm0ugmcjy8ri3.1375579325998@email.android.com> <016a01ce90b4$00fa74d0$02ef5e70$@gmail.com> <78C90130-88C9-49E7-BA7A-43489B9D68F7@gmail.com> <51FE063D.9030402@itforchange.net> Message-ID: > > Please explain to me where is a personal attack here... > > I see your 'judgement' as taking sides in the important exchange as above between someone who made an important public interest exposure, and those who defended the problematic actions as nothing new or nothing wrong.... . > Sala: I will be very frank in my response. If you see the paragraph that you wrote, you make certain assumptions. Just because you think you made a public interest exposure, it does not make "you" right. You assume that the world is out to get you. Frankly the world is bigger than that and so is the debate. Just because you think that something is "right" does not make it necessarily right. We are seeing in governance aspects of the Coordination of these various forums that there are grey areas and there are diverse view points over any one particular matter. I am not in any way reducing the points you raise in terms of the threats of commercialisation of content of IGFs. Far from it, I am saying that it is possible to discuss the issues and explore the diverse perspectives, even ones different from our own. Is that not what part of coming around the table is about, to hear the diversity of views. > I further take your above judgement to, willy nilly, be causing a chilling effect vis a vis engagement with certain kinds of issues on this list. I meant every word that I wrote before and have a duty to moderate. Since you make this judgement in your official capacity, unless you withdraw it, I mean to take it to the appeals committee. Sala: Please feel free to take it to the Appeals Committee. I am to withdrawing what I said earlier. > > (BTW, perhaps you did not read all emails as you say you were out, but try reading those from Anriette, Suresh and Avri.) > Sala: For your information, I have been reading all the emails and following the discussions hence my conclusion that the discussions were disintegrating. > Also, please clarify what is the 'alleged stereo-typing' that you have judged as uncalled for..... > > (BTW, I have long standing differences with the organisers of AP IGF on somewhat connected issues which I have often discussed with them. Because of these differences I have not attended the last few AP IGFs despite invitations. Your email/ judgement has the effect of suppressing my dissent on this count. This is not acceptable. As an aside, I must say, however, that things are improving with the AP IG, and so is my engagement. Just my view.) > Sala: Personally, I think that you have had personal issues (objectionable) with the APrIGF committee from the onset. Whilst it is your right to hold a gripe with the organizers and the list has been subjected to some of the heated discussions between you and the APrIGF founders but it becomes toxic when it seeps into the discussions with the list. Surely, we as an IGC can develop considerations on this important debate, discussions without you using it as ammunition against the APRIGF. For your information, I am not involved in APrIGF although I belong to the region it is in. > parminder > > > >> Let's keep the discussions professional and it is really great to see some of the considerations come up but by now we expect a level of maturity that accepts that we will always have people who do not think like us and frankly we do not expect them too. >> >> Once a point has been made, it is an " overkill" to continue to hammer them down our throats. I apologise for the delayed response, have been reading these but without a chance to respond as I was with intermittent access as I was in the Cook Islands. I am now in Niue and have time to respond better. >> >> Sala T >> >> (Co-coordinator) >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Aug 3, 2013, at 2:43 PM, "michael gurstein" wrote: >> >>> Stereotyping is about the characterization of individuals. If there is such a discussion of individuals on this list then (as has been the case in the past) this is something calling for intervention from the Co-Co's. >>> >>> Finding and articulating normative consensus (perhaps another way of saying "circling the wagons") so as to draw a boundary between those party to that consensus and those who aren't is a necessary function of any grouping of this kind and specifically for the formulation and expression of collective positions on the part of the various stakeholders. I fail to see what might be negative about a process of that kind. >>> >>> M >>> >>> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] >>> Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2013 8:24 AM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 'George Sadowsky' >>> Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >>> >>> We agree. However George did make the point that stereotypes abound, as does a circle the wagons and exclude outsiders mentality >>> >>> --srs >>> >>> >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: michael gurstein >>> Date: 08/04/2013 6:33 AM (GMT+05:30) >>> To: 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' ,'George Sadowsky' >>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >>> >>> >>> I think you have misread my point, which I assumed was obvious from the context, and was simply meant to respond to George's assertion that "characterizing all members of a group stereotypically rather than understanding that members of the group are individuals and should be assessed as such". I did not mention civil society etc.etc. Nice people in specific normatively/organizationally defined contexts can be understood to do nasty things and shouldn't be let off the hook simply because they are "nice and reasonable people"… That of course, holds for CS, the corporate sector and governments equally with others. >>> >>> M >>> >>> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] >>> Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2013 7:42 AM >>> To: michael gurstein; 'George Sadowsky' >>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >>> >>> I am sorry but which of the several stakeholder groups here is getting compared to the NSA and is full of nice and reasonable people but with evil aims? >>> >>> You are talking about the policies of various governments there which aren't set by any one individual that is likely to attend the IGF but even there, tarring governments with the same brush for the actions taken by specific governments, isn't on. And human rights violations and invasions of privacy span a broad spectrum so I am not so sure such a simplistic world view would work. >>> >>> It certainly isn't a brush that you could reasonably use to paint all of industry or all of civil society the uniform black. >>> >>> --srs >>> >>> >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: michael gurstein >>> Date: 08/04/2013 5:30 AM (GMT+05:30) >>> To: 'George Sadowsky' >>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: RE: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >>> >>> >>> A few inline comments George, >>> >>> From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2013 8:02 PM >>> To: michael gurstein >>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >>> >>> Michael, >>> >>> I believe that the best defense against capture is a thorough understanding of exactly what interests each party in a group brings to the table. >>> [MG>] certainly this is one defense amongst others and its success will very much depend on the context, the issue and the parties involved (simple knowledge for example wouldn't be much of a defense against overwhelming force, overwhelming deployment of financial and other resources for example -- the current discussions concerning the "capture" of the FCC by the incumbent telcos is one clear example of this… >>> >>> In the west, as you know, conferences and meetings of various genres are often sponsored by business interests of some kind. In some conferences the quid pro quo is not clear, and as a result it's quite possible that messages become distorted without many in the audience realizing it. Those of us who do understand that there is a hidden quid pro quo treat these events as infomercials and either avoid them or consciously filter out what we believe are the evidence and the effects of the favoritism. >>> [MG>] yes, certainly, but see above and one cannot reasonably rely on everyone being as aware of (or resistant to) the overt/covert nature of the messages being transmitted/influence being peddled as others >>> >>> On the other hand, the "Computers, Freedom an Privacy " conference held annually in the US is squarely in the area of what I think you and I would agree is policy, and that has sponsors from multiple sectors. Participants in that conference would be quite aware if amy sponsoring organizations were trying to use the event to distort presentations and outcomes. The cooperation between sectors works, and one of the contributing factors is that some the interests of the business community parallel those of segments of civil society. >>> [MG>] I think there there is a difference between "policy conferences" and conferences "about policy"… I think that to at least some degree the IGF is a "policy conference" i.e. a conference meant to influence or enable the development of Internet governance related policy while the CFP conference is one where folks are talking about the various policy options which are available and whose outcome is informational for the various parties involved… >>> >>> There is an underlying theme here that's worth exploring, and that is the perception by a stakeholder group or its members that the views, motives and goals of other groups are homogeoenous. In fact, while there may be some core principles within each group that are universally or nearly universally accepted by members of a group, there is also a wide variety of opinion, often conflicting, regarding other issues. For example, those of us who have dealt with governments quickly learn this, and identify paths through governmental structures that allow us to advance the causes that we espouse. >>> [MG>] yes, but the notion of MSism is that the various stakeholders have "stakes" (interests) which at some level they are pursuing based on some level of consensus as to the nature of the stake/interest under discussion. So while there may be disagreement on details there is a presumption of a broad agreement on the nature of the stakes involved. >>> >>> I have a concern that by partitioning our world conceptually into stakeholder groups, we blur our ability to see that there are wide varieties of opinion in other stakeholder groups, and that some of the stakeholders and of the positions are consistent with ours. This can lead to a situation in which other groups are considered as adversaries, as a class. That in turn could lead to a demonization of "outsiders", rather than a recognition that our society is composed of different groups, all with their own interests, and that it may be more important to explore what mutual accommodation could provide rather than looking for issues to fight over. >>> [MG>] Yes, and of course, you are correct in this but this again is at the level of tactics. From a strategic perspective I think it makes most sense to recognize the difference of interests involved as between the various stakeholder groups (while of course recognizing that there are differences in details within each of these groups) and act accordingly making alliances where this is possible and recognizing differences and what is implied by this where necessary. >>> >>> In the particular case of relationships between civil society and the private sector, the rules are clear for the IGF. They are set by the UN and forbid specific types of recognition for private sector donors. In other cases where private sector donors support an event or an activity, some form of recognition is expected, even if it consists only of oral thanks in a session. If we accept Suresh's criterion of a non-intervention firewall between financial support and the presentation of substance in the program of the event or activity, to which I subscribe, then surely we should be able to accept that the private sector's motivation and aims just might be consistent in specific ways with ours; otherwise why would they be providing support. >>> [MG>] I'm not sure what you are saying here. Yes, there needs to be firewalls--full stop. Beyond that what else is there to say. >>> >>> Perhaps this last example is too simplistic, and if it is, I'm sure that someone on the list will tell me so. >>> >>> However the more general point, that opinions within stakeholder groups are varied, and that we should not perceive differences between groups in black and white terms that would lead to suspicion of others, is fundamental to working out differences. The latter employs the same mechanism as prejudice; characterizing all members of a group stereotypically rather than understanding that members of the group are individuals and should be assessed as such. >>> [MG>] Yes, and I'm sure that the folks in the NSA and the various governments globally that are complicit in the building of the Surveillance State are very nice and reasonable people by and large. That doesn't change very much about the nature of their work and the overall and very real threat that that implies to human rights at a global level. >>> >>> By the way, it should be obvious, but I want to state that I speak only for myself here. These are my opinions and not necessarily those of any other person or group. >>> [MG>] >>> Best, >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> George >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> On Aug 3, 2013, at 3:52 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> (Sorry, working through my mail front to back… >>> >>> I'm not sure I agree with this… The issue I think would be the degree to which the IGF -- either globally, regionally or nationally had a public policy component to it… The more the public policy element (or the expectation of a public policy output/outcome/influence of some sort) the more there is a need for some minimum standards concerning the inputs into the IGFs at whatever level (and presuming some degree of cascading upwards from the local to the global). >>> >>> Of course, if one is making the assumption that the IGF's are essentially valueless from a public policy perspective then there is no rules/standards necessary at all and seats/slots/etc.etc. can, as with normal commercial (and in many cases "professional") conferences be sold to the highest bidders. >>> >>> (BTW I think that the issues concerning "bottom up vs. top down" are really not relevant here in that I'm assuming the intention/basis for this discussion is to establish some broad based norms of conduct for the IGF's. Such norms are usually the result of broad based consensus on values/principles etc. as governing the activities of the community in question (in this instance the global Internet governance community)… Adherence to these norms is a necessary element for inclusion in that community--non-adherence is reason for exclusion… These processes of norm setting are neither bottom up nor top down but horizontal processes of consensus building within the relevant community.) >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky >>> Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 11:06 PM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder >>> Cc: Grace Githaiga >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >>> >>> All, >>> >>> I think that national and regional IGFs should be able to make the decisions regarding the nature of their IGFs that are consistent with the needs an desires of those countries and regions. The IGF is not a franchise operation within which the top can dictate the behavior of the smaller meetings presumably feeding into it. >>> >>> In fact, it would be more appropriate if representatives of those smaller meetings agreed upon the policies associated with the global IGF, not the other way around. This should not be a top down operation. >>> >>> The reason that the "no commercial recognition" policy applies to the global IGF is that it is a UN sponsord meetng, and therefore UN rules apply. This is not true for regional and national IGFs. >>> >>> Note that I am not saying anything about the desirability or non-desirability of such a policy at lower levels, but rather that it is their decision to make on an individual basis, not a decision or even a recommendation that should be made at a global level. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Aug 2, 2013, at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:09 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: >>> "Can one now expect that this is also made a basic condition for regional and national IGFs, among some basic conditions that are listed for such initiatives, and these conditions are enforced". >>> >>> >>> Parminder, can you clarify on this sentence? >>> >>> In my opinion, I do not think that this is a sound proposal to start imposing conditions on say national IGFs. Is multistakeholdersim not about getting all stakeholders on board to discuss these issues? For example if say Kenya is holding the Kenya IGF and a telco company decides it will put in money since it has been part of the process, should that not be accepted? At KICTANet, we have a multistakeholder model that brings even the corporate stakeholders on boar >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 4 07:22:16 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2013 13:22:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <51FE063D.9030402@itforchange.net> References: <2kfr4es2etosm0ugmcjy8ri3.1375579325998@email.android.com> <016a01ce90b4$00fa74d0$02ef5e70$@gmail.com> <78C90130-88C9-49E7-BA7A-43489B9D68F7@gmail.com> <51FE063D.9030402@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51FE3968.9080104@apc.org> Dear all This message will be my last to this list for a while. I will take - another - break from the IGC list. I don't feel comfortable participating in a space where differences in views, understanding or interpretation of facts cannot be discussed without participants resorting to vitriol, bullying, attack, counter attack or defense. I know this does not apply to the majority of people on the list, but in the online world the vocal minority is very powerful. My withdrawal is not a signal that I feel the co-coordinators are not doing their job well. I think they are doing their best, under very difficult circumstances. The drift, and tone of this discussion demonstrates why civil society so often struggles to be an effective voice, and why the IGC in particular is not able to realise its potential as a) a space for discussion and building of understanding and b) a space for mobilisation when it is needed. This particular discussion shifted from being focused on content: a serious matter (whether or not IGF fundraising strategies were compromising IGF principles or not, and whether space and influence over the content was 'for sale' or not) to being focused on 'who said what' and claims that specific individuals endorses commercialistion (first Paul, then myself, and one or two others). Even if one leaves the claims aside, the discussion shifted away from WHAT the issue was and WHAT ACTIONS to take, to allegations around the claimed stances of individuals participating in the discussion. This is bound to move focus away from any kind of joint action. Many people tried to keep it focused on the issues, and to get to a more detailed understanding of what the document really implied, what UN rules are and what actions the IGF Secretariat and UNDESA had taken. I think the most useful actions at this point are to: 1) gather more information, from the Secretariat, UNDESA the MAG meeting, and from the Indonesian organising group and government (mostly done already) 2) based on this thorough understanding, develop, as Andrew Pudephatt supported by others have proposed, strategies for preventing "capture of global convenings by powerful interests and perhaps propose ethical parameters that are both practical and appropriate for the funding of IGFs 3) to keep these strategies and parameters minimalist and flexible, in order to respect and recognise that different circumstances in different parts of the world, but also to consolidate the basic principle of "preventing capture" In response to Parminder's claim that I support commercialisation of the IGF and the approach in the funding proposal we read on Google docs, I will post once again my first two messages on this topic. In subsequent messages I qualified my comments even further, particularly in response to Adam. My first message clarified that the MAG had not seen this document and proposed that more transparency would be helpful. Posted on 28/07/2013 22:18 "This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to the MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide contrary information. Nor has any other host country funding document or strategy - again to my knowledge - been made available to previous MAGs. The MAG's mandate is to develop the programme of the IGF. Broadening this mandate was discussed during the WG IGF Improvements but that basic mandate has not changed. The Secretariat has when requested provided access to information about its budget and the UN Trust Fund. Personally I believe that more transparency around the host country agreement is needed. That would be one mechanisms for preventing, early on in the process, such abuse of the values and principles that we think of as IGF organising principles. Anriette" My second message questioned whether the allegation that speaking slots were being sold was accurate, and said that it did not look like a new model. I did askif I missed something, allowing for being wrong, as I was speaking from my perceptions of previous IGFs rather than insider knowledge. Posted 28/07/2013 23:10 "Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? Assuming it is an official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. With the possible exception of private sector sponsors being able to 'nominate' speakers for closing ceremony. As I said earlier, the MAG has not seen this document (unless I missed it). But I don't see how this is a new model. Or am I missing something? There is information in the document that states that sponsors will get a certain number of invitations for participants to the high-level event, gala dinner, etc. but nothing that seems that different from previous IGFs. Government sponsors get the benefit of chairing meetings. This is not new. All IGF have had host country chairs drawn from supportive and relevant ministries that formally open and close main sessions. Private sector sponsors can nominate a speaker for the closing ceremony. I would be surprised if this was not the case in all previous IGFs. Donors and international organisations can have side-events or pre-events. Also not new. Everyone gets their logos everywhere and can have banners all over the place. How is this different from previous IGFs? All IGFs have given sponsors some recognition. E.g. http://igf.or.ke/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=43&Itemid=55 Is this different because of the scale? I don't particularly like it, but I have worked with the UN on big events since 1996 and finding harmless (as harmless as possible as this is always tricky) ways of recognising sponsors have always been part of the process. It seems that people feel the Idonesian organising committee is selling influence in turn for sponsorship, but don't really see evidence of that beyond the standard 'indirect' influence of branding. If I have missed the relevant text then please point me to it. Anriette" Parminder says that I should justify how my words (quoted again below) means anything other than support for the Indonesian organising group's strategy: " It seems that people feel the Idonesian organising committee is selling influence in turn for sponsorship, but don't really see evidence of that beyond the standard 'indirect' influence of branding." He leaves out the next sentence: "If I have missed the relevant text then please point me to it." My response is that what I said in this message as a whole is that the model did not seem that new to me. I ask if I am missing something. I obviously did, as has since been clarified (e.g. banners only allowed outside, etc.). I clarified that speaking slots were not for sale. This was important to me as it is such a serious allegation, and I simply don't think it is fair to make such an allegation against the Indonesian organising committee without clear evidence. I stand by this interpretation of the document. I asked people to point me to relevant text if I have missed it. I don't express support for commercialisation. I asked if the difference was a question of scale. I say I don't particularly like the way in which sponsors are given recognition. I say that I have previous experience of working with the UN on big events and "finding harmless (as harmless as possible as this is always tricky) ways of recognising sponsors". In this phrase I recognise that it is tricky to find harmless ways of recognising sponsors - but it is often a reality. Even in the case of the IGF and when abiding by IGF rules. While I did say that the model did not seem completely new to me, I did not express support for such a model, and I felt that implying that I did was a misrepresentation of what I was trying to say, and ignored the questions I asked. Anriette -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Aug 4 07:42:35 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2013 17:12:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Message-ID: I don't think you need to justify yourself. Not with parminder the only person to accuse you. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Anriette Esterhuysen" To: Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call Date: Sun, Aug 4, 2013 4:52 PM Dear all This message will be my last to this list for a while. I will take - another - break from the IGC list. I don't feel comfortable participating in a space where differences in views, understanding or interpretation of facts cannot be discussed without participants resorting to vitriol, bullying, attack, counter attack or defense. I know this does not apply to the majority of people on the list, but in the online world the vocal minority is very powerful. My withdrawal is not a signal that I feel the co-coordinators are not doing their job well. I think they are doing their best, under very difficult circumstances. The drift, and tone of this discussion demonstrates why civil society so often struggles to be an effective voice, and why the IGC in particular is not able to realise its potential as a) a space for discussion and building of understanding and b) a space for mobilisation when it is needed. This particular discussion shifted from being focused on content: a serious matter (whether or not IGF fundraising strategies were compromising IGF principles or not, and whether space and influence over the content was 'for sale' or not) to being focused on 'who said what' and claims that specific individuals endorses commercialistion (first Paul, then myself, and one or two others). Even if one leaves the claims aside, the discussion shifted away from WHAT the issue was and WHAT ACTIONS to take, to allegations around the claimed stances of individuals participating in the discussion. This is bound to move focus away from any kind of joint action. Many people tried to keep it focused on the issues, and to get to a more detailed understanding of what the document really implied, what UN rules are and what actions the IGF Secretariat and UNDESA had taken. I think the most useful actions at this point are to: 1) gather more information, from the Secretariat, UNDESA the MAG meeting, and from the Indonesian organising group and government (mostly done already) 2) based on this thorough understanding, develop, as Andrew Pudephatt supported by others have proposed, strategies for preventing "capture of global convenings by powerful interests and perhaps propose ethical parameters that are both practical and appropriate for the funding of IGFs 3) to keep these strategies and parameters minimalist and flexible, in order to respect and recognise that different circumstances in different parts of the world, but also to consolidate the basic principle of "preventing capture" In response to Parminder's claim that I support commercialisation of the IGF and the approach in the funding proposal we read on Google docs, I will post once again my first two messages on this topic. In subsequent messages I qualified my comments even further, particularly in response to Adam. My first message clarified that the MAG had not seen this document and proposed that more transparency would be helpful. Posted on 28/07/2013 22:18 "This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to the MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide contrary information. Nor has any other host country funding document or strategy - again to my knowledge - been made available to previous MAGs. The MAG's mandate is to develop the programme of the IGF. Broadening this mandate was discussed during the WG IGF Improvements but that basic mandate has not changed. The Secretariat has when requested provided access to information about its budget and the UN Trust Fund. Personally I believe that more transparency around the host country agreement is needed. That would be one mechanisms for preventing, early on in the process, such abuse of the values and principles that we think of as IGF organising principles. Anriette" My second message questioned whether the allegation that speaking slots were being sold was accurate, and said that it did not look like a new model. I did askif I missed something, allowing for being wrong, as I was speaking from my perceptions of previous IGFs rather than insider knowledge. Posted 28/07/2013 23:10 "Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? Assuming it is an official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. With the possible exception of private sector sponsors being able to 'nominate' speakers for closing ceremony. As I said earlier, the MAG has not seen this document (unless I missed it). But I don't see how this is a new model. Or am I missing something? There is information in the document that states that sponsors will get a certain number of invitations for participants to the high-level event, gala dinner, etc. but nothing that seems that different from previous IGFs. Government sponsors get the benefit of chairing meetings. This is not new. All IGF have had host country chairs drawn from supportive and relevant ministries that formally open and close main sessions. Private sector sponsors can nominate a speaker for the closing ceremony. I would be surprised if this was not the case in all previous IGFs. Donors and international organisations can have side-events or pre-events. Also not new. Everyone gets their logos everywhere and can have banners all over the place. How is this different from previous IGFs? All IGFs have given sponsors some recognition. E.g. http://igf.or.ke/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=43&Itemid=55 Is this different because of the scale? I don't particularly like it, but I have worked with the UN on big events since 1996 and finding harmless (as harmless as possible as this is always tricky) ways of recognising sponsors have always been part of the process. It seems that people feel the Idonesian organising committee is selling influence in turn for sponsorship, but don't really see evidence of that beyond the standard 'indirect' influence of branding. If I have missed the relevant text then please point me to it. Anriette" Parminder says that I should justify how my words (quoted again below) means anything other than support for the Indonesian organising group's strategy: " It seems that people feel the Idonesian organising committee is selling influence in turn for sponsorship, but don't really see evidence of that beyond the standard 'indirect' influence of branding." He leaves out the next sentence: "If I have missed the relevant text then please point me to it." My response is that what I said in this message as a whole is that the model did not seem that new to me. I ask if I am missing something. I obviously did, as has since been clarified (e.g. banners only allowed outside, etc.). I clarified that speaking slots were not for sale. This was important to me as it is such a serious allegation, and I simply don't think it is fair to make such an allegation against the Indonesian organising committee without clear evidence. I stand by this interpretation of the document. I asked people to point me to relevant text if I have missed it. I don't express support for commercialisation. I asked if the difference was a question of scale. I say I don't particularly like the way in which sponsors are given recognition. I say that I have previous experience of working with the UN on big events and "finding harmless (as harmless as possible as this is always tricky) ways of recognising sponsors". In this phrase I recognise that it is tricky to find harmless ways of recognising sponsors - but it is often a reality. Even in the case of the IGF and when abiding by IGF rules. While I did say that the model did not seem completely new to me, I did not express support for such a model, and I felt that implying that I did was a misrepresentation of what I was trying to say, and ignored the questions I asked. Anriette -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 4 11:11:12 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2013 20:41:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <51FE3968.9080104@apc.org> References: <2kfr4es2etosm0ugmcjy8ri3.1375579325998@email.android.com> <016a01ce90b4$00fa74d0$02ef5e70$@gmail.com> <78C90130-88C9-49E7-BA7A-43489B9D68F7@gmail.com> <51FE063D.9030402@itforchange.net> <51FE3968.9080104@apc.org> Message-ID: <51FE6F10.20009@itforchange.net> > "In response to Parminder's claim that I support commercialisation of the > IGF and the approach in the funding proposal we read on Google docs .....(Anriette) Would you point out where did I make that claim? When I pointed out the document and described the problems with it, you responded in your email "But I don't see how this is a new model" Ok, lets now try to understand it. When a problematic practice is brought to the notice of someone who is part of the oversight mechanism over that kind of practices (MAG here) and that person says s/he sees nothing new about it, for all practical purposes, it means, s/he sees nothing wrong with it.... Say, one makes an appeal about some practices of alleged net neutrality violation to a member of a committee having oversight over the matter, and the member responds by saying there is nothing new here, it means there is nothing wrong with the practice - for all practical purposes and the specific context of the issue being raised. That is how it will for instance be reported next day in the newspapers. Therefore, I responded by saying that two MAG members seem to feel "there is really nothing wrong with the document under question". I think, in the specific context, it is a rightful assertion to make. To which you responded by personal insults and ad hominem comments.... I have said nothing at all to you after that. After that I have just been defending - and attacks are coming from multiple levels. That is the story, and you cannot twist it any other way. BTW if to move from 'nothing new here' to 'nothing wrong here' is twisting words and deserves such personal insults, why would not the much greater mis-characterisation 'parminder claims I support commercialisation of the IGF' not be twisting words, and trying to score political points.... If you state a view point, especially from a responsible position, dont shrink from discussing and defending it. This is civil society, accountability seeking and political debates are the mainstay of it, not simple backslapping while stonewalling debates. For your kind consideration. While I will like you to reconsider disengaging with this, still important, discussion and advocacy space, parminder On Sunday 04 August 2013 04:52 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > This message will be my last to this list for a while. I will take - > another - break from the IGC list. I don't feel comfortable > participating in a space where differences in views, understanding or > interpretation of facts cannot be discussed without participants > resorting to vitriol, bullying, attack, counter attack or defense. I > know this does not apply to the majority of people on the list, but in > the online world the vocal minority is very powerful. My withdrawal is not a signal that I feel the co-coordinators are not doing their job well. I think they are doing their best, under very difficult circumstances. > > The drift, and tone of this discussion demonstrates why civil society so > often struggles to be an effective voice, and why the IGC in particular is not able to realise its potential as a) a space for discussion and building of understanding and b) a space for mobilisation when it is needed. > > This particular discussion shifted from being focused on content: a serious matter (whether or > not IGF fundraising strategies were compromising IGF principles or not, > and whether space and influence over the content was 'for sale' or not) > to being focused on 'who said what' and claims that specific individuals endorses commercialistion > (first Paul, then myself, and one or two others). Even if one leaves the > claims aside, the discussion shifted away from WHAT the issue was and > WHAT ACTIONS to take, to allegations around the claimed stances of > individuals participating in the discussion. This is bound to move focus away from any kind of joint action. > > Many people tried to keep it focused on the issues, and to get to a more > detailed understanding of what the document really implied, what UN > rules are and what actions the IGF Secretariat and UNDESA had taken. > > I think the most useful actions at this point are to: > > 1) gather more information, from the Secretariat, UNDESA the MAG > meeting, and from the Indonesian organising group and government (mostly > done already) > > 2) based on this thorough understanding, develop, as Andrew Pudephatt > supported by others have proposed, strategies for preventing "capture of > global convenings by powerful interests and perhaps propose ethical > parameters that are both practical and appropriate for the funding of > IGFs > > 3) to keep these strategies and parameters minimalist and flexible, in order to respect and recognise that different circumstances in different parts of the world, but also to consolidate the basic principle of "preventing capture" > > > In response to Parminder's claim that I support commercialisation of the > IGF and the approach in the funding proposal we read on Google docs, I > will post once again my first two messages on this topic. In subsequent > messages I qualified my comments even further, particularly in response > to Adam. > > My first message clarified that the MAG had not seen this document and proposed that more transparency would be helpful. > > Posted on 28/07/2013 22:18 > > "This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to the > MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide contrary > information. > > Nor has any other host country funding document or strategy - again to > my knowledge - been made available to previous MAGs. > > The MAG's mandate is to develop the programme of the IGF. Broadening > this mandate was discussed during the WG IGF Improvements but that basic > mandate has not changed. > > The Secretariat has when requested provided access to information about > its budget and the UN Trust Fund. > > Personally I believe that more transparency around the host country > agreement is needed. That would be one mechanisms for preventing, early > on in the process, such abuse of the values and principles that we think > of as IGF organising principles. > > Anriette" > > My second message questioned whether the allegation that speaking slots were being sold was accurate, and said that it did not look like a new model. I did askif I missed something, allowing for being wrong, as I was speaking from my perceptions of previous IGFs rather than insider knowledge. > > Posted 28/07/2013 23:10 > > "Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? Assuming it is an > official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually > offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. With the possible exception > of private sector sponsors being able to 'nominate' speakers for closing > ceremony. As I said earlier, the MAG has not seen this document (unless > I missed it). > > But I don't see how this is a new model. Or am I missing something? > > There is information in the document that states that sponsors will get > a certain number of invitations for participants to the high-level > event, gala dinner, etc. but nothing that seems that different from > previous IGFs. > > Government sponsors get the benefit of chairing meetings. This is not > new. All IGF have had host country chairs drawn from supportive and > relevant ministries that formally open and close main sessions. > > Private sector sponsors can nominate a speaker for the closing ceremony. > I would be surprised if this was not the case in all previous IGFs. > > Donors and international organisations can have side-events or > pre-events. Also not new. > > Everyone gets their logos everywhere and can have banners all over the > place. How is this different from previous IGFs? All IGFs have given > sponsors some recognition. E.g. > http://igf.or.ke/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=43&Itemid=55 > > Is this different because of the scale? I don't particularly like it, > but I have worked with the UN on big events since 1996 and finding > harmless (as harmless as possible as this is always tricky) ways of > recognising sponsors have always been part of the process. > > It seems that people feel the Idonesian organising committee is selling > influence in turn for sponsorship, but don't really see evidence of > that beyond the standard 'indirect' influence of branding. > > If I have missed the relevant text then please point me to it. > > Anriette" > > Parminder says that I should justify how my words (quoted again below) > means anything other than support for the Indonesian organising group's > strategy: > > " It seems that people feel the Idonesian organising committee is > selling influence in turn for sponsorship, but don't really see evidence > of that beyond the standard 'indirect' influence of branding." He leaves > out the next sentence: "If I have missed the relevant text then please > point me to it." > > My response is that what I said in this message as a whole is that the > model did not seem that new to me. I ask if I am missing something. I > obviously did, as has since been clarified (e.g. banners only allowed > outside, etc.). > > I clarified that speaking slots were not for sale. This was important to > me as it is such a serious allegation, and I simply don't think it is fair to > make such an allegation against the Indonesian organising committee > without clear evidence. I stand by this interpretation of the document. > I asked people to point me to relevant text if I have missed it. > > I don't express support for commercialisation. I asked if the difference was a question of > scale. I say I don't particularly like the way in which sponsors are > given recognition. I say that I have previous experience of working with > the UN on big events and > "finding harmless (as harmless as possible as this is always tricky) > ways of recognising sponsors". > > In this phrase I recognise that it is tricky to find harmless ways of > recognising sponsors - but it is often a reality. Even in the case of > the IGF and when abiding by IGF rules. > > While I did say that the model did not seem completely > new to me, I did not express support for such a model, and I > felt that implying that I did was a misrepresentation of what I was > trying to say, and ignored the questions I asked. > > Anriette > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Sun Aug 4 14:02:09 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 14:02:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <26636C02-FBC1-4DA8-A554-21FE2306DCC3@ciroap.org> References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> <51FB30D7.6000209@itforchange.net> <51FBD4EF.7090608@itforchange.net> <51FC9E84.1030700@itforchange.net> <26636C02-FBC1-4DA8-A554-21FE2306DCC3@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <526620C5-6445-4A80-A4F4-BA1882935C19@gmail.com> Jeremy, I note your sentence below: > The just-a-conference" group have successfully "forced their view" on the others until now, by vetoing changes necessary for the IGF to fulfil the rest of its mandate. Could you clarify (a) what the rest of the IGF's mandate is, and specifically where it is defined, (b) exactly who are members of what you call the "just a conference group is, (c) what the veto mechanism is and how it has been use, and (d) based upon the previous responses, how responsibility should be distributed for what you appear to characterize as failure? Thanks, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Aug 3, 2013, at 6:24 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 3 Aug, 2013, at 5:10 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > >> On Aug 3, 2013, at 8:09 AM, parminder wrote: >> >>> It is important to first agree on what the IGF is.... >>> >>> One view may be that it is just an annual conference on IG (and George's latter email suggests that this is what he takes it to be). >> >> I understand that my e-mail may have suggested that to you, but I take the IGF to be somewhat different, and I describe it more fully below. ... Finally, it is not a decision making body which, in my opinion, is one of the essential reasons for its success. > > Even as a conference, it's not looking like much of a success at the moment. > > Indeed it's been so successful that people who do real policy view it as a joke or a distraction (I've heard this many times), the next meeting is on the verge of cancellation, with the entire IGF likely to follow it when its mandate comes up again for renewal. > >> But what happens when there are different points of view within the group? Is it reasonable to force one view for the purpose of defining norms, or when there are different views of what the IGF is? Or is the variation in views a part of a healthy environment that should be valued in making progress toward better understanding? > > The just-a-conference" group have successfully "forced their view" on the others until now, by vetoing changes necessary for the IGF to fulfil the rest of its mandate. > > Maybe the others should have a few years to try things their way and see if the can outdo the "success" that we've seen so far. > >> Does this group tolerate such positions that appear to be seen by some as compromise positions or equivocation? Is there room in this group for diverse views, or do they just get in the way of creating unified positions vis-à-vis other stakeholder groups? > > We haven't seen that spirit of tolerance within the MAG or Secretariat. If there hasn't been a consensus in favour of trying things that deviate too far from the conference format (and there never will be a consensus, due to the technical community and friends), the default has been not to try, rather than to give it a shot for the sake of tolerance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 4 18:29:05 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 05:29:05 +0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Internet Society Board of Trustees Calls on the Global Internet Community to Stand Together to Support Open Internet Access, Freedom, and Privacy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <014701ce9162$0d4c4d90$27e4e8b0$@gmail.com> From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On Behalf Of Dewayne Hendricks Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 12:47 AM To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Internet Society Board of Trustees Calls on the Global Internet Community to Stand Together to Support Open Internet Access, Freedom, and Privacy [Note: This item comes from Dave Farber's IP List. DLH] Internet Society Board of Trustees Calls on the Global Internet Community to Stand Together to Support Open Internet Access, Freedom, and Privacy Fundamental ideals of the Internet are under threat [Berlin, Germany, 4 August 2013] - The Internet Society Board of Trustees during its meeting in Berlin, Germany today called on the global Internet community to stand together in support of open Internet access, freedom, and privacy. Recently exposed information about government Internet surveillance programs is a wake-up call for Internet users everywhere - the fundamental ideals of the Internet are under threat. The Internet Society Board of Trustees believes that government Internet surveillance programs create unacceptable risks for the future of a global, interoperable, and open Internet. Robert Hinden, Chair of the Board of Trustees, stated, "Berlin is a city where freedom triumphed over tyranny. Human and technological progress are not based on building walls, and we are confident that the human ideals of communication and creativity will always route around these kinds of attempts to constrain them. We are especially disappointed that the very governments that have traditionally supported a more balanced role in Internet governance are consciously and deliberately hosting massive Internet surveillance programs." In the brief period since these surveillance programs were revealed to the general public, the Internet Society Board stated there are already chilling effects on global trust and confidence on the Internet ecosystem. The fact that information about surveillance programs is emerging primarily from countries with a long history of supporting the open Internet is particularly disturbing. As the next billion people come online, these countries should be expected to demonstrate leadership in support of the values that underpin the global Internet. In the wake of these announcements, the Internet Society encourages a return to multistakeholder cooperation to preserve the benefits of the Internet ecosystem for all. The Internet Society Board of Trustees expects governments to fully engage with their citizens in an open dialogue on how to reconcile national security and the fundamental rights of individuals. Security should not be at the cost of individual rights and, in this context, the Board welcomes the initiative by some civil society organizations to promote "International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance." The Internet Society endorses these principles, and emphasizes the importance of proportionality, due process, legality, and transparent judicial oversight. The Internet Society believes that surveillance without any such safeguards risks undermining the sustainability of the open Internet. "In the spirit of the pioneers and early innovators of the Internet that were honored this week at the 2013 Internet Hall of Fame ceremony, we urge the global Internet community to defend against attempts by governments to fragment the Internet either through overt regulation or hidden surveillance programs," commented Lynn St. Amour, President and CEO of the Internet Society. "We must reassert the global spirit of community that is at the heart of the Internet's growth and success, and stand firm in our belief that openness and collaboration is the best path forward." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Aug 4 19:19:25 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 06:19:25 +0700 Subject: [governance] Multi-stakeholderism and the UN Message-ID: <016401ce9169$15b06b40$411141c0$@gmail.com> Buried in the middle of a list of resources provided earlier by Andrea Glorioso is the attached document which I believe would bear careful reading by various folks involved in this discussion particularly in light of the recent concerns over the UN and corporate capture. What this paper does is put our specific area of concern into the broader context of developments within the UN overall over the last decade and a half. The document could use a bit of an updating (the broad trends identified have if anything accelerated in the interim) but casts an extremely well-informed and jaundiced eye on many of the areas of multi-lateralism (and multi-stakeholderism) with which we have been concerned. In my own specific area of interest--ICT and Development--it would be very interesting and useful to extend the paper's discussion concerning the UN's Global Alliance on ICT for D (GAID), where a multi-lateral initiative with (very) limited CS involvement (the ICT for D Task Force) evolved post WSIS into the UN's GAID which then entered into a "partnership" with the corporate sector (Intel and it's then Chair Craig Barrett), who, seeing that there were no quick gains to be made, proceeded to lose interest and have the entire enterprise be allowed to fade into oblivion (whatever did happen to it BTW) to be replaced by the UN's, the 1% for development club, the Broadband Task Force. M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MSism in the UN.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 592952 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 Sun Aug 4 19:24:00 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 09:24:00 +1000 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <51FE6F10.20009@itforchange.net> References: <2kfr4es2etosm0ugmcjy8ri3.1375579325998@email.android.com> <016a01ce90b4$00fa74d0$02ef5e70$@gmail.com> <78C90130-88C9-49E7-BA7A-43489B9D68F7@gmail.com> <51FE063D.9030402@itforchange.net> <51FE3968.9080104@apc.org> <51FE6F10.20009@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <13452F9A91B845C3B89809BED6D22F71@Toshiba> perhaps we all need to remember that taking offence can be as counter-productive to good dialogue as giving offence. Please everyone, let many things pass and lets keep our attention on the substantial issues we do need to address. Ian -----Original Message----- From: parminder Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 1:11 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Anriette Esterhuysen Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call > "In response to Parminder's claim that I support commercialisation of the > IGF and the approach in the funding proposal we read on Google docs > .....(Anriette) Would you point out where did I make that claim? When I pointed out the document and described the problems with it, you responded in your email "But I don't see how this is a new model" Ok, lets now try to understand it. When a problematic practice is brought to the notice of someone who is part of the oversight mechanism over that kind of practices (MAG here) and that person says s/he sees nothing new about it, for all practical purposes, it means, s/he sees nothing wrong with it.... Say, one makes an appeal about some practices of alleged net neutrality violation to a member of a committee having oversight over the matter, and the member responds by saying there is nothing new here, it means there is nothing wrong with the practice - for all practical purposes and the specific context of the issue being raised. That is how it will for instance be reported next day in the newspapers. Therefore, I responded by saying that two MAG members seem to feel "there is really nothing wrong with the document under question". I think, in the specific context, it is a rightful assertion to make. To which you responded by personal insults and ad hominem comments.... I have said nothing at all to you after that. After that I have just been defending - and attacks are coming from multiple levels. That is the story, and you cannot twist it any other way. BTW if to move from 'nothing new here' to 'nothing wrong here' is twisting words and deserves such personal insults, why would not the much greater mis-characterisation 'parminder claims I support commercialisation of the IGF' not be twisting words, and trying to score political points.... If you state a view point, especially from a responsible position, dont shrink from discussing and defending it. This is civil society, accountability seeking and political debates are the mainstay of it, not simple backslapping while stonewalling debates. For your kind consideration. While I will like you to reconsider disengaging with this, still important, discussion and advocacy space, parminder On Sunday 04 August 2013 04:52 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > This message will be my last to this list for a while. I will take - > another - break from the IGC list. I don't feel comfortable > participating in a space where differences in views, understanding or > interpretation of facts cannot be discussed without participants > resorting to vitriol, bullying, attack, counter attack or defense. I > know this does not apply to the majority of people on the list, but in > the online world the vocal minority is very powerful. My withdrawal is not > a signal that I feel the co-coordinators are not doing their job well. I > think they are doing their best, under very difficult circumstances. > > The drift, and tone of this discussion demonstrates why civil society so > often struggles to be an effective voice, and why the IGC in particular is > not able to realise its potential as a) a space for discussion and > building of understanding and b) a space for mobilisation when it is > needed. > > This particular discussion shifted from being focused on content: a > serious matter (whether or > not IGF fundraising strategies were compromising IGF principles or not, > and whether space and influence over the content was 'for sale' or not) > to being focused on 'who said what' and claims that specific individuals > endorses commercialistion > (first Paul, then myself, and one or two others). Even if one leaves the > claims aside, the discussion shifted away from WHAT the issue was and > WHAT ACTIONS to take, to allegations around the claimed stances of > individuals participating in the discussion. This is bound to move focus > away from any kind of joint action. > > Many people tried to keep it focused on the issues, and to get to a more > detailed understanding of what the document really implied, what UN > rules are and what actions the IGF Secretariat and UNDESA had taken. > > I think the most useful actions at this point are to: > > 1) gather more information, from the Secretariat, UNDESA the MAG > meeting, and from the Indonesian organising group and government (mostly > done already) > > 2) based on this thorough understanding, develop, as Andrew Pudephatt > supported by others have proposed, strategies for preventing "capture of > global convenings by powerful interests and perhaps propose ethical > parameters that are both practical and appropriate for the funding of > IGFs > > 3) to keep these strategies and parameters minimalist and flexible, in > order to respect and recognise that different circumstances in different > parts of the world, but also to consolidate the basic principle of > "preventing capture" > > > In response to Parminder's claim that I support commercialisation of the > IGF and the approach in the funding proposal we read on Google docs, I > will post once again my first two messages on this topic. In subsequent > messages I qualified my comments even further, particularly in response > to Adam. > > My first message clarified that the MAG had not seen this document and > proposed that more transparency would be helpful. > > Posted on 28/07/2013 22:18 > > "This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to the > MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide contrary > information. > > Nor has any other host country funding document or strategy - again to > my knowledge - been made available to previous MAGs. > > The MAG's mandate is to develop the programme of the IGF. Broadening > this mandate was discussed during the WG IGF Improvements but that basic > mandate has not changed. > > The Secretariat has when requested provided access to information about > its budget and the UN Trust Fund. > > Personally I believe that more transparency around the host country > agreement is needed. That would be one mechanisms for preventing, early > on in the process, such abuse of the values and principles that we think > of as IGF organising principles. > > Anriette" > > My second message questioned whether the allegation that speaking slots > were being sold was accurate, and said that it did not look like a new > model. I did askif I missed something, allowing for being wrong, as I was > speaking from my perceptions of previous IGFs rather than insider > knowledge. > > Posted 28/07/2013 23:10 > > "Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? Assuming it is an > official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually > offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. With the possible exception > of private sector sponsors being able to 'nominate' speakers for closing > ceremony. As I said earlier, the MAG has not seen this document (unless > I missed it). > > But I don't see how this is a new model. Or am I missing something? > > There is information in the document that states that sponsors will get > a certain number of invitations for participants to the high-level > event, gala dinner, etc. but nothing that seems that different from > previous IGFs. > > Government sponsors get the benefit of chairing meetings. This is not > new. All IGF have had host country chairs drawn from supportive and > relevant ministries that formally open and close main sessions. > > Private sector sponsors can nominate a speaker for the closing ceremony. > I would be surprised if this was not the case in all previous IGFs. > > Donors and international organisations can have side-events or > pre-events. Also not new. > > Everyone gets their logos everywhere and can have banners all over the > place. How is this different from previous IGFs? All IGFs have given > sponsors some recognition. E.g. > http://igf.or.ke/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=43&Itemid=55 > > Is this different because of the scale? I don't particularly like it, > but I have worked with the UN on big events since 1996 and finding > harmless (as harmless as possible as this is always tricky) ways of > recognising sponsors have always been part of the process. > > It seems that people feel the Idonesian organising committee is selling > influence in turn for sponsorship, but don't really see evidence of > that beyond the standard 'indirect' influence of branding. > > If I have missed the relevant text then please point me to it. > > Anriette" > > Parminder says that I should justify how my words (quoted again below) > means anything other than support for the Indonesian organising group's > strategy: > > " It seems that people feel the Idonesian organising committee is > selling influence in turn for sponsorship, but don't really see evidence > of that beyond the standard 'indirect' influence of branding." He leaves > out the next sentence: "If I have missed the relevant text then please > point me to it." > > My response is that what I said in this message as a whole is that the > model did not seem that new to me. I ask if I am missing something. I > obviously did, as has since been clarified (e.g. banners only allowed > outside, etc.). > > I clarified that speaking slots were not for sale. This was important to > me as it is such a serious allegation, and I simply don't think it is fair > to > make such an allegation against the Indonesian organising committee > without clear evidence. I stand by this interpretation of the document. > I asked people to point me to relevant text if I have missed it. > > I don't express support for commercialisation. I asked if the difference > was a question of > scale. I say I don't particularly like the way in which sponsors are > given recognition. I say that I have previous experience of working with > the UN on big events and > "finding harmless (as harmless as possible as this is always tricky) > ways of recognising sponsors". > > In this phrase I recognise that it is tricky to find harmless ways of > recognising sponsors - but it is often a reality. Even in the case of > the IGF and when abiding by IGF rules. > > While I did say that the model did not seem completely > new to me, I did not express support for such a model, and I > felt that implying that I did was a misrepresentation of what I was > trying to say, and ignored the questions I asked. > > Anriette > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Mon Aug 5 01:42:51 2013 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 14:42:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <13452F9A91B845C3B89809BED6D22F71@Toshiba> References: <2kfr4es2etosm0ugmcjy8ri3.1375579325998@email.android.com> <016a01ce90b4$00fa74d0$02ef5e70$@gmail.com> <78C90130-88C9-49E7-BA7A-43489B9D68F7@gmail.com> <51FE063D.9030402@itforchange.net> <51FE3968.9080104@apc.org> <51FE6F10.20009@itforchange.net> <13452F9A91B845C3B89809BED6D22F71@Toshiba> Message-ID: I quite agree with Ian. I was mostly holding my hands off from the keyboard on this thread. I did not have much time to read all messages carefully and compose the words which do not harm anyone, or being misunderstood, then asked to answer or clarify. I had tons of other things, honestly, which I cannot meat the deadlines these days. I assume there are many others like me. Thank you Anriette for trying to clarify, and trying to be productive. And also pointing out the physical and mental burden of being engaged here. I think what we really need is mutual respect. Some of us are non English native and don't know how exactly we should express our feelings, or read the feelings behind a post. And I think we need to focus main line of our business - how to make our IGF a success despite this financial burdens. izumi 2013/8/5 Ian Peter > perhaps we all need to remember that taking offence can be as > counter-productive to good dialogue as giving offence. Please everyone, let > many things pass and lets keep our attention on the substantial issues we > do need to address. > > Ian > > -----Original Message----- From: parminder > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 1:11 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Anriette Esterhuysen > > Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call > > > "In response to Parminder's claim that I support commercialisation of the >> IGF and the approach in the funding proposal we read on Google docs >> .....(Anriette) >> > > Would you point out where did I make that claim? > > When I pointed out the document and described the problems with it, you > responded in your email "But I don't see how this is a new model" > > Ok, lets now try to understand it. When a problematic practice is brought > to the notice of someone who is part of the oversight mechanism over that > kind of practices (MAG here) and that person says s/he sees nothing new > about it, for all practical purposes, it means, s/he sees nothing wrong > with it.... > > Say, one makes an appeal about some practices of alleged net neutrality > violation to a member of a committee having oversight over the matter, and > the member responds by saying there is nothing new here, it means there is > nothing wrong with the practice - for all practical purposes and the > specific context of the issue being raised. That is how it will for > instance be reported next day in the newspapers. > > > Therefore, I responded by saying that two MAG members seem to feel "there > is really nothing wrong with the document under question". I think, in the > specific context, it is a rightful assertion to make. > > To which you responded by personal insults and ad hominem comments.... I > have said nothing at all to you after that. After that I have just been > defending - and attacks are coming from multiple levels. > > That is the story, and you cannot twist it any other way. > > BTW if to move from 'nothing new here' to 'nothing wrong here' is twisting > words and deserves such personal insults, why would not the much greater > mis-characterisation 'parminder claims I support commercialisation of the > IGF' not be twisting words, and trying to score political points.... > > If you state a view point, especially from a responsible position, dont > shrink from discussing and defending it. This is civil society, > accountability seeking and political debates are the mainstay of it, not > simple backslapping while stonewalling debates. > > For your kind consideration. While I will like you to reconsider > disengaging with this, still important, discussion and advocacy space, > > parminder > > > > > On Sunday 04 August 2013 04:52 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> This message will be my last to this list for a while. I will take - >> another - break from the IGC list. I don't feel comfortable >> participating in a space where differences in views, understanding or >> interpretation of facts cannot be discussed without participants >> resorting to vitriol, bullying, attack, counter attack or defense. I >> know this does not apply to the majority of people on the list, but in >> the online world the vocal minority is very powerful. My withdrawal is >> not a signal that I feel the co-coordinators are not doing their job well. >> I think they are doing their best, under very difficult circumstances. >> >> The drift, and tone of this discussion demonstrates why civil society so >> often struggles to be an effective voice, and why the IGC in particular >> is not able to realise its potential as a) a space for discussion and >> building of understanding and b) a space for mobilisation when it is needed. >> >> This particular discussion shifted from being focused on content: a >> serious matter (whether or >> not IGF fundraising strategies were compromising IGF principles or not, >> and whether space and influence over the content was 'for sale' or not) >> to being focused on 'who said what' and claims that specific individuals >> endorses commercialistion >> (first Paul, then myself, and one or two others). Even if one leaves the >> claims aside, the discussion shifted away from WHAT the issue was and >> WHAT ACTIONS to take, to allegations around the claimed stances of >> individuals participating in the discussion. This is bound to move focus >> away from any kind of joint action. >> >> Many people tried to keep it focused on the issues, and to get to a more >> detailed understanding of what the document really implied, what UN >> rules are and what actions the IGF Secretariat and UNDESA had taken. >> >> I think the most useful actions at this point are to: >> >> 1) gather more information, from the Secretariat, UNDESA the MAG >> meeting, and from the Indonesian organising group and government (mostly >> done already) >> >> 2) based on this thorough understanding, develop, as Andrew Pudephatt >> supported by others have proposed, strategies for preventing "capture of >> global convenings by powerful interests and perhaps propose ethical >> parameters that are both practical and appropriate for the funding of >> IGFs >> >> 3) to keep these strategies and parameters minimalist and flexible, in >> order to respect and recognise that different circumstances in different >> parts of the world, but also to consolidate the basic principle of >> "preventing capture" >> >> >> In response to Parminder's claim that I support commercialisation of the >> IGF and the approach in the funding proposal we read on Google docs, I >> will post once again my first two messages on this topic. In subsequent >> messages I qualified my comments even further, particularly in response >> to Adam. >> >> My first message clarified that the MAG had not seen this document and >> proposed that more transparency would be helpful. >> >> Posted on 28/07/2013 22:18 >> >> "This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to the >> MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide contrary >> information. >> >> Nor has any other host country funding document or strategy - again to >> my knowledge - been made available to previous MAGs. >> >> The MAG's mandate is to develop the programme of the IGF. Broadening >> this mandate was discussed during the WG IGF Improvements but that basic >> mandate has not changed. >> >> The Secretariat has when requested provided access to information about >> its budget and the UN Trust Fund. >> >> Personally I believe that more transparency around the host country >> agreement is needed. That would be one mechanisms for preventing, early >> on in the process, such abuse of the values and principles that we think >> of as IGF organising principles. >> >> Anriette" >> >> My second message questioned whether the allegation that speaking slots >> were being sold was accurate, and said that it did not look like a new >> model. I did askif I missed something, allowing for being wrong, as I was >> speaking from my perceptions of previous IGFs rather than insider knowledge. >> >> Posted 28/07/2013 23:10 >> >> "Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? Assuming it is an >> official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually >> offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. With the possible exception >> of private sector sponsors being able to 'nominate' speakers for closing >> ceremony. As I said earlier, the MAG has not seen this document (unless >> I missed it). >> >> But I don't see how this is a new model. Or am I missing something? >> >> There is information in the document that states that sponsors will get >> a certain number of invitations for participants to the high-level >> event, gala dinner, etc. but nothing that seems that different from >> previous IGFs. >> >> Government sponsors get the benefit of chairing meetings. This is not >> new. All IGF have had host country chairs drawn from supportive and >> relevant ministries that formally open and close main sessions. >> >> Private sector sponsors can nominate a speaker for the closing ceremony. >> I would be surprised if this was not the case in all previous IGFs. >> >> Donors and international organisations can have side-events or >> pre-events. Also not new. >> >> Everyone gets their logos everywhere and can have banners all over the >> place. How is this different from previous IGFs? All IGFs have given >> sponsors some recognition. E.g. >> http://igf.or.ke/index.php?**option=com_content&view=** >> article&id=43&Itemid=55 >> >> Is this different because of the scale? I don't particularly like it, >> but I have worked with the UN on big events since 1996 and finding >> harmless (as harmless as possible as this is always tricky) ways of >> recognising sponsors have always been part of the process. >> >> It seems that people feel the Idonesian organising committee is selling >> influence in turn for sponsorship, but don't really see evidence of >> that beyond the standard 'indirect' influence of branding. >> >> If I have missed the relevant text then please point me to it. >> >> Anriette" >> >> Parminder says that I should justify how my words (quoted again below) >> means anything other than support for the Indonesian organising group's >> strategy: >> >> " It seems that people feel the Idonesian organising committee is >> selling influence in turn for sponsorship, but don't really see evidence >> of that beyond the standard 'indirect' influence of branding." He leaves >> out the next sentence: "If I have missed the relevant text then please >> point me to it." >> >> My response is that what I said in this message as a whole is that the >> model did not seem that new to me. I ask if I am missing something. I >> obviously did, as has since been clarified (e.g. banners only allowed >> outside, etc.). >> >> I clarified that speaking slots were not for sale. This was important to >> me as it is such a serious allegation, and I simply don't think it is >> fair to >> make such an allegation against the Indonesian organising committee >> without clear evidence. I stand by this interpretation of the document. >> I asked people to point me to relevant text if I have missed it. >> >> I don't express support for commercialisation. I asked if the difference >> was a question of >> scale. I say I don't particularly like the way in which sponsors are >> given recognition. I say that I have previous experience of working with >> the UN on big events and >> "finding harmless (as harmless as possible as this is always tricky) >> ways of recognising sponsors". >> >> In this phrase I recognise that it is tricky to find harmless ways of >> recognising sponsors - but it is often a reality. Even in the case of >> the IGF and when abiding by IGF rules. >> >> While I did say that the model did not seem completely >> new to me, I did not express support for such a model, and I >> felt that implying that I did was a misrepresentation of what I was >> trying to say, and ignored the questions I asked. >> >> Anriette >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > ______________________________**______________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- >> 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 kabani.asif at gmail.com Mon Aug 5 01:49:19 2013 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 10:49:19 +0500 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: References: <2kfr4es2etosm0ugmcjy8ri3.1375579325998@email.android.com> <016a01ce90b4$00fa74d0$02ef5e70$@gmail.com> <78C90130-88C9-49E7-BA7A-43489B9D68F7@gmail.com> <51FE063D.9030402@itforchange.net> <51FE3968.9080104@apc.org> <51FE6F10.20009@itforchange.net> <13452F9A91B845C3B89809BED6D22F71@Toshiba> Message-ID: Izumi +1 " we need to focus main line of our business - how to make our IGF a success despite this financial burdens." Sincerely On 5 August 2013 10:42, Izumi AIZU wrote: > we need to focus main line of our business - how to make our IGF a success > despite this financial burdens. > ------- *Stay Connected* [image: Facebook] [image: Twitter] [image: Youtube] [image: LinkedIn] *Before you print - Think about the** **ENVIRONMENT* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Mon Aug 5 02:16:30 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 11:46:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: References: <2kfr4es2etosm0ugmcjy8ri3.1375579325998@email.android.com> <016a01ce90b4$00fa74d0$02ef5e70$@gmail.com> <78C90130-88C9-49E7-BA7A-43489B9D68F7@gmail.com> <51FE063D.9030402@itforchange.net> <51FE3968.9080104@apc.org> <51FE6F10.20009@itforchange.net> <13452F9A91B845C3B89809BED6D22F71@Toshiba> Message-ID: +1 On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > how to make our IGF a success > despite this financial burdens. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Mon Aug 5 02:35:39 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 09:35:39 +0300 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: References: <2kfr4es2etosm0ugmcjy8ri3.1375579325998@email.android.com> <016a01ce90b4$00fa74d0$02ef5e70$@gmail.com> <78C90130-88C9-49E7-BA7A-43489B9D68F7@gmail.com> <51FE063D.9030402@itforchange.net> <51FE3968.9080104@apc.org> <51FE6F10.20009@itforchange.net> <13452F9A91B845C3B89809BED6D22F71@Toshiba> Message-ID: +1 Izumi and Anriette ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva twitter.com/lordmwesh google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh On 5 August 2013 08:42, Izumi AIZU wrote: > I quite agree with Ian. > > I was mostly holding my hands off from the keyboard on this thread. > I did not have much time to read all messages carefully and compose the > words > which do not harm anyone, or being misunderstood, then asked to answer or > clarify. I had tons of other things, honestly, which I cannot meat the > deadlines > these days. I assume there are many others like me. > > Thank you Anriette for trying to clarify, and trying to be productive. And > also > pointing out the physical and mental burden of being engaged here. > > I think what we really need is mutual respect. Some of us are non English > native and don't know how exactly we should express our feelings, or > read the feelings behind a post. > > And I think we need to focus main line of our business - how to make our > IGF a success > despite this financial burdens. > > izumi > > > > > 2013/8/5 Ian Peter > >> perhaps we all need to remember that taking offence can be as >> counter-productive to good dialogue as giving offence. Please everyone, let >> many things pass and lets keep our attention on the substantial issues we >> do need to address. >> >> Ian >> >> -----Original Message----- From: parminder >> Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 1:11 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Anriette Esterhuysen >> >> Subject: Re: [governance] Update from today's MAG call >> >> >> "In response to Parminder's claim that I support commercialisation of the >>> IGF and the approach in the funding proposal we read on Google docs >>> .....(Anriette) >>> >> >> Would you point out where did I make that claim? >> >> When I pointed out the document and described the problems with it, you >> responded in your email "But I don't see how this is a new model" >> >> Ok, lets now try to understand it. When a problematic practice is brought >> to the notice of someone who is part of the oversight mechanism over that >> kind of practices (MAG here) and that person says s/he sees nothing new >> about it, for all practical purposes, it means, s/he sees nothing wrong >> with it.... >> >> Say, one makes an appeal about some practices of alleged net neutrality >> violation to a member of a committee having oversight over the matter, and >> the member responds by saying there is nothing new here, it means there is >> nothing wrong with the practice - for all practical purposes and the >> specific context of the issue being raised. That is how it will for >> instance be reported next day in the newspapers. >> >> >> Therefore, I responded by saying that two MAG members seem to feel "there >> is really nothing wrong with the document under question". I think, in the >> specific context, it is a rightful assertion to make. >> >> To which you responded by personal insults and ad hominem comments.... I >> have said nothing at all to you after that. After that I have just been >> defending - and attacks are coming from multiple levels. >> >> That is the story, and you cannot twist it any other way. >> >> BTW if to move from 'nothing new here' to 'nothing wrong here' is >> twisting words and deserves such personal insults, why would not the much >> greater mis-characterisation 'parminder claims I support commercialisation >> of the IGF' not be twisting words, and trying to score political points.... >> >> If you state a view point, especially from a responsible position, dont >> shrink from discussing and defending it. This is civil society, >> accountability seeking and political debates are the mainstay of it, not >> simple backslapping while stonewalling debates. >> >> For your kind consideration. While I will like you to reconsider >> disengaging with this, still important, discussion and advocacy space, >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> On Sunday 04 August 2013 04:52 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> Dear all >>> >>> This message will be my last to this list for a while. I will take - >>> another - break from the IGC list. I don't feel comfortable >>> participating in a space where differences in views, understanding or >>> interpretation of facts cannot be discussed without participants >>> resorting to vitriol, bullying, attack, counter attack or defense. I >>> know this does not apply to the majority of people on the list, but in >>> the online world the vocal minority is very powerful. My withdrawal is >>> not a signal that I feel the co-coordinators are not doing their job well. >>> I think they are doing their best, under very difficult circumstances. >>> >>> The drift, and tone of this discussion demonstrates why civil society so >>> often struggles to be an effective voice, and why the IGC in particular >>> is not able to realise its potential as a) a space for discussion and >>> building of understanding and b) a space for mobilisation when it is needed. >>> >>> This particular discussion shifted from being focused on content: a >>> serious matter (whether or >>> not IGF fundraising strategies were compromising IGF principles or not, >>> and whether space and influence over the content was 'for sale' or not) >>> to being focused on 'who said what' and claims that specific individuals >>> endorses commercialistion >>> (first Paul, then myself, and one or two others). Even if one leaves the >>> claims aside, the discussion shifted away from WHAT the issue was and >>> WHAT ACTIONS to take, to allegations around the claimed stances of >>> individuals participating in the discussion. This is bound to move focus >>> away from any kind of joint action. >>> >>> Many people tried to keep it focused on the issues, and to get to a more >>> detailed understanding of what the document really implied, what UN >>> rules are and what actions the IGF Secretariat and UNDESA had taken. >>> >>> I think the most useful actions at this point are to: >>> >>> 1) gather more information, from the Secretariat, UNDESA the MAG >>> meeting, and from the Indonesian organising group and government (mostly >>> done already) >>> >>> 2) based on this thorough understanding, develop, as Andrew Pudephatt >>> supported by others have proposed, strategies for preventing "capture of >>> global convenings by powerful interests and perhaps propose ethical >>> parameters that are both practical and appropriate for the funding of >>> IGFs >>> >>> 3) to keep these strategies and parameters minimalist and flexible, in >>> order to respect and recognise that different circumstances in different >>> parts of the world, but also to consolidate the basic principle of >>> "preventing capture" >>> >>> >>> In response to Parminder's claim that I support commercialisation of the >>> IGF and the approach in the funding proposal we read on Google docs, I >>> will post once again my first two messages on this topic. In subsequent >>> messages I qualified my comments even further, particularly in response >>> to Adam. >>> >>> My first message clarified that the MAG had not seen this document and >>> proposed that more transparency would be helpful. >>> >>> Posted on 28/07/2013 22:18 >>> >>> "This document has never, to my knowledge, been made available to the >>> MAG. Other MAG members on these lists can confirm or provide contrary >>> information. >>> >>> Nor has any other host country funding document or strategy - again to >>> my knowledge - been made available to previous MAGs. >>> >>> The MAG's mandate is to develop the programme of the IGF. Broadening >>> this mandate was discussed during the WG IGF Improvements but that basic >>> mandate has not changed. >>> >>> The Secretariat has when requested provided access to information about >>> its budget and the UN Trust Fund. >>> >>> Personally I believe that more transparency around the host country >>> agreement is needed. That would be one mechanisms for preventing, early >>> on in the process, such abuse of the values and principles that we think >>> of as IGF organising principles. >>> >>> Anriette" >>> >>> My second message questioned whether the allegation that speaking slots >>> were being sold was accurate, and said that it did not look like a new >>> model. I did askif I missed something, allowing for being wrong, as I was >>> speaking from my perceptions of previous IGFs rather than insider knowledge. >>> >>> Posted 28/07/2013 23:10 >>> >>> "Has anyone actually read this proposal in full? Assuming it is an >>> official proposal (which is just an assumption) it does not actually >>> offer proper speaking slots for cash at all. With the possible exception >>> of private sector sponsors being able to 'nominate' speakers for closing >>> ceremony. As I said earlier, the MAG has not seen this document (unless >>> I missed it). >>> >>> But I don't see how this is a new model. Or am I missing something? >>> >>> There is information in the document that states that sponsors will get >>> a certain number of invitations for participants to the high-level >>> event, gala dinner, etc. but nothing that seems that different from >>> previous IGFs. >>> >>> Government sponsors get the benefit of chairing meetings. This is not >>> new. All IGF have had host country chairs drawn from supportive and >>> relevant ministries that formally open and close main sessions. >>> >>> Private sector sponsors can nominate a speaker for the closing ceremony. >>> I would be surprised if this was not the case in all previous IGFs. >>> >>> Donors and international organisations can have side-events or >>> pre-events. Also not new. >>> >>> Everyone gets their logos everywhere and can have banners all over the >>> place. How is this different from previous IGFs? All IGFs have given >>> sponsors some recognition. E.g. >>> http://igf.or.ke/index.php?**option=com_content&view=** >>> article&id=43&Itemid=55 >>> >>> Is this different because of the scale? I don't particularly like it, >>> but I have worked with the UN on big events since 1996 and finding >>> harmless (as harmless as possible as this is always tricky) ways of >>> recognising sponsors have always been part of the process. >>> >>> It seems that people feel the Idonesian organising committee is selling >>> influence in turn for sponsorship, but don't really see evidence of >>> that beyond the standard 'indirect' influence of branding. >>> >>> If I have missed the relevant text then please point me to it. >>> >>> Anriette" >>> >>> Parminder says that I should justify how my words (quoted again below) >>> means anything other than support for the Indonesian organising group's >>> strategy: >>> >>> " It seems that people feel the Idonesian organising committee is >>> selling influence in turn for sponsorship, but don't really see evidence >>> of that beyond the standard 'indirect' influence of branding." He leaves >>> out the next sentence: "If I have missed the relevant text then please >>> point me to it." >>> >>> My response is that what I said in this message as a whole is that the >>> model did not seem that new to me. I ask if I am missing something. I >>> obviously did, as has since been clarified (e.g. banners only allowed >>> outside, etc.). >>> >>> I clarified that speaking slots were not for sale. This was important to >>> me as it is such a serious allegation, and I simply don't think it is >>> fair to >>> make such an allegation against the Indonesian organising committee >>> without clear evidence. I stand by this interpretation of the document. >>> I asked people to point me to relevant text if I have missed it. >>> >>> I don't express support for commercialisation. I asked if the >>> difference was a question of >>> scale. I say I don't particularly like the way in which sponsors are >>> given recognition. I say that I have previous experience of working with >>> the UN on big events and >>> "finding harmless (as harmless as possible as this is always tricky) >>> ways of recognising sponsors". >>> >>> In this phrase I recognise that it is tricky to find harmless ways of >>> recognising sponsors - but it is often a reality. Even in the case of >>> the IGF and when abiding by IGF rules. >>> >>> While I did say that the model did not seem completely >>> new to me, I did not express support for such a model, and I >>> felt that implying that I did was a misrepresentation of what I was >>> trying to say, and ignored the questions I asked. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ______________________________**______________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bavouc at gmail.com Mon Aug 5 02:42:25 2013 From: bavouc at gmail.com (Clement Martial Aboudem Bavou) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 07:42:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> Message-ID: I agree with you Norbert. Regards, From my HTC ONE S Smartphone Le 2013-07-31 14:03, "Norbert Bollow" a écrit : > Here's a quick update from today's MAG call (I listened in as an > observer.) > > Almost all of the discussion was around how to proceed in regard to the > 2013 IGF meeting. Markus said that cancellation is not an option. There > are two serious expressions of interest from potential host countries > to step in on short notice if Bali doesn't work out. Failing that, > there's the option of having the meeting at the relevant UN HQ, which > for the IGF would mean Geneva, but since it might be difficult to get > so many rooms, that might mean that only a scaled down meeting could be > held. Also hotel rooms can be problematic in Geneva. Google/Vint Cerf is > willing to do a fundraising effort to try and save the Bali IGF. Some > preliminary news, on the basis of which the MAG might be able to > recommend something, is hoped for by the end of next week. > > The current recommendation is not to cancel flights to Bali that have > already been booked, but also not to book a flight to Bali if you have > not booked yet. > > The commercialization problem was only touched on briefly. Markus said > that the basic rules are fairly simple: UN meetings cannot be > commercialized, there can be no sponsor's logos on the premises of the > UN meeting (and this rule has been enforced, he gave an example where a > compromise had been made in which sponsor's banners were put up outside > the premises of the UN meeting but in a place where they were visible > from the meeting's cafeteria), the only thing that can be sold on the > premises of the UN meeting is food and that has to be at a reasonable > price. > > So it seems clear that the IGF is not in direct danger of getting > commercialized - that objectionable Indonesian fundraising strategy has > simply been declared dead. > > 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Aug 5 03:28:09 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 16:28:09 +0900 Subject: [governance] summary of informal MAG online meetings, July 26 and 31 Message-ID: Summary of the online meetings available on the IGF website and attached. Adam -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mag-Meeting26-07.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 157650 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 5 04:06:14 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 10:06:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2 Aug 2013, at 18:35, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: quoting: > Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk > Friday August 02, 2013 > > http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6926/135/ > the U.S. has ceded the moral high ground on the issue. Anyone who believes that any government anywhere occupies high ground is likely to be disappointed. Governments, while unfortunately still a necessary evil in this stage human moral development, are not to be trusted but to be controlled and treated with suspicion by the people as much as possible. sure there are good people in all governments, but government themselves are not those good people, rather they are bureaucracies motivated by a complex of intractable and often negative forces. The high ground in Dubai was not an issue of which government should be trusted, it was the point of trying to remove all governments as much as possible. Governments cannot be trusted. History shows us that they never could be and it is only blind faith that indicates someday they may be trustworthy. Of course when governments are the only voice we have for limiting government intrusion - as they are in the ITU, the topic can get perverted. But to view the confirmation of what we all knew, that all governments monitor all people at all times as much as they can get away with, as an excuse to give other governments more oversight is a bit confused to my mind. I think all this has shown is that an Internet that allows any sort of government interference is likely to be used by those governments for their own purposes, whether they are, surveillance in the service of perceived terror, pedophilia or intellectual 'property' threats , the silencing of dissidents or the persecution of minorities such as the gay population and other cultural/nation/racial minorities. While we can and must fight on the policy front to defend ourselves against the vulnerabilities created and already exploited by the current Internet's control points, we must put more and more focus into creating technologies and processes that protect us from government intrusion and must revise Internet architectures so as to eliminate the points of control that governments are so successful at exploiting. 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 Aug 5 05:15:11 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 14:45:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Extension of deadline for the WGEC questionnaire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51FF6D1F.4080509@itforchange.net> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Extension of deadline for the WGEC questionnaire Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 09:59:18 +0200 From: WGEC Reply-To: UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation To: WGEC at LIST.UNICC.ORG Dear All, On behalf of the Chair of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, we are happy to share with you that the deadline for submitting responses to the WGEC questionnaire has been extended to 31 August 2013. Best regards, CSTD Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 5 05:20:07 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 11:20:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet Hall of Fame Message-ID: Hi, While I think it has been mentioned on this list, I just wanted to thank those of the IGC who were recognized this past weekend for the induction into the Internet Hall of Fame. Karen Banks http://www.internethalloffame.org/inductees/karen-banks Anriette Esterhuysen http://www.internethalloffame.org/inductees/anriette-esterhuysen George Sadowsky http://www.internethalloffame.org/inductees/george-sadowsky There may be others inductees who lurk on the IGC list, but these three I am certain of. If other inductees are indeed on the list, I hope someone will mention them. I wanted to make sure that in the midst of all else, we recognize their contributions to the interconnectivity of people on the Internet. And if this was already covered but I missed it because of some email problems I am having (seems to be filtering almost all governance list email) I apologize, but some things seem worth being repeated. 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 Mon Aug 5 05:45:29 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 16:45:29 +0700 Subject: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00ec01ce91c0$8b5d9f00$a218dd00$@gmail.com> This position strikes me as either naïve or duplicitous in the extreme. Does one really believe that the USG and its "Internet Freedom" allies were supporting Internet Freedom because they believed in a free Internet (while they were using the Internet to build the capacity to undermine the fundamental human rights/freedoms of us all). Rather, it should I think, be evident that their real motivation was to ensure that there were no structures or mechanisms of whatever sort (governmental, inter-governmental, multi-stakeholder or whatever) that are/were in a position to protect those human rights and against the depredations which they were secretly constructing with which we all are being threatened. Do you really believe that the good folks who built and/or funded the current systems are going unbidden to build/fund out of the fineness of their principles the systems that you are suggesting would "protect us from government intrusion and ... revise Internet architectures so as to eliminate the points of control that governments are so successful at exploiting". Our strength such as it is, comes from the possibility of creating and implementing democratic processes and mechanisms through which governments and the increasingly global commons can be made transparent and held accountable and through which the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms can be protected and extended. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 3:06 PM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk On 2 Aug 2013, at 18:35, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: quoting: > Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk Friday > August 02, 2013 > > http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6926/135/ > the U.S. has ceded the moral high ground on the issue. Anyone who believes that any government anywhere occupies high ground is likely to be disappointed. Governments, while unfortunately still a necessary evil in this stage human moral development, are not to be trusted but to be controlled and treated with suspicion by the people as much as possible. sure there are good people in all governments, but government themselves are not those good people, rather they are bureaucracies motivated by a complex of intractable and often negative forces. The high ground in Dubai was not an issue of which government should be trusted, it was the point of trying to remove all governments as much as possible. Governments cannot be trusted. History shows us that they never could be and it is only blind faith that indicates someday they may be trustworthy. Of course when governments are the only voice we have for limiting government intrusion - as they are in the ITU, the topic can get perverted. But to view the confirmation of what we all knew, that all governments monitor all people at all times as much as they can get away with, as an excuse to give other governments more oversight is a bit confused to my mind. I think all this has shown is that an Internet that allows any sort of government interference is likely to be used by those governments for their own purposes, whether they are, surveillance in the service of perceived terror, pedophilia or intellectual 'property' threats , the silencing of dissidents or the persecution of minorities such as the gay population and other cultural/nation/racial minorities. While we can and must fight on the policy front to defend ourselves against the vulnerabilities created and already exploited by the current Internet's control points, we must put more and more focus into creating technologies and processes that protect us from government intrusion and must revise Internet architectures so as to eliminate the points of control that governments are so successful at exploiting. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Mon Aug 5 05:47:23 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 11:47:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk In-Reply-To: <00ec01ce91c0$8b5d9f00$a218dd00$@gmail.com> References: <00ec01ce91c0$8b5d9f00$a218dd00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8A7774FC-E0DD-4F4F-A22E-151552EF5419@acm.org> On 5 Aug 2013, at 11:45, michael gurstein wrote: > This position strikes me as either naïve or duplicitous in the extreme. name calling. good first argument. 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 Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Mon Aug 5 05:53:39 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 12:53:39 +0300 Subject: [governance] Internet Hall of Fame In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 Avri. They have earned it by years of hard work and selfless dedicated service to the community. ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva twitter.com/lordmwesh google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh On 5 August 2013 12:20, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > While I think it has been mentioned on this list, I just wanted to thank > those of the IGC who were recognized this past weekend for the induction > into the Internet Hall of Fame. > > Karen Banks http://www.internethalloffame.org/inductees/karen-banks > Anriette Esterhuysen > http://www.internethalloffame.org/inductees/anriette-esterhuysen > George Sadowsky > http://www.internethalloffame.org/inductees/george-sadowsky > > > There may be others inductees who lurk on the IGC list, but these three I > am certain of. If other inductees are indeed on the list, I hope someone > will mention them. > > I wanted to make sure that in the midst of all else, we recognize their > contributions to the interconnectivity of people on the Internet. > > And if this was already covered but I missed it because of some email > problems I am having (seems to be filtering almost all governance list > email) I apologize, but some things seem worth being repeated. > > 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 suresh at hserus.net Mon Aug 5 06:04:16 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 15:34:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk In-Reply-To: <00ec01ce91c0$8b5d9f00$a218dd00$@gmail.com> References: <00ec01ce91c0$8b5d9f00$a218dd00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: It would be wrong to assume that any government at all doesn't wear multiple hats - a security service, regulators, etc all acting with a degree of independence can produce such contradictions Still, the USA is far from being the sort of country North Korea, Iran or Saudi Arabia are. Some perspective might actually help before tarring all governments with the same brush. Or before assuming that each and every government entity moves in lockstep with the other. Lacking that perspective would perhaps show almost as much naïveté --srs (iPad) On 05-Aug-2013, at 15:15, "michael gurstein" wrote: > This position strikes me as either naïve or duplicitous in the extreme. > > Does one really believe that the USG and its "Internet Freedom" allies were > supporting Internet Freedom because they believed in a free Internet (while > they were using the Internet to build the capacity to undermine the > fundamental human rights/freedoms of us all). > > Rather, it should I think, be evident that their real motivation was to > ensure that there were no structures or mechanisms of whatever sort > (governmental, inter-governmental, multi-stakeholder or whatever) that > are/were in a position to protect those human rights and against the > depredations which they were secretly constructing with which we all are > being threatened. > > Do you really believe that the good folks who built and/or funded the > current systems are going unbidden to build/fund out of the fineness of > their principles the systems that you are suggesting would "protect us from > government intrusion and ... revise Internet architectures so as to > eliminate the points of control that governments are so successful at > exploiting". > > Our strength such as it is, comes from the possibility of creating and > implementing democratic processes and mechanisms through which governments > and the increasingly global commons can be made transparent and held > accountable and through which the protection of human rights and fundamental > freedoms can be protected and extended. > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 3:06 PM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance > System at Risk > > > On 2 Aug 2013, at 18:35, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > > quoting: > >> Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk Friday >> August 02, 2013 >> >> http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6926/135/ > >> the U.S. has ceded the moral high ground on the issue. > > > Anyone who believes that any government anywhere occupies high ground is > likely to be disappointed. Governments, while unfortunately still a > necessary evil in this stage human moral development, are not to be trusted > but to be controlled and treated with suspicion by the people as much as > possible. sure there are good people in all governments, but government > themselves are not those good people, rather they are bureaucracies > motivated by a complex of intractable and often negative forces. > > The high ground in Dubai was not an issue of which government should be > trusted, it was the point of trying to remove all governments as much as > possible. Governments cannot be trusted. History shows us that they never > could be and it is only blind faith that indicates someday they may be > trustworthy. Of course when governments are the only voice we have for > limiting government intrusion - as they are in the ITU, the topic can get > perverted. > > But to view the confirmation of what we all knew, that all governments > monitor all people at all times as much as they can get away with, as an > excuse to give other governments more oversight is a bit confused to my > mind. > > I think all this has shown is that an Internet that allows any sort of > government interference is likely to be used by those governments for their > own purposes, whether they are, surveillance in the service of perceived > terror, pedophilia or intellectual 'property' threats , the silencing of > dissidents or the persecution of minorities such as the gay population and > other cultural/nation/racial minorities. > > While we can and must fight on the policy front to defend ourselves against > the vulnerabilities created and already exploited by the current Internet's > control points, we must put more and more focus into creating technologies > and processes that protect us from government intrusion and must revise > Internet architectures so as to eliminate the points of control that > governments are so successful at exploiting. > > 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 soekpe at gmail.com Mon Aug 5 07:27:31 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 12:27:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet Hall of Fame In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 Being focus is key to Fame. Congratulations to all for the directions. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Aug 5, 2013 10:21 AM, "Avri Doria" wrote: > Hi, > > While I think it has been mentioned on this list, I just wanted to thank > those of the IGC who were recognized this past weekend for the induction > into the Internet Hall of Fame. > > Karen Banks http://www.internethalloffame.org/inductees/karen-banks > Anriette Esterhuysen > http://www.internethalloffame.org/inductees/anriette-esterhuysen > George Sadowsky > http://www.internethalloffame.org/inductees/george-sadowsky > > > There may be others inductees who lurk on the IGC list, but these three I > am certain of. If other inductees are indeed on the list, I hope someone > will mention them. > > I wanted to make sure that in the midst of all else, we recognize their > contributions to the interconnectivity of people on the Internet. > > And if this was already covered but I missed it because of some email > problems I am having (seems to be filtering almost all governance list > email) I apologize, but some things seem worth being repeated. > > 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Aug 5 07:43:01 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 12:43:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Twitter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 09:54:45 on Sat, 3 Aug 2013, Deirdre Williams writes >http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23559605 > >So the medium does sometimes hold itself accountable for the message There comes a point where even the most teflon of media has to accept that things like rape and bomb threats against female Members of Parliament are not something it can claim to be unconcerned about. -- 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Aug 5 08:16:32 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 14:16:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] call for an open IGF - was Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <51FCBCB6.1070506@itforchange.net> References: <51FCA9D7.6090305@itforchange.net> <51FCBCB6.1070506@itforchange.net> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Aug 5 08:52:23 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 08:52:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] will happen - IGF Bali Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Shahzad Ahmad Date: Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:46 AM Subject: [bestbits] IGF Bali To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Just got this news from a friend that its now official that IGF Bali will be organized as planned. http://m.kominfo.go.id/berita/detail/4095/Siaran+Pers+No.+61-PIH-KOMINFO-8-2013+tentang+Indonesia+Bersama+Komunitas+Internet+Multi-Stakeholder+Global+Siap+Menjadi+Tuan+Rumah+IGF+2013+-+Bali Congratulations everyone, who have been working very hard behind the scenes to make it happen. More power to you all, Best wishes and regards Shahzad -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // 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 nne75 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 5 08:58:46 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 05:58:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] English version of Bali Press Release [With Google Translate] Message-ID: <1375707526.65790.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> (Jakarta, August 5, 2013). After a series of discussions and preparation of a long and comprehensive, Indonesia says ready to host the IGF 2013. This was confirmed on Monday, August 5, 2013 by the Indonesian Internet community as a dialogue with the Minister of Communications and Information Tifatul Sembiring at the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. A number of aspects of the event are required to prepare a global Internet forum in Bali, including the availability of funds administration, have been thoroughly prepared. "Today, I and ranks of the Ministry of Communication and Information will take whatever action is necessary to immediately Host Country Agreement signed by Indonesia and the UN, as the most important foundation of the implementation of the IGF 2013," said Tifatul Sembiring. This confirms the expectation that is also delivered by representatives of the IGF Secretariat of the United Nations, Chengetai Masango, who also attended the meeting via teleconference from Geneva. Tifatul also stated that the support of the community / organization in preparation for the Global Internet IGF 2013 is very positive and comforting. "To that end, the government of Indonesia thanked the Indonesian Internet community, regional and global so IGF 2013 in Bali could remain running as planned," said Tifatul. Also present representing the Internet community as a dialogue with the Minister of Communications and Information Technology and also confirms its support for the IGF in 2013 when the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, is: Domain Name Management Indonesia (PANDI), Association of Indonesian Internet Service Providers (APJII), ICT Watch, HIVOS, Indonesia Civil Society Network for Internet Governance (ID-CONFIG) and a number of community / regional organizations and global Internet. Global meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)-8 is planned to be held in Nusa Dua, Bali on 22-25 October 2013 and will be attended by approximately 2500 stakeholders (stakeholders) in the Internet from around the world to discuss Internet governance inclusive, transparent, accountable and egalitarian. Global conference IGF itself closely related to the Declaration of the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) No.. 555/2 of 2000 and the agreement of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) No.. 060/1/2005. One of the important principles as the thread is: the development of the information society in the context of poverty reduction can be aided by information and communication technologies that are based on strong partnerships between government, private sector, civil society organizations (civil society), and other international organizations. The UN Secretary General also, through the WSIS meeting in Tunis in 2005, has formed a task force Internet governance (Internet Governance) as an enabling condition (enabler) to ensure the participation of "multi-stakeholder", or multi-stakeholder can run active, open and inclusive. In the context of domestic interests, some things that can be learned from the implementation of the Global IGF 8th in Indonesia are as follows: 1. Strengthen Indonesia's position as an important axis of the global Internet. 2. Make Indonesia as a learning resource for the nation / country. 3. Indonesian community opportunities ranging global careers. 4. Unlock the potential of collaboration and knowledge transfer between key actors 5. Encourage dialogue Internet governance that is inclusive, transparent, accountable, egalitarian and diverse stakeholders involved 6. Stimulate growth and domestic Internet access market. Contact Person-IGF ID: - Gatot Dewabroto, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology: 0811898504 / gatot_b at postel.go.id / @ gsdewabroto - Semmy Pangerapan, APJII: 0817122764 / spangerapan at apjii.or.id / @ spangerapan - Donny BU, ICT Watch: 0818930932 / donnybu at ictwatch.com / @ donnybu   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 amedinagomez at gmail.com Mon Aug 5 09:01:41 2013 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 08:01:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] English version of Bali Press Release [With Google Translate] In-Reply-To: <1375707526.65790.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1375707526.65790.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: +1 Antonio Medina Gòmez 2013/8/5 Nnenna > (Jakarta, August 5, 2013). After a series of discussions and preparation > of a long and comprehensive, Indonesia says ready to host the IGF 2013. This > was confirmed on Monday, August 5, 2013 by the Indonesian Internet > community as a dialogue with the Minister of Communications and Information > Tifatul Sembiring at the Ministry of Communications and Information > Technology. A number of aspects of the event are required to prepare a > global Internet forum in Bali, including the availability of funds > administration, have been thoroughly prepared. > > "Today, I and ranks of the Ministry of Communication and Information > will take whatever action is necessary to immediately Host Country > Agreement signed by Indonesia and the UN, as the most important foundation > of the implementation of the IGF 2013," said Tifatul Sembiring. This > confirms the expectation that is also delivered by representatives of the > IGF Secretariat of the United Nations, Chengetai Masango, who also attended > the meeting via teleconference from Geneva. > Tifatul also stated that the support of the community / organization in > preparation for the Global Internet IGF 2013 is very positive and > comforting. "To that end, the government of Indonesia thanked the > Indonesian Internet community, regional and global so IGF 2013 in Bali > could remain running as planned," said Tifatul. > > Also present representing the Internet community as a dialogue with the > Minister of Communications and Information Technology and also confirms its > support for the IGF in 2013 when the Ministry of Communications and > Information Technology, is: Domain Name Management Indonesia (PANDI), > Association of Indonesian Internet Service Providers (APJII), ICT Watch, > HIVOS, Indonesia Civil Society Network for Internet Governance (ID-CONFIG) > and a number of community / regional organizations and global Internet. > Global meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)-8 is planned to be > held in Nusa Dua, Bali on 22-25 October 2013 and will be attended by > approximately 2500 stakeholders (stakeholders) in the Internet from around > the world to discuss Internet governance inclusive, transparent, > accountable and egalitarian. > > Global conference IGF itself closely related to the Declaration of the > Millennium Development Goal (MDG) No.. 555/2 of 2000 and the agreement of > the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) No.. 060/1/2005. One > of the important principles as the thread is: the development of the > information society in the context of poverty reduction can be aided by > information and communication technologies that are based on strong > partnerships between government, private sector, civil society > organizations (civil society), and other international organizations. The > UN Secretary General also, through the WSIS meeting in Tunis in 2005, has > formed a task force Internet governance (Internet Governance) as an > enabling condition (enabler) to ensure the participation of > "multi-stakeholder", or multi-stakeholder can run active, open and > inclusive. > In the context of domestic interests, some things that can be learned > from the implementation of the Global IGF 8th in Indonesia are as follows: > > 1. Strengthen Indonesia's position as an important axis of the global > Internet. > 2. Make Indonesia as a learning resource for the nation / country. > 3. Indonesian community opportunities ranging global careers. > 4. Unlock the potential of collaboration and knowledge transfer > between key actors > 5. Encourage dialogue Internet governance that is inclusive, > transparent, accountable, egalitarian and diverse stakeholders involved > 6. Stimulate growth and domestic Internet access market. > > Contact Person-IGF ID: > - Gatot Dewabroto, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology: > 0811898504 / gatot_b at postel.go.id / @ gsdewabroto > - Semmy Pangerapan, APJII: 0817122764 / spangerapan at apjii.or.id / @ > spangerapan > - Donny BU, ICT Watch: 0818930932 / donnybu at ictwatch.com / @ donnybu > > > > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bavouc at gmail.com Mon Aug 5 09:02:37 2013 From: bavouc at gmail.com (Martial Bavou[Private Business Account]) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 14:02:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] English version of Bali Press Release [With Google Translate] In-Reply-To: <1375707526.65790.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1375707526.65790.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Good news. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Nnenna Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 1:59 PM To: IG Caucus Subject: [governance] English version of Bali Press Release [With Google Translate] (Jakarta, August 5, 2013). After a series of discussions and preparation of a long and comprehensive, Indonesia says ready to host the IGF 2013. This was confirmed on Monday, August 5, 2013 by the Indonesian Internet community as a dialogue with the Minister of Communications and Information Tifatul Sembiring at the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. A number of aspects of the event are required to prepare a global Internet forum in Bali, including the availability of funds administration, have been thoroughly prepared. "Today, I and ranks of the Ministry of Communication and Information will take whatever action is necessary to immediately Host Country Agreement signed by Indonesia and the UN, as the most important foundation of the implementation of the IGF 2013," said Tifatul Sembiring. This confirms the expectation that is also delivered by representatives of the IGF Secretariat of the United Nations, Chengetai Masango, who also attended the meeting via teleconference from Geneva. Tifatul also stated that the support of the community / organization in preparation for the Global Internet IGF 2013 is very positive and comforting. "To that end, the government of Indonesia thanked the Indonesian Internet community, regional and global so IGF 2013 in Bali could remain running as planned," said Tifatul. Also present representing the Internet community as a dialogue with the Minister of Communications and Information Technology and also confirms its support for the IGF in 2013 when the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, is: Domain Name Management Indonesia (PANDI), Association of Indonesian Internet Service Providers (APJII), ICT Watch, HIVOS, Indonesia Civil Society Network for Internet Governance (ID-CONFIG) and a number of community / regional organizations and global Internet. Global meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)-8 is planned to be held in Nusa Dua, Bali on 22-25 October 2013 and will be attended by approximately 2500 stakeholders (stakeholders) in the Internet from around the world to discuss Internet governance inclusive, transparent, accountable and egalitarian. Global conference IGF itself closely related to the Declaration of the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) No.. 555/2 of 2000 and the agreement of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) No.. 060/1/2005. One of the important principles as the thread is: the development of the information society in the context of poverty reduction can be aided by information and communication technologies that are based on strong partnerships between government, private sector, civil society organizations (civil society), and other international organizations. The UN Secretary General also, through the WSIS meeting in Tunis in 2005, has formed a task force Internet governance (Internet Governance) as an enabling condition (enabler) to ensure the participation of "multi-stakeholder", or multi-stakeholder can run active, open and inclusive. In the context of domestic interests, some things that can be learned from the implementation of the Global IGF 8th in Indonesia are as follows: 1. Strengthen Indonesia's position as an important axis of the global Internet. 2. Make Indonesia as a learning resource for the nation / country. 3. Indonesian community opportunities ranging global careers. 4. Unlock the potential of collaboration and knowledge transfer between key actors 5. Encourage dialogue Internet governance that is inclusive, transparent, accountable, egalitarian and diverse stakeholders involved 6. Stimulate growth and domestic Internet access market. Contact Person-IGF ID: - Gatot Dewabroto, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology: 0811898504 / gatot_b at postel.go.id / @ gsdewabroto - Semmy Pangerapan, APJII: 0817122764 / spangerapan at apjii.or.id / @ spangerapan - Donny BU, ICT Watch: 0818930932 / donnybu at ictwatch.com / @ donnybu 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 nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr Mon Aug 5 09:20:29 2013 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 14:20:29 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] English version of Bali Press Release [With Google Translate] In-Reply-To: <1375707526.65790.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1375707526.65790.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1375708829.67672.YahooMailNeo@web133202.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Thank you for this good news Nnenna. Cordialement   NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général Skype : jpnkurunziz Facebook :  http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza Tel : +257 79 981459 ________________________________ De : Nnenna À : IG Caucus Envoyé le : Lundi 5 août 2013 15h58 Objet : [governance] English version of Bali Press Release [With Google Translate] (Jakarta, August 5, 2013). After a series of discussions and preparation of a long and comprehensive, Indonesia says ready to host the IGF 2013. This was confirmed on Monday, August 5, 2013 by the Indonesian Internet community as a dialogue with the Minister of Communications and Information Tifatul Sembiring at the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. A number of aspects of the event are required to prepare a global Internet forum in Bali, including the availability of funds administration, have been thoroughly prepared. "Today, I and ranks of the Ministry of Communication and Information will take whatever action is necessary to immediately Host Country Agreement signed by Indonesia and the UN, as the most important foundation of the implementation of the IGF 2013," said Tifatul Sembiring. This confirms the expectation that is also delivered by representatives of the IGF Secretariat of the United Nations, Chengetai Masango, who also attended the meeting via teleconference from Geneva. Tifatul also stated that the support of the community / organization in preparation for the Global Internet IGF 2013 is very positive and comforting. "To that end, the government of Indonesia thanked the Indonesian Internet community, regional and global so IGF 2013 in Bali could remain running as planned," said Tifatul. Also present representing the Internet community as a dialogue with the Minister of Communications and Information Technology and also confirms its support for the IGF in 2013 when the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, is: Domain Name Management Indonesia (PANDI), Association of Indonesian Internet Service Providers (APJII), ICT Watch, HIVOS, Indonesia Civil Society Network for Internet Governance (ID-CONFIG) and a number of community / regional organizations and global Internet. Global meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)-8 is planned to be held in Nusa Dua, Bali on 22-25 October 2013 and will be attended by approximately 2500 stakeholders (stakeholders) in the Internet from around the world to discuss Internet governance inclusive, transparent, accountable and egalitarian. Global conference IGF itself closely related to the Declaration of the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) No.. 555/2 of 2000 and the agreement of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) No.. 060/1/2005. One of the important principles as the thread is: the development of the information society in the context of poverty reduction can be aided by information and communication technologies that are based on strong partnerships between government, private sector, civil society organizations (civil society), and other international organizations. The UN Secretary General also, through the WSIS meeting in Tunis in 2005, has formed a task force Internet governance (Internet Governance) as an enabling condition (enabler) to ensure the participation of "multi-stakeholder", or multi-stakeholder can run active, open and inclusive. In the context of domestic interests, some things that can be learned from the implementation of the Global IGF 8th in Indonesia are as follows: 1. Strengthen Indonesia's position as an important axis of the global Internet. 2. Make Indonesia as a learning resource for the nation / country. 3. Indonesian community opportunities ranging global careers. 4. Unlock the potential of collaboration and knowledge transfer between key actors 5. Encourage dialogue Internet governance that is inclusive, transparent, accountable, egalitarian and diverse stakeholders involved 6. Stimulate growth and domestic Internet access market. Contact Person-IGF ID: - Gatot Dewabroto, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology: 0811898504 / gatot_b at postel.go.id / @ gsdewabroto - Semmy Pangerapan, APJII: 0817122764 / spangerapan at apjii.or.id / @ spangerapan - Donny BU, ICT Watch: 0818930932 / donnybu at ictwatch.com / @ donnybu   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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Mon Aug 5 10:09:30 2013 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 23:09:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] will happen - IGF Bali In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, I got same confirmation from CS person working on IGF organizing there, so great to know! Izumi 2013年8月5日月曜日 Carolina Rossini carolina.rossini at gmail.com: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Shahzad Ahmad 'shahzad at bytesforall.pk');>> > Date: Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:46 AM > Subject: [bestbits] IGF Bali > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net');> > > > Just got this news from a friend that its now official that IGF Bali will > be organized as planned. > > > http://m.kominfo.go.id/berita/detail/4095/Siaran+Pers+No.+61-PIH-KOMINFO-8-2013+tentang+Indonesia+Bersama+Komunitas+Internet+Multi-Stakeholder+Global+Siap+Menjadi+Tuan+Rumah+IGF+2013+-+Bali > > Congratulations everyone, who have been working very hard behind the > scenes to make it happen. > > More power to you all, > > Best wishes and regards > Shahzad > > > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* > Open Technology Institute > *New America Foundation* > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com 'carolina.rossini at gmail.com');>* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Mon Aug 5 10:13:45 2013 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 23:13:45 +0900 Subject: [governance] update about IGF in Indonesia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Just received this from a CS friend there. Izumi -------- Dear Izumi, Just want to update you about IGF in Indonesia. It seems that support from MAG members and UN have made it possible to hold the 8th IGF in Bali, Indonesia. Here is the official release in Indonesia ICT Ministry's website, but it's in Bahasa Indonesia ---> http://t.co/u7ZCZEueKy The main point of this release is that Tifatul Sembiring (ICT Minister) stated that Indonesia is ready to become host country of the 8th IGF. Moreover, he will ensure that the Host Country Agreement will soon be signed between Indonesia and UN. --------- -- >> 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 vanda at uol.com.br Mon Aug 5 10:15:59 2013 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 11:15:59 -0300 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] will happen - IGF Bali In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Great news! Very important not to have IGF interrupted! Best to all Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 From: Izumi AIZU Date: segunda-feira, 5 de agosto de 2013 11:09 To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , Carolina Rossini Cc: "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" , "marcocivil at listas.ensol.org.br" Subject: Re: [IRPCoalition] [governance] will happen - IGF Bali Yes, I got same confirmation from CS person working on IGF organizing there, so great to know! Izumi 2013年8月5日月曜日 Carolina Rossini carolina.rossini at gmail.com: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Shahzad Ahmad 'shahzad at bytesforall.pk');> > > Date: Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:46 AM > Subject: [bestbits] IGF Bali > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net 'bestbits at lists.bestbits.net');> > > > Just got this news from a friend that its now official that IGF Bali will be > organized as planned. > > http://m.kominfo.go.id/berita/detail/4095/Siaran+Pers+No.+61-PIH-KOMINFO-8-201 > 3+tentang+Indonesia+Bersama+Komunitas+Internet+Multi-Stakeholder+Global+Siap+M > enjadi+Tuan+Rumah+IGF+2013+-+Bali > > Congratulations everyone, who have been working very hard behind the scenes to > make it happen. > > More power to you all, > > Best wishes and regards > Shahzad > > > > > -- > Carolina Rossini > Project Director, Latin America Resource Center > Open Technology Institute > New America Foundation > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com 'carolina.rossini at gmail.com');> * > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 5 10:22:12 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 10:22:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] will happen - IGF Bali In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Carolina, Izumi, everyone. Glad that everything worked out in the end. Deirdre On 5 August 2013 08:52, Carolina Rossini wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Shahzad Ahmad > Date: Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:46 AM > Subject: [bestbits] IGF Bali > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > > Just got this news from a friend that its now official that IGF Bali will > be organized as planned. > > > http://m.kominfo.go.id/berita/detail/4095/Siaran+Pers+No.+61-PIH-KOMINFO-8-2013+tentang+Indonesia+Bersama+Komunitas+Internet+Multi-Stakeholder+Global+Siap+Menjadi+Tuan+Rumah+IGF+2013+-+Bali > > Congratulations everyone, who have been working very hard behind the > scenes to make it happen. > > More power to you all, > > Best wishes and regards > Shahzad > > > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* > Open Technology Institute > *New America Foundation* > // > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 hakik at hakik.org Mon Aug 5 11:57:01 2013 From: hakik at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 16:57:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] English version of Bali Press Release [With Google Translate] In-Reply-To: References: <1375707526.65790.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Great news indeed! Hakikur At 14:02 05-08-2013, Martial Bavou[Private Business Account] wrote: >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="----=_NextPart_000_010A_01CE91E4.74A674C0" >Content-Language: en-us > >Good news > >From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Nnenna >Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 1:59 PM >To: IG Caucus >Subject: [governance] English version of Bali >Press Release [With Google Translate] > >(Jakarta, August 5, 2013). After a series of >discussions and preparation of a long and >comprehensive, Indonesia says ready to host the >IGF 2013. This was confirmed on Monday, August >5, 2013 by the Indonesian Internet community as >a dialogue with the Minister of Communications >and Information Tifatul Sembiring at the >Ministry of Communications and Information >Technology. A number of aspects of the event are >required to prepare a global Internet forum in >Bali, including the availability of funds >administration, have been thoroughly prepared. > >"Today, I and ranks of the Ministry of >Communication and Information will take whatever >action is necessary to immediately Host Country >Agreement signed by Indonesia and the UN, as the >most important foundation of the implementation >of the IGF 2013," said Tifatul Sembiring. This >confirms the expectation that is also delivered >by representatives of the IGF Secretariat of the >United Nations, Chengetai Masango, who also >attended the meeting via teleconference from Geneva. >Tifatul also stated that the support of the >community / organization in preparation for the >Global Internet IGF 2013 is very positive and >comforting. "To that end, the government of >Indonesia thanked the Indonesian Internet >community, regional and global so IGF 2013 in >Bali could remain running as planned," said Tifatul. > >Also present representing the Internet community >as a dialogue with the Minister of >Communications and Information Technology and >also confirms its support for the IGF in 2013 >when the Ministry of Communications and >Information Technology, is: Domain Name >Management Indonesia (PANDI), Association of >Indonesian Internet Service Providers (APJII), >ICT Watch, HIVOS, Indonesia Civil Society >Network for Internet Governance (ID-CONFIG) and >a number of community / regional organizations and global Internet. >Global meeting of the Internet Governance Forum >(IGF)-8 is planned to be held in Nusa Dua, Bali >on 22-25 October 2013 and will be attended by >approximately 2500 stakeholders (stakeholders) >in the Internet from around the world to discuss >Internet governance inclusive, transparent, accountable and egalitarian. > >Global conference IGF itself closely related to >the Declaration of the Millennium Development >Goal (MDG) No.. 555/2 of 2000 and the agreement >of the World Summit on the Information Society >(WSIS) No.. 060/1/2005. One of the important >principles as the thread is: the development of >the information society in the context of >poverty reduction can be aided by information >and communication technologies that are based on >strong partnerships between government, private >sector, civil society organizations (civil >society), and other international organizations. >The UN Secretary General also, through the WSIS >meeting in Tunis in 2005, has formed a task >force Internet governance (Internet Governance) >as an enabling condition (enabler) to ensure the >participation of "multi-stakeholder", or >multi-stakeholder can run active, open and inclusive. >In the context of domestic interests, some >things that can be learned from the >implementation of the Global IGF 8th in Indonesia are as follows: > * Strengthen Indonesia's position as an > important axis of the global Internet. > * Make Indonesia as a learning resource for the nation / country. > * Indonesian community opportunities ranging global careers. > * Unlock the potential of collaboration and > knowledge transfer between key actors > * Encourage dialogue Internet governance > that is inclusive, transparent, accountable, > egalitarian and diverse stakeholders involved > * Stimulate growth and domestic Internet access market. >Contact Person-IGF ID: > >- Gatot Dewabroto, Ministry of Communications >and Information Technology: 0811898504 / >gatot_b at postel.go.id / @ gsdewabroto > >- Semmy Pangerapan, APJII: 0817122764 / >spangerapan at apjii.or.id / @ spangerapan > >- Donny BU, ICT Watch: 0818930932 / >donnybu at ictwatch.com / @ donnybu > > > >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 >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Aug 5 12:01:27 2013 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 18:01:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet Hall of Fame In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51FFCC57.8080402@hellmonds.eu> +1 Well done! Well reserved! -- Peter On 05/08/2013 11:20, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > While I think it has been mentioned on this list, I just wanted to thank those of the IGC who were recognized this past weekend for the induction into the Internet Hall of Fame. > > Karen Banks http://www.internethalloffame.org/inductees/karen-banks > Anriette Esterhuysen http://www.internethalloffame.org/inductees/anriette-esterhuysen > George Sadowsky http://www.internethalloffame.org/inductees/george-sadowsky > > > There may be others inductees who lurk on the IGC list, but these three I am certain of. If other inductees are indeed on the list, I hope someone will mention them. > > I wanted to make sure that in the midst of all else, we recognize their contributions to the interconnectivity of people on the Internet. > > And if this was already covered but I missed it because of some email problems I am having (seems to be filtering almost all governance list email) I apologize, but some things seem worth being repeated. > > avri > > -- Peter H. Hellmonds -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Aug 5 12:02:13 2013 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 18:02:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet Hall of Fame In-Reply-To: <51FFCC57.8080402@hellmonds.eu> References: <51FFCC57.8080402@hellmonds.eu> Message-ID: <51FFCC85.9050608@hellmonds.eu> Sorry for spamming. Correction: Well done, well deserved! -- Peter On 05/08/2013 18:01, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > +1 > > Well done! Well reserved! > > -- Peter > > On 05/08/2013 11:20, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> While I think it has been mentioned on this list, I just wanted to thank those of the IGC who were recognized this past weekend for the induction into the Internet Hall of Fame. >> >> Karen Banks http://www.internethalloffame.org/inductees/karen-banks >> Anriette Esterhuysen http://www.internethalloffame.org/inductees/anriette-esterhuysen >> George Sadowsky http://www.internethalloffame.org/inductees/george-sadowsky >> >> >> There may be others inductees who lurk on the IGC list, but these three I am certain of. If other inductees are indeed on the list, I hope someone will mention them. >> >> I wanted to make sure that in the midst of all else, we recognize their contributions to the interconnectivity of people on the Internet. >> >> And if this was already covered but I missed it because of some email problems I am having (seems to be filtering almost all governance list email) I apologize, but some things seem worth being repeated. >> >> avri >> >> > -- Peter H. Hellmonds -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 5 12:12:19 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 12:12:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] Internet Hall of Fame In-Reply-To: <51FFCC85.9050608@hellmonds.eu> References: <51FFCC57.8080402@hellmonds.eu> <51FFCC85.9050608@hellmonds.eu> Message-ID: Congratulations to all the inductees. Deirdre On 5 August 2013 12:02, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > Sorry for spamming. > > Correction: > > Well done, well deserved! > > -- Peter > > On 05/08/2013 18:01, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > > +1 > > > > Well done! Well reserved! > > > > -- Peter > > > > On 05/08/2013 11:20, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> While I think it has been mentioned on this list, I just wanted to > thank those of the IGC who were recognized this past weekend for the > induction into the Internet Hall of Fame. > >> > >> Karen Banks http://www.internethalloffame.org/inductees/karen-banks > >> Anriette Esterhuysen > http://www.internethalloffame.org/inductees/anriette-esterhuysen > >> George Sadowsky > http://www.internethalloffame.org/inductees/george-sadowsky > >> > >> > >> There may be others inductees who lurk on the IGC list, but these three > I am certain of. If other inductees are indeed on the list, I hope > someone will mention them. > >> > >> I wanted to make sure that in the midst of all else, we recognize their > contributions to the interconnectivity of people on the Internet. > >> > >> And if this was already covered but I missed it because of some email > problems I am having (seems to be filtering almost all governance list > email) I apologize, but some things seem worth being repeated. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> > > > > -- > Peter H. Hellmonds > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Aug 5 13:41:52 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 06:41:52 -1100 Subject: [governance] update about IGF in Indonesia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Izumi, this is fantastic news. Sent from my iPad On Aug 5, 2013, at 3:13 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Just received this from a CS friend there. > > Izumi > -------- > > Dear Izumi, > > Just want to update you about IGF in Indonesia. It seems that support from MAG members and UN have made it possible to hold the 8th IGF in Bali, Indonesia. Here is the official release in Indonesia ICT Ministry's website, but it's in Bahasa Indonesia ---> http://t.co/u7ZCZEueKy > > The main point of this release is that Tifatul Sembiring (ICT Minister) stated that Indonesia is ready to become host country of the 8th IGF. Moreover, he will ensure that the Host Country Agreement will soon be signed between Indonesia and UN. > --------- > > > > > -- > >> 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 rguerra at privaterra.org Mon Aug 5 13:53:32 2013 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 13:53:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] update about IGF in Indonesia In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <13B726A0-FFA2-4892-8F20-F3BAE9E2BBBB@privaterra.org> In my opinion, the next key tasks ahead are as follows: 1. For all stakeholders who support the IGF to coordinate, collaborate and work together to make the meeting in October a resounding success Ideas and suggestions on ways like minded members of the IGF can work together to promote the IGF and its diversity of opinions in a respectful and productive way given the time limitations we have - would be most welcome. 2. Securing a supportive host for the 2014 event. No my knowledge, no country has yet come forward publicly to host the 2014 IGF. Discussion on countries that might be in a position to host the meeting also would be welcome. regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2013-08-05, at 1:41 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Thanks Izumi, this is fantastic news. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Aug 5, 2013, at 3:13 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> Just received this from a CS friend there. >> >> Izumi >> -------- >> >> Dear Izumi, >> >> Just want to update you about IGF in Indonesia. It seems that support from MAG members and UN have made it possible to hold the 8th IGF in Bali, Indonesia. Here is the official release in Indonesia ICT Ministry's website, but it's in Bahasa Indonesia ---> http://t.co/u7ZCZEueKy >> >> The main point of this release is that Tifatul Sembiring (ICT Minister) stated that Indonesia is ready to become host country of the 8th IGF. Moreover, he will ensure that the Host Country Agreement will soon be signed between Indonesia and UN. >> --------- >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Izumi Aizu << >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> Japan >> www.anr.org >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Mon Aug 5 14:43:44 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 19:43:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] update about IGF in Indonesia In-Reply-To: <13B726A0-FFA2-4892-8F20-F3BAE9E2BBBB@privaterra.org> References: <13B726A0-FFA2-4892-8F20-F3BAE9E2BBBB@privaterra.org> Message-ID: +10cents to Robert's opinions. It is important to note "resounding success"............ ............."respectful and productive way"........ Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Aug 5, 2013 6:54 PM, "Robert Guerra" wrote: > In my opinion, the next key tasks ahead are as follows: > > 1. For all stakeholders who support the IGF to coordinate, collaborate and > work together to make the meeting in October a resounding success > > Ideas and suggestions on ways like minded members of the IGF can work > together to promote the IGF and its diversity of opinions in a respectful > and productive way given the time limitations we have - would be most > welcome. > > 2. Securing a supportive host for the 2014 event. > > No my knowledge, no country has yet come forward publicly to host the 2014 > IGF. Discussion on countries that might be in a position to host the > meeting also would be welcome. > > regards > > Robert > > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On 2013-08-05, at 1:41 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Thanks Izumi, this is fantastic news. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Aug 5, 2013, at 3:13 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > Just received this from a CS friend there. > > Izumi > -------- > > Dear Izumi, > > Just want to update you about IGF in Indonesia. It seems that support from > MAG members and UN have made it possible to hold the 8th IGF in Bali, > Indonesia. Here is the official release in Indonesia ICT Ministry's > website, but it's in Bahasa Indonesia ---> http://t.co/u7ZCZEueKy > > The main point of this release is that Tifatul Sembiring (ICT Minister) > stated that Indonesia is ready to become host country of the 8th IGF. > Moreover, he will ensure that the Host Country Agreement will soon be > signed between Indonesia and UN. > --------- > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani.asif at gmail.com Mon Aug 5 15:53:18 2013 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 00:53:18 +0500 Subject: [governance] will happen - IGF Bali In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: So Glad to hear this positive news. Wishing all the best. *Blog: Internet Governance and Policy* http://internetgovernancepolicy.blogspot.com ------- *Stay Connected* [image: Facebook] [image: Twitter] [image: Youtube] [image: LinkedIn] *Before you print - Think about the** **ENVIRONMENT* On 5 August 2013 19:22, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Thank you Carolina, Izumi, everyone. > Glad that everything worked out in the end. > Deirdre > > > On 5 August 2013 08:52, Carolina Rossini wrote: > >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Shahzad Ahmad >> Date: Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:46 AM >> Subject: [bestbits] IGF Bali >> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >> >> Just got this news from a friend that its now official that IGF Bali will >> be organized as planned. >> >> >> http://m.kominfo.go.id/berita/detail/4095/Siaran+Pers+No.+61-PIH-KOMINFO-8-2013+tentang+Indonesia+Bersama+Komunitas+Internet+Multi-Stakeholder+Global+Siap+Menjadi+Tuan+Rumah+IGF+2013+-+Bali >> >> Congratulations everyone, who have been working very hard behind the >> scenes to make it happen. >> >> More power to you all, >> >> Best wishes and regards >> Shahzad >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Carolina Rossini* >> *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* >> Open Technology Institute >> *New America Foundation* >> // >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Mon Aug 5 17:15:31 2013 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 14:15:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] will happen - IGF Bali In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1375737331.562.YahooMailNeo@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> This is Awesome news ! Thank you to everyone who made this happen ! Shaila Rao Mistry President StemInstitute We transform Ideals into action President Jayco MMI Input Technology With A Human Touch   ________________________________ From: Deirdre Williams To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Carolina Rossini Sent: Monday, August 5, 2013 7:22 AM Subject: Re: [governance] will happen - IGF Bali Thank you Carolina, Izumi, everyone. Glad that everything worked out in the end. Deirdre On 5 August 2013 08:52, Carolina Rossini wrote: > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: Shahzad Ahmad >Date: Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:46 AM >Subject: [bestbits] IGF Bali >To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > > >Just got this news from a friend that its now official that IGF Bali will be organized as planned.  > > >http://m.kominfo.go.id/berita/detail/4095/Siaran+Pers+No.+61-PIH-KOMINFO-8-2013+tentang+Indonesia+Bersama+Komunitas+Internet+Multi-Stakeholder+Global+Siap+Menjadi+Tuan+Rumah+IGF+2013+-+Bali > > >Congratulations everyone, who have been working very hard behind the scenes to make it happen.  > > >More power to you all, > > >Best wishes and regardsShahzad > > > > >-- > >Carolina Rossini  >Project Director, Latin America Resource Center >Open Technology Institute >New America Foundation >// >http://carolinarossini.net/ >+ 1 6176979389 >*carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >skype: carolrossini >@carolinarossini > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joy at apc.org Mon Aug 5 17:43:47 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 09:43:47 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [APC Forum] APC statement on Bradley Manning: Guilty verdict a new low for US human rights In-Reply-To: <76F4FF1B-6E02-49A3-B073-76DEBC53B18E@apc.org> References: <76F4FF1B-6E02-49A3-B073-76DEBC53B18E@apc.org> Message-ID: <52001C93.5030401@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Sharing FYI Apologies for any cross postings Kind regards Joy Liddicoat - -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [APC Forum] APC statement on Bradley Manning: Guilty verdict a new low for US human rights Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 16:45:20 -0400 From: Analia Lavin Reply-To: A general information sharing space for the APC Community. To: A general information sharing space for the APC Community. , apc.council at lists.apc.org [Apologies for cross-posting; please distribute widely] [Spanish below] APC statement on Bradley Manning: Guilty verdict a new low for US human rights http://www.laneta.apc.org/APC_ManningStatement.pdf NEW YORK, August 5 2013 - APC, as a network that has endeavoured to use information technology for justice for the last 23 years stands in solidarity with Bradley Manning, a whistleblower who has been convicted in a military court on Espionage Act violations after leaking intelligence information on the Iraq War, where he worked in information systems as an intelligence analyst.The US government's refusal to acknowledge that Bradley Manning is a legitimate whistleblower is evidence that whilethe US positions itself as a global defender of fundamental rights and freedoms, it is acting to limit them in its own backyard. APC believes that the ability to use the internet to make governments more accountable and transparent at global and national levels should be promoted and protected. Without whistleblowers such as Bradley Manning, the public cannot effectively fight against corruption, rights violations and the abuse of power by governments, armed forces and corporations. “That Bradley Manning is facing up to 136 years of jail is a gross violation of human rights and seems clearly aimed at intimidating other potential whistleblowers,” said Anriette Esterhuysen, APC Executive Director. While it has been considered a relief that he was acquitted of the most severe charge, “aiding the enemy,” which could have put him on a death row, Manning remains a political prisoner. Meanwhile, his leaked proof of torture and other serious human rights violations have been ignored by the United States government. Other developments, such as the charges of espionage filed against Edward Snowden and intentions of prosecution of Julian Assange by the US government, shows that prosecution of whistleblowers by the current US administration is unprecedented and as domestic and foreign policy must be reconsidered1. Criminalisation of whistleblowing compromises investigative journalism and violates international human rights standards of freedom of expression. Manning and other whistleblowers who disclose information on matters that have implications for human rights and other issues of public interest should be protected from legal prosecution. The APC Internet Rights Charter clearly states that: • The internet must be protected from all attempts to silence critical voices and to censor social and political content or debate. • Organisations, communities and individuals should be free to use the internet to organise and engage in protest. • All information, including scientific and social research, that is produced with the support of public funds should be freely available to all. • National and local government, and publicly-funded international organisations, must ensure transparency and accountability by placing publicly relevant information that they produce and manage in the public domain. APC, with other civil society organisations, believes that the US and other States are failing to ensure that laws and regulations related to communications surveillance adhere to international human rights and adequately protect the rights to privacy and freedom of expression, and invites individuals and organisations to endorse the International principles on the application of human rights to communications surveillance (https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org) APC, as part of the BestBits coalition, has also endorsed a documenting on the United States government targeting non-U.S. persons, and invites other organisations to join the call (http://bestbits.net/pclob/) More information: • Bradley Manning Acquitted of 'Aiding the Enemy', by Amnesty international • http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/bradley-manning-acquitted-of-aiding-the-enemy • Human Rights Watch Statement on Bradley Manning • http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/07/30/human-rights-watch-statement-bradley-manning • Bradley Manning: Victim of state oppression, by Article 19 • http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/37185/en/bradley-manning:-victim-of-state-oppression Declaración de APC sobre Bradley Manning: veredicto de culpabilidad, una nueva baja para los derechos humanos en Estados Unidos http://www.laneta.apc.org/APC_ManningStatement_ESpdf APC, una red que lucha por el uso de las tecnologías de información para la justicia desde hace 23 años, expresa su solidaridad con Bradley Manning, un informante condenado por un tribunal militar por violaciones a la Ley de espionaje luego de filtrar información de inteligencia sobre la guerra de Irak, donde trabajó en sistemas de información como analista de inteligencia. La negativa del gobierno de Estados Unidos a reconocer que Bradley Manning es un informante legítimo pone de manifiesto que mientras Estados Unidos se muestra como país defensor de los derechos y libertades fundamentales en el mundo, les pone límites en su propia casa. APC cree que la capacidad de usar internet para obligar a los gobiernos a ser más responsables y transparentes tanto en el nivel global como nacional debe ser promovida y protegida. Sin informantes como Bradley Manning, el público no podría luchar efectivamente contra la corrupción, las violaciones de derechos y los abusos de poder cometidos por gobiernos, fuerzas armadas y las grandes empresas. “Que Bradley Manning pueda enfrentar hasta 136 años de cárcel es una grave violación de derechos humanos que parece claramente dirigida a intimidar a otros/as potenciales informantes”, dijo Anriette Esterhuysen, directora ejecutiva de APC. Aunque se considere un alivio que haya sido absuelto de la acusación más grave de “colaborar con el enemigo”, que podría haberlo condenado a muerte, Manning sigue siendo un preso político. Mientras tanto, las pruebas de tortura y otras graves violaciones a los derechos humanos que Manning filtró permanecen ignoradas por el gobierno de Estados Unidos. Incidentes recientes, como la acusación de espionaje contra Edward Snowden y las intenciones del gobierno de Estados Unidos de juzgar a Julian Assange, muestran que la cantidad de procesos judiciales contra informantes abiertos por la actual administración de Estados Unidos no tiene precedentes y, como política interior y exterior, se hace necesaria una revisión. La criminalización de este tipo de actividades compromete al periodismo de investigación y viola las normas internacionales de derechos humanos referidas a la libertad de expresión. Manning y otros/as informantes que revelen información sobre asuntos que impliquen a los derechos humanos y otras cuestiones de interés público deben estar protegidos/as de persecución judicial. La Carta de APC sobre derechos en internet señala claramente que: • Internet debe estar protegida contra todo intento de silenciar las voces críticas y de censurar contenidos o debates sociales y políticos. • Las organizaciones, comunidades e individuos deben tener libertad para usar internet con el propósito de organizar manifestaciones y participar en ellas. • Toda la información que se produce con el apoyo de fondos públicos, incluso las investigaciones científicas y sociales, deben ser accesibles en forma gratuita para todos y todas. • Los gobiernos nacionales y locales, así como las organizaciones internacionales públicas, deben garantizar la transparencia y la responsabilidad poniendo a disposición la información relevante para la opinión pública. APC, junto con otras organizaciones de la sociedad civil, cree que Estados Unidos, al igual que otros estados, no están cumpliendo con su compromiso de garantizar que las leyes y regulaciones relacionadas con la vigilancia de las comunicaciones observen los acuerdos sobre derechos humanos internacionales y protejan adecuadamente los derechos a la privacidad y la libertad de expresión, e invita a individuos y organizaciones a suscribir los Principios internacionales sobre la aplicación de los derechos humanos a la vigilancia de las comunicaciones (https://es.necessaryandproportionate.org/text) APC, como parte de la coalición BestBits, también suscribe al documento sobre casos en que el gobierno de Estados Unidos tiene como objetivo a personas de otra nacionalidad e invita a otras organizaciones a unirse al llamado (http://bestbits.net/pclob/) Más información: • Bradley Manning absuelto de 'colaborar con el enemigo', por Amnesty international (en inglés) • http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/bradley-manning-acquitted-of-aiding-the-enemy • Comunicado de Human Rights Watch sobre Bradley Manning (en inglés) • http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/07/30/human-rights-watch-statement-bradley-manning • Bradley Manning: Víctima de la opresión del estado, por Article 19 • http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/37185/es/bradley-manning:-v%EF%BF%BD%EF%BF%BDctima-de-la-opresi%EF%BF%BD%EF%BF%BDn-del-estado ======================================= APC Forum is a meeting place for the APC community - people and institutions who are or have been involved in collaboration with APC, and share the APC vision - a world in which all people have easy, equal and affordable access to the creative potential of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to improve their lives and create more democratic and egalitarian societies. _______________________________________________ apc.forum mailing list apc.forum at lists.apc.org http://lists.apc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/apc.forum -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSAByTAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq6qcIAK4aXEMhoLtfvvaROh8/YXL/ KffrpeYnC15HMj8YzaEyZ9ced/umYjyCn94IWGLAMSlhRVLpTsTB5O3KBBPaYeds xRtGs9GKx+J8W2zeXNuamoj7nRQn7dDXG56H1N8jJq0bSwHWS2Kb0FxqmDjXDhye Lj9YiLMzNGujTst2ZpubiRalOVYTJF5qo9UzRYLDVpCewiYflsjI2+6cXR1GrwUB tGFCzTUd+d1eTeFNyroAyj5BMQKu9cIKTxJfojS0sc9qZqITUaFvmsrI+tKt6C5U ra9sxM3IWBCoz+LBKma7pzX7IeqVKz7Ku/aIoV2vLqC/Hux+s0XO6VgDxU3aU4s= =dNgW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg Mon Aug 5 18:14:24 2013 From: TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg (Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 06:14:24 +0800 Subject: [governance] will happen - IGF Bali In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Got the message at about the same time but I was on board a flight. Glad that my email announcing the cancellation of the IGF was exaggerated. Peng Hwa From: Kabani > Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >, Kabani > Date: Monday, August 5, 2013 11:53 PM To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >, Deirdre Williams > Cc: Carolina Rossini > Subject: Re: [governance] will happen - IGF Bali So Glad to hear this positive news. Wishing all the best. Blog: Internet Governance and Policy http://internetgovernancepolicy.blogspot.com ------- Stay Connected [http://www.creativeassociatesinternational.com/CAIIStaff/Dashboard_GIROAdminCAIIStaff/DashBoard_CAIIAdminDatabase/images/Social_Media/facebook.png] [http://www.creativeassociatesinternational.com/CAIIStaff/Dashboard_GIROAdminCAIIStaff/DashBoard_CAIIAdminDatabase/images/Social_Media/twitter.png] [http://www.creativeassociatesinternational.com/CAIIStaff/Dashboard_GIROAdminCAIIStaff/DashBoard_CAIIAdminDatabase/images/Social_Media/youtube.png] [http://www.creativeassociatesinternational.com/CAIIStaff/Dashboard_GIROAdminCAIIStaff/DashBoard_CAIIAdminDatabase/images/Social_Media/linkedin.png] Before you print - Think about the ENVIRONMENT On 5 August 2013 19:22, Deirdre Williams > wrote: Thank you Carolina, Izumi, everyone. Glad that everything worked out in the end. Deirdre On 5 August 2013 08:52, Carolina Rossini > wrote: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Shahzad Ahmad > Date: Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:46 AM Subject: [bestbits] IGF Bali To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Just got this news from a friend that its now official that IGF Bali will be organized as planned. http://m.kominfo.go.id/berita/detail/4095/Siaran+Pers+No.+61-PIH-KOMINFO-8-2013+tentang+Indonesia+Bersama+Komunitas+Internet+Multi-Stakeholder+Global+Siap+Menjadi+Tuan+Rumah+IGF+2013+-+Bali Congratulations everyone, who have been working very hard behind the scenes to make it happen. More power to you all, Best wishes and regards Shahzad -- Carolina Rossini Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ________________________________ CONFIDENTIALITY:This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and may be confidential and/or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please delete it,notify us and do not copy,use,or disclose its content. Towards A Sustainable Earth:Print Only When Necessary.Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani.asif at gmail.com Mon Aug 5 22:16:31 2013 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 07:16:31 +0500 Subject: [governance] Internet Hall of Fame In-Reply-To: References: <51FFCC57.8080402@hellmonds.eu> <51FFCC85.9050608@hellmonds.eu> Message-ID: +1 ------- *Stay Connected* [image: Facebook] [image: Twitter] [image: Youtube] [image: LinkedIn] * * *My Blog: Internet Governance and Policy* Stay on top - NEWS, Views and Event - Live Visit: http://internetgovernancepolicy.blogspot.com *Before you print - Think about the** **ENVIRONMENT* On 5 August 2013 21:12, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Congratulations to all the inductees. > Deirdre > > > On 5 August 2013 12:02, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > >> Sorry for spamming. >> >> Correction: >> >> Well done, well deserved! >> >> -- Peter >> >> On 05/08/2013 18:01, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: >> > +1 >> > >> > Well done! Well reserved! >> > >> > -- Peter >> > >> > On 05/08/2013 11:20, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> While I think it has been mentioned on this list, I just wanted to >> thank those of the IGC who were recognized this past weekend for the >> induction into the Internet Hall of Fame. >> >> >> >> Karen Banks http://www.internethalloffame.org/inductees/karen-banks >> >> Anriette Esterhuysen >> http://www.internethalloffame.org/inductees/anriette-esterhuysen >> >> George Sadowsky >> http://www.internethalloffame.org/inductees/george-sadowsky >> >> >> >> >> >> There may be others inductees who lurk on the IGC list, but these >> three I am certain of. If other inductees are indeed on the list, I hope >> someone will mention them. >> >> >> >> I wanted to make sure that in the midst of all else, we recognize >> their contributions to the interconnectivity of people on the Internet. >> >> >> >> And if this was already covered but I missed it because of some email >> problems I am having (seems to be filtering almost all governance list >> email) I apologize, but some things seem worth being repeated. >> >> >> >> avri >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> -- >> Peter H. Hellmonds >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From michelgauthierpresse at gmail.com Tue Aug 6 06:33:42 2013 From: michelgauthierpresse at gmail.com (michel Gauthier) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 12:33:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] call for an open IGF Message-ID: * * Could you please to be more specific about what you call an "OpenIGF"? You seem to plead for some brand new initiative? Thank you. MG * How can we practically reconcile "democracy" with the concept of a discussion with a secretariat and an advisory group? The authoritative entity of the IGF is the IGF itself, comprising four stakeholder parties, each with their own culture and governance, to serve the project of a people centered Information Society. This IGF by nature and essence is what each stakeholder class, dynamic coalition, enhanced cooperation, and person brings to it. This is why I prefer to speak of polycracy; a democracy for all the stakeholders in a concerting world based on multi-consensus rather than votes (ex. IETF: "We reject kings, presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code").* *Due to a thousand years of hysteresis, we continue to pay special attention to the UN and Govs. Remember that the WSIS is all about paying also as much attention to CS and Corporations, along with their own cultures and processes. The Civil Society and Private sector cultures and processes are NOT those of the UN and Govs. We do NOT have to mimic them; otherwise, it will be a disservice to all the stakeholders. We need to be ourselves. RFC 6852 shows how the contribution of the professional Internet and computer areas (Private sector) intends:* *- to harness these increasing opportunities today for all the peoples and for [] inclusive global communit|ies] that were unimaginable only a few years ago.* *- and to support their further development and progress (cf. Tunis Agenda). * *We have * *- (1) to do the same in the Civil Society area.* *- (2) to contribute with the other stakeholders and their conclusions (their responses to the Tunis agenda) to make it a joint multistakeholder's move.* *IMO, this should help the IGF to be a tool of real use and utility for everyone. It could then probably lead to:* *- (1) a yearly meeting that would be called in cooperation with its Secretariat, and advised by the MAG* *- (2) an open contribution "Wikigf", * *- (3) an "RFC4D editor" - comparable to the IETF RFC editor.* *- (4) and a common "nethiquette", as a "BCP4D" striving to respect the WSIS people centered architectonic esthetic, of which the first section would enlarge the meaning of the "Internet" word to the "Multitechnology/multilinguistic Digisphere International Networks". Among others things, such a nethiquette resulting from a de facto global multiconsensus would document and maintain how the Wikigf and RFC4D editor would function.* *This certainly is something that a few of us could manage to organize, as it only is a response and continuation of the work of everyone for years.* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 6 07:52:29 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 19:52:29 +0800 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <526620C5-6445-4A80-A4F4-BA1882935C19@gmail.com> References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> <51FB30D7.6000209@itforchange.net> <51FBD4EF.7090608@itforchange.net> <51FC9E84.1030700@itforchange.net> <26636C02-FBC1-4DA8-A554-21FE2306DCC3@ciroap.org> <526620C5-6445-4A80-A4F4-BA1882935C19@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5200E37D.9090600@ciroap.org> On 05/08/2013, at 2:02 AM, George Sadowsky wrote: > I note your sentence below: > >> The just-a-conference group have successfully "forced their view" on >> the others until now, by vetoing changes necessary for the IGF to >> fulfil the rest of its mandate. > > Could you clarify (a) what the rest of the IGF's mandate is, and > specifically where it is defined, (b) exactly who are members of what > you call the just-a-conference group is, (c) what the veto mechanism > is and how it has been use, and (d) based upon the previous responses, > how responsibility should be distributed for what you appear to > characterize as failure? It seems like I've been over this many times before, and I'm actually curious why you are asking these questions since you surely know the answers. So I'll keep it brief. (a) As you know, the rest of the IGF's mandate is in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, and amongst the paragraphs of the mandate that it is widely agreed have not been fulfilled (citations available, but I promised brevity) are the finalisation of recommendations (mandate paragraph 72(g)), interfacing with intergovernmental and other international organisations at an executive level (paragraph 72(c)) and assessing the embodiment of the WSIS principles in other Internet governance institutions (paragraph 72(i)). (b) Mainly ISOC (and other technical community), the ICC (and other private sector) and the USA (and other OECD countries). (c) From the very first questionnaire on the formation of the IGF, the agenda was shaped to exclude certain formats and procedures from consideration, with the object of denying the IGF the organisational capacity to meet the above paragraphs of its mandate. Aided by poor transparency of the MAG and a heavily top-down Secretariat, structural inertia very quickly set in so that further changes to the IGF suddenly became "impossible"; even those minor improvements independently recommended by the CSTD. The MAG is large, with an over-representation of technical community representatives, and is chaired by one of their own, with the result that it continues to be an effective instrument of the status quo. IGF critics are generally kept out of the inner circle - whilst I'm nobody important, I've never been selected for the MAG nor for any main session. This could just be coincidence, though it came to my attention recently that ISOC had specifically vetoed my nomination to speak at a regional Internet governance meeting, and Michael Gurstein, as you know, has been treated similarly. Moreover it wasn't beneath one individual to spread a false rumour that destroyed one of the dynamic coalitions that had been advocating for progressive changes to the IGF. (d) See (b) and (c) above. -- *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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nne75 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 6 11:22:29 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 08:22:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013 : Dates and venue Message-ID: <1375802549.89730.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Africa Internet Governance Forum 2013: Month: September Dates: 24 - 26 Venue: African Union headquarters City: Addis Ababa Country: Ethiopia Link: www.uneca.org/afigf Contacts: afigf at uneca.org faymakane at gmail.com nnenna75 at gmail.com   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 nne75 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 6 13:05:12 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 10:05:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013 : Dates and venue In-Reply-To: <1375802549.89730.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1375802549.89730.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1375808712.58896.YahooMailNeo@web120101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Hi people Between the time I sent that email and now.. so many things have "moved" So the Kenya hosting may still happen. N ________________________________ From: Nnenna To: IG Caucus Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 3:22 PM Subject: [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013 : Dates and venue Africa Internet Governance Forum 2013: Month: September Dates: 24 - 26 Venue: African Union headquarters City: Addis Ababa Country: Ethiopia Link: www.uneca.org/afigf Contacts: afigf at uneca.org faymakane at gmail.com nnenna75 at gmail.com   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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr Tue Aug 6 13:17:00 2013 From: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr (International Ivission) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 18:17:00 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013 : Dates and venue In-Reply-To: <1375802549.89730.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1375802549.89730.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1375809420.4832.YahooMailNeo@web171301.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Great Nnenna! Thankz for the info. best ___________________________________ Asama Abel Excel President and CEO I-VISSION INTERNATIONAL 3rd Floor immeuble Centre Médical de Bessengué  Box 13040 Blvd de la rep., Feu Rouge Bessengué Douala Cameroon E: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr / excelasama at yahoo.fr : info at ivission.net T (bur): +237 33 76 55 76  (Mob): 99 44 43 91 / 76 14 26 23Skype (office): i-vission (personal): excelasama Web: www.ivission.net  Web album: www.flickr.com/ivission Facebook: ivission.internationl Twitter: www.twitter.com/ivission  NWK: www.meetup.com/ivission ________________________________ De : Nnenna À : IG Caucus Envoyé le : Mardi 6 août 2013 17h22 Objet : [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013 : Dates and venue Africa Internet Governance Forum 2013: Month: September Dates: 24 - 26 Venue: African Union headquarters City: Addis Ababa Country: Ethiopia Link: www.uneca.org/afigf Contacts: afigf at uneca.org faymakane at gmail.com nnenna75 at gmail.com 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 6 14:20:42 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 20:20:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <5200E37D.9090600@ciroap.org> References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> <51FB30D7.6000209@itforchange.net> <51FBD4EF.7090608@itforchange.net> <51FC9E84.1030700@itforchange.net> <26636C02-FBC1-4DA8-A554-21FE2306DCC3@ciroap.org> <526620C5-6445-4A80-A4F4-BA1882935C19@gmail.com> <5200E37D.9090600@ciroap.org> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Tue Aug 6 14:47:56 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 21:47:56 +0300 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013 : Dates and venue In-Reply-To: <1375809420.4832.YahooMailNeo@web171301.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1375802549.89730.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1375809420.4832.YahooMailNeo@web171301.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: The African IGF is ON in Nairobi as planned unless the Kenyan government writes explicitly to United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) stating otherwise. All indications are that the Kenyan government is 100% committed to move the IG agenda forward. On 06/08/2013, International Ivission wrote: > Great Nnenna! > Thankz for the info. > > best > > ___________________________________ > Asama Abel Excel > President and CEO > I-VISSION INTERNATIONAL > 3rd Floor immeuble Centre Médical de Bessengué >  Box 13040 Blvd de la rep., Feu Rouge Bessengué > Douala Cameroon > E: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr / excelasama at yahoo.fr : info at ivission.net > T (bur): +237 33 76 55 76  (Mob): 99 44 43 91 / 76 14 26 23Skype (office): > i-vission (personal): excelasama Web: www.ivission.net > Web album: www.flickr.com/ivission > Facebook: ivission.internationl > Twitter: www.twitter.com/ivission > NWK: www.meetup.com/ivission > > > ________________________________ > De : Nnenna > À : IG Caucus > Envoyé le : Mardi 6 août 2013 17h22 > Objet : [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013 : Dates and venue > > > > > Africa Internet Governance Forum 2013: > Month: September > Dates: 24 - 26 > > Venue: African Union headquarters > City: Addis Ababa > Country: Ethiopia > Link: www.uneca.org/afigf > > Contacts: > afigf at uneca.org > faymakane at gmail.com > nnenna75 at gmail.com > > > > > > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva twitter.com/lordmwesh kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sanzhiet at gmail.com Tue Aug 6 15:34:45 2013 From: sanzhiet at gmail.com (Thierry Sanzhie Bokally) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 19:34:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013 : Dates and venue In-Reply-To: <1375802549.89730.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1375802549.89730.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Merci Nenna pour l'information. Le 6 août 2013 15:22, "Nnenna" a écrit : > > Africa Internet Governance Forum 2013: > Month: September > Dates: 24 - 26 > Venue: African Union headquarters > City: Addis Ababa > Country: Ethiopia > Link: www.uneca.org/afigf > Contacts: > afigf at uneca.org > faymakane at gmail.com > nnenna75 at gmail.com > > > > > > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 6 15:40:35 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 12:40:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013 : Dates and venue In-Reply-To: References: <1375802549.89730.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1375818035.33973.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Bonjour Thierry Comment vas?  Kenya finalement decide de nous adresser la parole après 2 mois de silence..  N Nnenna  Nwakanma |  Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG  |  Consultants Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax  224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com ________________________________ From: Thierry Sanzhie Bokally To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Nnenna Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 7:34 PM Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013 : Dates and venue Merci Nenna pour l'information. Le 6 août 2013 15:22, "Nnenna" a écrit : >Africa Internet Governance Forum 2013: >Month: September >Dates: 24 - 26 > >Venue: African Union headquarters >City: Addis Ababa >Country: Ethiopia >Link: www.uneca.org/afigf > >Contacts: >afigf at uneca.org >faymakane at gmail.com >nnenna75 at gmail.com > > > > >  > > >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 > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 6 20:52:34 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 06:22:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: <5200E37D.9090600@ciroap.org> References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> <51FB30D7.6000209@itforchange.net> <51FBD4EF.7090608@itforchange.net> <51FC9E84.1030700@itforchange.net> <26636C02-FBC1-4DA8-A554-21FE2306DCC3@ciroap.org> <526620C5-6445-4A80-A4F4-BA1882935C19@gmail.com> <5200E37D.9090600@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Some of this just doesn't compute. The agenda was shaped by consensus achieved by a rather diverse spectrum of organizations, not all of which have been known to move in lockstep with each other. In a shared decision making environment, hostility and a divisive agenda - not to mention a "they are all against me" complex like I see expressed below aren't exactly the best drivers for any kind of consensus building. --srs (iPad) On 06-Aug-2013, at 17:22, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 05/08/2013, at 2:02 AM, George Sadowsky wrote: > >> I note your sentence below: >> >>> The just-a-conference group have successfully "forced their view" on the others until now, by vetoing changes necessary for the IGF to fulfil the rest of its mandate. >> >> Could you clarify (a) what the rest of the IGF's mandate is, and specifically where it is defined, (b) exactly who are members of what you call the just-a-conference group is, (c) what the veto mechanism is and how it has been use, and (d) based upon the previous responses, how responsibility should be distributed for what you appear to characterize as failure? > > It seems like I've been over this many times before, and I'm actually curious why you are asking these questions since you surely know the answers. So I'll keep it brief. > > (a) As you know, the rest of the IGF's mandate is in paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, and amongst the paragraphs of the mandate that it is widely agreed have not been fulfilled (citations available, but I promised brevity) are the finalisation of recommendations (mandate paragraph 72(g)), interfacing with intergovernmental and other international organisations at an executive level (paragraph 72(c)) and assessing the embodiment of the WSIS principles in other Internet governance institutions (paragraph 72(i)). > > (b) Mainly ISOC (and other technical community), the ICC (and other private sector) and the USA (and other OECD countries). > > (c) From the very first questionnaire on the formation of the IGF, the agenda was shaped to exclude certain formats and procedures from consideration, with the object of denying the IGF the organisational capacity to meet the above paragraphs of its mandate. Aided by poor transparency of the MAG and a heavily top-down Secretariat, structural inertia very quickly set in so that further changes to the IGF suddenly became "impossible"; even those minor improvements independently recommended by the CSTD. The MAG is large, with an over-representation of technical community representatives, and is chaired by one of their own, with the result that it continues to be an effective instrument of the status quo. IGF critics are generally kept out of the inner circle - whilst I'm nobody important, I've never been selected for the MAG nor for any main session. This could just be coincidence, though it came to my attention recently that ISOC had specifically vetoed my nomination to speak at a regional Internet governance meeting, and Michael Gurstein, as you know, has been treated similarly. Moreover it wasn't beneath one individual to spread a false rumour that destroyed one of the dynamic coalitions that had been advocating for progressive changes to the IGF. > > (d) See (b) and (c) above. > > -- > 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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @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 gurstein at gmail.com Tue Aug 6 21:18:35 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 08:18:35 +0700 Subject: [governance] Russian Parliament Discussing "Digital Sovereignty" Message-ID: <076601ce930c$14b722c0$3e256840$@gmail.com> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/russia-seeking-snowdens-help-data-security-17501860 3.html (I've retitled this... 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 diegocanabarro at gmail.com Tue Aug 6 23:28:30 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 23:28:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk In-Reply-To: References: <00ec01ce91c0$8b5d9f00$a218dd00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: "the USA is far from being the sort of country North Korea, Iran or Saudi Arabia are" These days, it has been pretty hard to sustaion that argument without serious open flanks. Especially when one considers that the argument "the sort of ..." is naturally biased towards a very manichean ways of seeing things. Pursuing Sanchez makes Cuba evil. The same with Aaron Swarts or Assange is turned sacred with the bless (and bliss, and also the magic cape) of the rule of law. On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 6:04 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > It would be wrong to assume that any government at all doesn't wear > multiple hats - a security service, regulators, etc all acting with a > degree of independence can produce such contradictions > > Still, the USA is far from being the sort of country North Korea, Iran or > Saudi Arabia are. Some perspective might actually help before tarring all > governments with the same brush. Or before assuming that each and every > government entity moves in lockstep with the other. > > Lacking that perspective would perhaps show almost as much naïveté > > --srs (iPad) > > On 05-Aug-2013, at 15:15, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > > This position strikes me as either naïve or duplicitous in the extreme. > > > > Does one really believe that the USG and its "Internet Freedom" allies > were > > supporting Internet Freedom because they believed in a free Internet > (while > > they were using the Internet to build the capacity to undermine the > > fundamental human rights/freedoms of us all). > > > > Rather, it should I think, be evident that their real motivation was to > > ensure that there were no structures or mechanisms of whatever sort > > (governmental, inter-governmental, multi-stakeholder or whatever) that > > are/were in a position to protect those human rights and against the > > depredations which they were secretly constructing with which we all are > > being threatened. > > > > Do you really believe that the good folks who built and/or funded the > > current systems are going unbidden to build/fund out of the fineness of > > their principles the systems that you are suggesting would "protect us > from > > government intrusion and ... revise Internet architectures so as to > > eliminate the points of control that governments are so successful at > > exploiting". > > > > Our strength such as it is, comes from the possibility of creating and > > implementing democratic processes and mechanisms through which > governments > > and the increasingly global commons can be made transparent and held > > accountable and through which the protection of human rights and > fundamental > > freedoms can be protected and extended. > > > > Mike > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 3:06 PM > > To: IGC > > Subject: Re: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance > > System at Risk > > > > > > On 2 Aug 2013, at 18:35, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > > > > quoting: > > > >> Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk Friday > >> August 02, 2013 > >> > >> http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6926/135/ > > > >> the U.S. has ceded the moral high ground on the issue. > > > > > > Anyone who believes that any government anywhere occupies high ground is > > likely to be disappointed. Governments, while unfortunately still a > > necessary evil in this stage human moral development, are not to be > trusted > > but to be controlled and treated with suspicion by the people as much as > > possible. sure there are good people in all governments, but government > > themselves are not those good people, rather they are bureaucracies > > motivated by a complex of intractable and often negative forces. > > > > The high ground in Dubai was not an issue of which government should be > > trusted, it was the point of trying to remove all governments as much as > > possible. Governments cannot be trusted. History shows us that they > never > > could be and it is only blind faith that indicates someday they may be > > trustworthy. Of course when governments are the only voice we have for > > limiting government intrusion - as they are in the ITU, the topic can > get > > perverted. > > > > But to view the confirmation of what we all knew, that all governments > > monitor all people at all times as much as they can get away with, as an > > excuse to give other governments more oversight is a bit confused to my > > mind. > > > > I think all this has shown is that an Internet that allows any sort of > > government interference is likely to be used by those governments for > their > > own purposes, whether they are, surveillance in the service of perceived > > terror, pedophilia or intellectual 'property' threats , the silencing of > > dissidents or the persecution of minorities such as the gay population > and > > other cultural/nation/racial minorities. > > > > While we can and must fight on the policy front to defend ourselves > against > > the vulnerabilities created and already exploited by the current > Internet's > > control points, we must put more and more focus into creating > technologies > > and processes that protect us from government intrusion and must revise > > Internet architectures so as to eliminate the points of control that > > governments are so successful at exploiting. > > > > 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 > > -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Aug 6 23:39:24 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 09:09:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk In-Reply-To: References: <00ec01ce91c0$8b5d9f00$a218dd00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <802835F0-2031-4966-B93E-E301E5B88BE9@hserus.net> It is a matter of scale. There are governments where any and every citizen could expect to hear a midnight knock on the door to have his whole family shipped off to an undisclosed location. There are others where the rule of law exists, constitutional protections exist and such cases are aberrations. In all fairness, there are countries where Manning would have been tortured and shot without benefit of any sort of trial for what he did. --srs (iPad) On 07-Aug-2013, at 8:58, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > "the USA is far from being the sort of country North Korea, Iran or Saudi Arabia are" > > These days, it has been pretty hard to sustaion that argument without serious open flanks. Especially when one considers that the argument "the sort of ..." is naturally biased towards a very manichean ways of seeing things. Pursuing Sanchez makes Cuba evil. The same with Aaron Swarts or Assange is turned sacred with the bless (and bliss, and also the magic cape) of the rule of law. > > > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 6:04 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> It would be wrong to assume that any government at all doesn't wear multiple hats - a security service, regulators, etc all acting with a degree of independence can produce such contradictions >> >> Still, the USA is far from being the sort of country North Korea, Iran or Saudi Arabia are. Some perspective might actually help before tarring all governments with the same brush. Or before assuming that each and every government entity moves in lockstep with the other. >> >> Lacking that perspective would perhaps show almost as much naïveté >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 05-Aug-2013, at 15:15, "michael gurstein" wrote: >> >> > This position strikes me as either naïve or duplicitous in the extreme. >> > >> > Does one really believe that the USG and its "Internet Freedom" allies were >> > supporting Internet Freedom because they believed in a free Internet (while >> > they were using the Internet to build the capacity to undermine the >> > fundamental human rights/freedoms of us all). >> > >> > Rather, it should I think, be evident that their real motivation was to >> > ensure that there were no structures or mechanisms of whatever sort >> > (governmental, inter-governmental, multi-stakeholder or whatever) that >> > are/were in a position to protect those human rights and against the >> > depredations which they were secretly constructing with which we all are >> > being threatened. >> > >> > Do you really believe that the good folks who built and/or funded the >> > current systems are going unbidden to build/fund out of the fineness of >> > their principles the systems that you are suggesting would "protect us from >> > government intrusion and ... revise Internet architectures so as to >> > eliminate the points of control that governments are so successful at >> > exploiting". >> > >> > Our strength such as it is, comes from the possibility of creating and >> > implementing democratic processes and mechanisms through which governments >> > and the increasingly global commons can be made transparent and held >> > accountable and through which the protection of human rights and fundamental >> > freedoms can be protected and extended. >> > >> > Mike >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 3:06 PM >> > To: IGC >> > Subject: Re: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance >> > System at Risk >> > >> > >> > On 2 Aug 2013, at 18:35, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: >> > >> > quoting: >> > >> >> Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk Friday >> >> August 02, 2013 >> >> >> >> http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6926/135/ >> > >> >> the U.S. has ceded the moral high ground on the issue. >> > >> > >> > Anyone who believes that any government anywhere occupies high ground is >> > likely to be disappointed. Governments, while unfortunately still a >> > necessary evil in this stage human moral development, are not to be trusted >> > but to be controlled and treated with suspicion by the people as much as >> > possible. sure there are good people in all governments, but government >> > themselves are not those good people, rather they are bureaucracies >> > motivated by a complex of intractable and often negative forces. >> > >> > The high ground in Dubai was not an issue of which government should be >> > trusted, it was the point of trying to remove all governments as much as >> > possible. Governments cannot be trusted. History shows us that they never >> > could be and it is only blind faith that indicates someday they may be >> > trustworthy. Of course when governments are the only voice we have for >> > limiting government intrusion - as they are in the ITU, the topic can get >> > perverted. >> > >> > But to view the confirmation of what we all knew, that all governments >> > monitor all people at all times as much as they can get away with, as an >> > excuse to give other governments more oversight is a bit confused to my >> > mind. >> > >> > I think all this has shown is that an Internet that allows any sort of >> > government interference is likely to be used by those governments for their >> > own purposes, whether they are, surveillance in the service of perceived >> > terror, pedophilia or intellectual 'property' threats , the silencing of >> > dissidents or the persecution of minorities such as the gay population and >> > other cultural/nation/racial minorities. >> > >> > While we can and must fight on the policy front to defend ourselves against >> > the vulnerabilities created and already exploited by the current Internet's >> > control points, we must put more and more focus into creating technologies >> > and processes that protect us from government intrusion and must revise >> > Internet architectures so as to eliminate the points of control that >> > governments are so successful at exploiting. >> > >> > 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 >> > > > > -- > 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 nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr Wed Aug 7 01:25:10 2013 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 06:25:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013 : Dates and venue In-Reply-To: <1375802549.89730.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1375802549.89730.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1375853110.45377.YahooMailNeo@web133202.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Bonjour Nnenna, Merci pour cette mise à jour. Cordialement   NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général Skype : jpnkurunziz Facebook :  http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza Tel : +257 79 981459 ________________________________ De : Nnenna À : IG Caucus Envoyé le : Mardi 6 août 2013 18h22 Objet : [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013 : Dates and venue Africa Internet Governance Forum 2013: Month: September Dates: 24 - 26 Venue: African Union headquarters City: Addis Ababa Country: Ethiopia Link: www.uneca.org/afigf Contacts: afigf at uneca.org faymakane at gmail.com nnenna75 at gmail.com   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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr Wed Aug 7 01:34:10 2013 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 06:34:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013 : Dates and venue In-Reply-To: <1375818035.33973.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1375802549.89730.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1375818035.33973.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1375853650.12447.YahooMailNeo@web133201.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Bonjour, Les choses ont donc bougé rapidement. Et si le Kenya a réaffirmé sa volonté d'abriter ce forum, est ce que les dates sont celles du 24 au 26 Septembre 2013 ? Cordialement   NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général Skype : jpnkurunziz Facebook :  http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza Tel : +257 79 981459 ________________________________ De : Nnenna À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Thierry Sanzhie Bokally Envoyé le : Mardi 6 août 2013 22h40 Objet : Re: [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013 : Dates and venue Bonjour Thierry Comment vas?  Kenya finalement decide de nous adresser la parole après 2 mois de silence..  N Nnenna  Nwakanma |  Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG  |  Consultants Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax  224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com ________________________________ From: Thierry Sanzhie Bokally To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Nnenna Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 7:34 PM Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013 : Dates and venue Merci Nenna pour l'information. Le 6 août 2013 15:22, "Nnenna" a écrit : >Africa Internet Governance Forum 2013: >Month: September >Dates: 24 - 26 > >Venue: African Union headquarters >City: Addis Ababa >Country: Ethiopia >Link: www.uneca.org/afigf > >Contacts: >afigf at uneca.org >faymakane at gmail.com >nnenna75 at gmail.com > > > > >  > > >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 > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr Wed Aug 7 01:36:26 2013 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 06:36:26 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013 : Dates and venue In-Reply-To: <1375818035.33973.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1375802549.89730.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1375818035.33973.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1375853786.956.YahooMailNeo@web133205.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Sorry pour le mail précédent, Je constate en regardant sur le site que les dates du 11 au 13 Septembre sont en effet maintenues elles aussi.   NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général Skype : jpnkurunziz Facebook :  http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza Tel : +257 79 981459 ________________________________ De : Nnenna À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Thierry Sanzhie Bokally Envoyé le : Mardi 6 août 2013 22h40 Objet : Re: [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013 : Dates and venue Bonjour Thierry Comment vas?  Kenya finalement decide de nous adresser la parole après 2 mois de silence..  N Nnenna  Nwakanma |  Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG  |  Consultants Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax  224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com ________________________________ From: Thierry Sanzhie Bokally To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Nnenna Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2013 7:34 PM Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013 : Dates and venue Merci Nenna pour l'information. Le 6 août 2013 15:22, "Nnenna" a écrit : >Africa Internet Governance Forum 2013: >Month: September >Dates: 24 - 26 > >Venue: African Union headquarters >City: Addis Ababa >Country: Ethiopia >Link: www.uneca.org/afigf > >Contacts: >afigf at uneca.org >faymakane at gmail.com >nnenna75 at gmail.com > > > > >  > > >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 > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Aug 7 01:38:38 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 01:38:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk In-Reply-To: <802835F0-2031-4966-B93E-E301E5B88BE9@hserus.net> References: <00ec01ce91c0$8b5d9f00$a218dd00$@gmail.com> <802835F0-2031-4966-B93E-E301E5B88BE9@hserus.net> Message-ID: Using extreme examples gives rise to awkward situations such as this: it is now 1:30 am where I live and the government is actually inside my room, reading my mail. It is a matter of scale and maybe of technique. But not morally or legally different in any way whatsoever. Especially when that monitoring can lead me straight to places such as Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib! Regards On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > It is a matter of scale. There are governments where any and every > citizen could expect to hear a midnight knock on the door to have his whole > family shipped off to an undisclosed location. > > There are others where the rule of law exists, constitutional protections > exist and such cases are aberrations. > > In all fairness, there are countries where Manning would have been > tortured and shot without benefit of any sort of trial for what he did. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 07-Aug-2013, at 8:58, Diego Rafael Canabarro > wrote: > > "the USA is far from being the sort of country North Korea, Iran or Saudi > Arabia are" > > These days, it has been pretty hard to sustaion that argument without > serious open flanks. Especially when one considers that the argument "the > sort of ..." is naturally biased towards a very manichean ways of seeing > things. Pursuing Sanchez makes Cuba evil. The same with Aaron Swarts or > Assange is turned sacred with the bless (and bliss, and also the magic > cape) of the rule of law. > > > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 6:04 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> It would be wrong to assume that any government at all doesn't wear >> multiple hats - a security service, regulators, etc all acting with a >> degree of independence can produce such contradictions >> >> Still, the USA is far from being the sort of country North Korea, Iran or >> Saudi Arabia are. Some perspective might actually help before tarring all >> governments with the same brush. Or before assuming that each and every >> government entity moves in lockstep with the other. >> >> Lacking that perspective would perhaps show almost as much naïveté >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 05-Aug-2013, at 15:15, "michael gurstein" wrote: >> >> > This position strikes me as either naïve or duplicitous in the extreme. >> > >> > Does one really believe that the USG and its "Internet Freedom" allies >> were >> > supporting Internet Freedom because they believed in a free Internet >> (while >> > they were using the Internet to build the capacity to undermine the >> > fundamental human rights/freedoms of us all). >> > >> > Rather, it should I think, be evident that their real motivation was to >> > ensure that there were no structures or mechanisms of whatever sort >> > (governmental, inter-governmental, multi-stakeholder or whatever) that >> > are/were in a position to protect those human rights and against the >> > depredations which they were secretly constructing with which we all are >> > being threatened. >> > >> > Do you really believe that the good folks who built and/or funded the >> > current systems are going unbidden to build/fund out of the fineness of >> > their principles the systems that you are suggesting would "protect us >> from >> > government intrusion and ... revise Internet architectures so as to >> > eliminate the points of control that governments are so successful at >> > exploiting". >> > >> > Our strength such as it is, comes from the possibility of creating and >> > implementing democratic processes and mechanisms through which >> governments >> > and the increasingly global commons can be made transparent and held >> > accountable and through which the protection of human rights and >> fundamental >> > freedoms can be protected and extended. >> > >> > Mike >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 3:06 PM >> > To: IGC >> > Subject: Re: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance >> > System at Risk >> > >> > >> > On 2 Aug 2013, at 18:35, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: >> > >> > quoting: >> > >> >> Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk Friday >> >> August 02, 2013 >> >> >> >> http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6926/135/ >> > >> >> the U.S. has ceded the moral high ground on the issue. >> > >> > >> > Anyone who believes that any government anywhere occupies high ground is >> > likely to be disappointed. Governments, while unfortunately still a >> > necessary evil in this stage human moral development, are not to be >> trusted >> > but to be controlled and treated with suspicion by the people as much as >> > possible. sure there are good people in all governments, but government >> > themselves are not those good people, rather they are bureaucracies >> > motivated by a complex of intractable and often negative forces. >> > >> > The high ground in Dubai was not an issue of which government should be >> > trusted, it was the point of trying to remove all governments as much as >> > possible. Governments cannot be trusted. History shows us that they >> never >> > could be and it is only blind faith that indicates someday they may be >> > trustworthy. Of course when governments are the only voice we have for >> > limiting government intrusion - as they are in the ITU, the topic can >> get >> > perverted. >> > >> > But to view the confirmation of what we all knew, that all governments >> > monitor all people at all times as much as they can get away with, as an >> > excuse to give other governments more oversight is a bit confused to my >> > mind. >> > >> > I think all this has shown is that an Internet that allows any sort of >> > government interference is likely to be used by those governments for >> their >> > own purposes, whether they are, surveillance in the service of perceived >> > terror, pedophilia or intellectual 'property' threats , the silencing of >> > dissidents or the persecution of minorities such as the gay population >> and >> > other cultural/nation/racial minorities. >> > >> > While we can and must fight on the policy front to defend ourselves >> against >> > the vulnerabilities created and already exploited by the current >> Internet's >> > control points, we must put more and more focus into creating >> technologies >> > and processes that protect us from government intrusion and must revise >> > Internet architectures so as to eliminate the points of control that >> > governments are so successful at exploiting. >> > >> > 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 >> >> > > > -- > 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) > -- > > -- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Aug 7 05:19:49 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 10:19:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] Twitter In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 12:43:01 on Mon, 5 Aug 2013, Roland Perry writes >>So the medium does sometimes hold itself accountable for the message > >There comes a point where even the most teflon of media has to accept >that things like rape and bomb threats against female Members of >Parliament are not something it can claim to be unconcerned about. A man has now been arrested: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23599115 -- 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Aug 7 05:49:17 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 11:49:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] Update from today's MAG call In-Reply-To: References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> <51FB30D7.6000209@itforchange.net> <51FBD4EF.7090608@itforchange.net> <51FC9E84.1030700@itforchange.net> <26636C02-FBC1-4DA8-A554-21FE2306DCC3@ciroap.org> <526620C5-6445-4A80-A4F4-BA1882935C19@gmail.com> <5200E37D.9090600@ciroap.org> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Aug 7 06:06:10 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 12:06:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] call for an open IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chris.mulola at gmail.com Wed Aug 7 07:02:00 2013 From: chris.mulola at gmail.com (Chris Mulola) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 13:02:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013 : Dates and venue In-Reply-To: <1375853786.956.YahooMailNeo@web133205.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1375802549.89730.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1375818035.33973.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1375853786.956.YahooMailNeo@web133205.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I guess there is a need of dates and venue confirmation. Best regards, Chris Mulola, President ISOC Rwanda On 07 Aug 2013 7:36 AM, "Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA" wrote: > Sorry pour le mail précédent, > > Je constate en regardant sur le site que les dates du 11 au 13 Septembre > sont en effet maintenues elles aussi. > > > > > NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul > TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY > > > ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT > Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président > > > > > Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général > > > > > Skype : jpnkurunziz > > > Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza > Tel : +257 79 981459 > > ------------------------------ > *De :* Nnenna > *À :* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; > Thierry Sanzhie Bokally > *Envoyé le :* Mardi 6 août 2013 22h40 > *Objet :* Re: [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013 : Dates and venue > > Bonjour Thierry > > Comment vas? Kenya finalement decide de nous adresser la parole après 2 > mois de silence.. > > N > > > Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants > Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development > Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 > Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org > nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Thierry Sanzhie Bokally > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Nnenna > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 6, 2013 7:34 PM > *Subject:* Re: [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013 : Dates and venue > > Merci Nenna pour l'information. > Le 6 août 2013 15:22, "Nnenna" a écrit : > > > Africa Internet Governance Forum 2013: > Month: September > Dates: 24 - 26 > Venue: African Union headquarters > City: Addis Ababa > Country: Ethiopia > Link: www.uneca.org/afigf > Contacts: > afigf at uneca.org > faymakane at gmail.com > nnenna75 at gmail.com > > > > > > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 7 09:07:15 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 15:07:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk In-Reply-To: <802835F0-2031-4966-B93E-E301E5B88BE9@hserus.net> References: <00ec01ce91c0$8b5d9f00$a218dd00$@gmail.com> <802835F0-2031-4966-B93E-E301E5B88BE9@hserus.net> Message-ID: On 7 Aug 2013, at 05:39, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > there are countries where Manning would have been tortured Suresh, I really do respect the way you stand up to those who wish to make as much capital as possible from the sins of the US. You have more fortitude than I could ever muster. However, several thoughts occur to me: - when we need to resort to examples such as N. Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia or Uganda and ... to make excuses for our own sins and infractions, we have already sunk too low; - when the rule of law is perverted as it has been in the US on the FISA/Prism issue and by other governments on many other issues, we are reminded of the frailty of the rule of law that always serves the regime in power and the money behind their power and are reminded that often law serves the basest instincts of people (e.g. in the US our common fears can be used to excuse anything); - Manning was tortured to get a confession. It might not have been anything more that what the US has defined as extreme questioning, or whatever euphemism we use, by most humanitarian definitions of torture it was torture and we need to admit that we tortured and that this is not the first tim we used torture for our security mania and we MUST stop; Neither am I one to beatify Manning or Snowden, I think that while they did the world a favor I think they went about it quite badly and they did break vows taken voluntarily. I understand civil disobedience and the need sometimes to break a vow, but that does not excuse breaking a vow, it just explains it and mitigates it. I also strongly beleive in having good whistle blower protection and mechanism for revealing that things that need to be revealed. We mistreated Manning and I expect we would do the same to Snowden if we ever got our hands on him. So I understand his wanting to stay out of our reach, though I would have respected and supported him more had he stood his ground in his act of civil disobedience. And yes I say we, for as long as I travel on a US passport and am honored to be a civil society type who occasionally serves on US delegations, I am responsible for what the US government does. As for Internet governance being at risk, I don't buy it. Yes it again shows us why governments can never be more than equal partners in the participatory democracy that we call the multistakeholder model. But it again reinforces the need for all of us to be involved in Ig, and for us all to fight for transparency and accountability without vilifying the other. Or at least that is the lesson I take from 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 diegocanabarro at gmail.com Wed Aug 7 09:16:51 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 09:16:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk In-Reply-To: References: <00ec01ce91c0$8b5d9f00$a218dd00$@gmail.com> <802835F0-2031-4966-B93E-E301E5B88BE9@hserus.net> Message-ID: Totally agree, Avri. But with all due respect, there's no "trying to gain much capital on the US sins." What some people on the list try to do is to bring back to the list some sort of relativism to some forms of salvationist speech. Your words, nonetheless, were brilliant. Especially because you recalled the fact that even torture can be given a different name and different contours by state officials. On Aug 7, 2013 9:08 AM, "Avri Doria" wrote: > > On 7 Aug 2013, at 05:39, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > there are countries where Manning would have been tortured > > > Suresh, I really do respect the way you stand up to those who wish to make > as much capital as possible from the sins of the US. You have more > fortitude than I could ever muster. > > However, several thoughts occur to me: > > - when we need to resort to examples such as N. Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, > and Russia or Uganda and ... to make excuses for our own sins and > infractions, we have already sunk too low; > > - when the rule of law is perverted as it has been in the US on the > FISA/Prism issue and by other governments on many other issues, we are > reminded of the frailty of the rule of law that always serves the regime in > power and the money behind their power and are reminded that often law > serves the basest instincts of people (e.g. in the US our common fears can > be used to excuse anything); > > - Manning was tortured to get a confession. It might not have been > anything more that what the US has defined as extreme questioning, or > whatever euphemism we use, by most humanitarian definitions of torture it > was torture and we need to admit that we tortured and that this is not the > first tim we used torture for our security mania and we MUST stop; > > Neither am I one to beatify Manning or Snowden, I think that while they > did the world a favor I think they went about it quite badly and they did > break vows taken voluntarily. I understand civil disobedience and the need > sometimes to break a vow, but that does not excuse breaking a vow, it just > explains it and mitigates it. I also strongly beleive in having good > whistle blower protection and mechanism for revealing that things that need > to be revealed. We mistreated Manning and I expect we would do the same to > Snowden if we ever got our hands on him. So I understand his wanting to > stay out of our reach, though I would have respected and supported him more > had he stood his ground in his act of civil disobedience. > > And yes I say we, for as long as I travel on a US passport and am honored > to be a civil society type who occasionally serves on US delegations, I am > responsible for what the US government does. > > As for Internet governance being at risk, I don't buy it. Yes it again > shows us why governments can never be more than equal partners in the > participatory democracy that we call the multistakeholder model. But it > again reinforces the need for all of us to be involved in Ig, and for us > all to fight for transparency and accountability without vilifying the > other. Or at least that is the lesson I take from it. > > 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Aug 7 09:17:22 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 18:47:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk In-Reply-To: References: <00ec01ce91c0$8b5d9f00$a218dd00$@gmail.com> <802835F0-2031-4966-B93E-E301E5B88BE9@hserus.net> Message-ID: <5C58758D-625E-48A6-9D49-FA363DF2CDAC@hserus.net> I have actually not defended them here and I find myself uncomfortable with what is being done - though this is merely high technology doing something that has been done for years and years far better (I mean if you read a frederick forsyth or tom clancy spy novel from the 60s..80s you'll read all about some of the names that are now hitting the popular press - possibly with slightly more accuracy than the average press article too) I'm just trying to inject a sense of perspective here. And yes, your last paragraph is 100% correct. --srs (iPad) On 07-Aug-2013, at 18:37, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 7 Aug 2013, at 05:39, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> there are countries where Manning would have been tortured > > > Suresh, I really do respect the way you stand up to those who wish to make as much capital as possible from the sins of the US. You have more fortitude than I could ever muster. > > However, several thoughts occur to me: > > - when we need to resort to examples such as N. Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia or Uganda and ... to make excuses for our own sins and infractions, we have already sunk too low; > > - when the rule of law is perverted as it has been in the US on the FISA/Prism issue and by other governments on many other issues, we are reminded of the frailty of the rule of law that always serves the regime in power and the money behind their power and are reminded that often law serves the basest instincts of people (e.g. in the US our common fears can be used to excuse anything); > > - Manning was tortured to get a confession. It might not have been anything more that what the US has defined as extreme questioning, or whatever euphemism we use, by most humanitarian definitions of torture it was torture and we need to admit that we tortured and that this is not the first tim we used torture for our security mania and we MUST stop; > > Neither am I one to beatify Manning or Snowden, I think that while they did the world a favor I think they went about it quite badly and they did break vows taken voluntarily. I understand civil disobedience and the need sometimes to break a vow, but that does not excuse breaking a vow, it just explains it and mitigates it. I also strongly beleive in having good whistle blower protection and mechanism for revealing that things that need to be revealed. We mistreated Manning and I expect we would do the same to Snowden if we ever got our hands on him. So I understand his wanting to stay out of our reach, though I would have respected and supported him more had he stood his ground in his act of civil disobedience. > > And yes I say we, for as long as I travel on a US passport and am honored to be a civil society type who occasionally serves on US delegations, I am responsible for what the US government does. > > As for Internet governance being at risk, I don't buy it. Yes it again shows us why governments can never be more than equal partners in the participatory democracy that we call the multistakeholder model. But it again reinforces the need for all of us to be involved in Ig, and for us all to fight for transparency and accountability without vilifying the other. Or at least that is the lesson I take from it. > > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Aug 7 09:50:40 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 19:20:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] Russian Parliament Discussing "Digital Sovereignty" In-Reply-To: <076601ce930c$14b722c0$3e256840$@gmail.com> References: <076601ce930c$14b722c0$3e256840$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <520250B0.80605@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 07 August 2013 06:48 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > http://ca.news.yahoo.com/russia-seeking-snowdens-help-data-security-17501860 > 3.html > > (I've retitled this... > > M The responses of governments to Snowden revelations have many troubling aspects. Soon, perhaps with a lot of regret, we will realise that the Internet did not get balkanised because of attempts to put up democratic (even if only relatively democratic) global Internet governance structures - as the alarm has often been raised - but that it is getting balkanised because we did not do enough to set up such structures. It may still be time to make positive efforts in this regard. Meanwhile, evidently, US already enforces complete 'digital sovereignty'..... It only opposes other countries' attempt to have some leverage over their own digital space, however legitimate their reason may be.... Time that US's bluff is called..... From the article below.. ( at http://www.frontline.in/the-nation/indian-help/article4982631.ece?homepage=true ) "Article 2, the key section of the agreement, clearly outlines the obligations of the company regarding storage of information on domestic communications. Section 2.4 states that unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, Yipes shall store domestic communications, transactional data, subscriber information, billing records, domestic network and domestic network management information exclusively in the U.S." [....] Article 1.3 of the agreement says that VSNL shall ensure that all domestic telecommunications routed over the Teleglobe network shall not be routed outside of the U.S. and/or Canada except in emergency situations such as a natural disaster." parminder *Surveillance: **Indian help* Frontline Network security agreements that Reliance Communications and VSNL signed with U.S. government departments oblige them to share data carried on their infrastructure and assist the U.S. in its surveillance programme. By SAGNIK DUTTA in New Delhi EVEN as the storm set off by the whistle-blower Edward Snowden’s revelations about the United States’ elaborate electronic surveillance programme is raging, a set of documents accessed by /Frontline /highlight the involvement of two major Indian telecom companies in assisting the U.S. in carrying out the programmes. A series of Network Security Agreements (NSAs) entered into by various U.S. government departments with foreign communications infrastructure providers from 1999 to 2011 allowed the U.S. access to a considerable amount of data flowing through the cables of these companies. Reliance Communications Limited and the erstwhile Videsh Sanchar Nigam Limited (VSNL), which is now called Tata Communications Ltd, signed network security agreements with the U.S. in November 2007 and April 2005 respectively. The U.S. government departments that were party to this agreement include the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice (DoJ), and the Department of the Treasury. A close analysis of these agreements reflects an elaborate attempt to control and monitor the flow of information through physical infrastructure owned by these companies. A similar pattern is observed in the agreements in terms of the mechanisms that are put in place to not only control and monitor transactional and other information of subscribers, but also protect access to the same by foreign governments and even the management of the company. The agreements also attempt to control foreign ownership of telecom companies. This illustrates attempts by the U.S. to dominate the cyberspace. These agreements have significant ramifications for cybersecurity policy in India. A significant amount of Internet traffic across the world, including from India, flows through the U.S. Internet infrastructure. The existence of such agreements makes such data available to U.S. government departments. What is noticeable in these agreements is the degree to which foreign control of the telecom companies is monitored and curbed. Speaking to /Frontline/, Prabir Purkayastha, chairman of Knowledge Commons, a body involved with Internet and free software issues, said: “The attempt to gain control of telecom infrastructure through surveillance is significant as 80 per cent of the Internet traffic is routed through the U.S. Also, the contrast between India and the U.S. in terms of telecom policy is significant. While India is calling for lifting the ceiling on FDI [foreign direct investment] to 100 per cent, the U.S. is exercising considerable control over the functioning of telecom companies.” On July 22, /The Hindu/ reported that National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon, in an internal note, called for international cooperation to counter cyber attacks. The note reportedly mentioned that the security agencies of the U.S. and the United Kingdom were “extremely stingy” in sharing information. *Reliance Communications’ agreement * An agreement signed by Reliance Communications Limited and its subsidiaries (Reliance Gateway Net Limited, Yipes Holdings Limited and FLAG Telecom Group Limited) with the DoJ and the DHS (referred to as USG parties) in November 2007 provides that the communications service providers will provide technical or other assistance upon lawful request to facilitate electronic surveillance relating to domestic communications infrastructure. It is significant to note in this context that at the time of signing this agreement, Yipes catered to financial, legal, government, educational and health-care industries through a network of more than 22,000 route kilometres of optical fibre and associated equipment across 17 major U.S. metropolitan markets. The agreement also mentions that Yipes had points of presence (PoPs) in London, Tokyo and Hong Kong and was in the process of deploying additional PoPs in Frankfurt, Toronto and London. Reliance Communications completed its acquisition of Yipes in December 2007. The acquisition was announced in July. Article 2, the key section of the agreement, clearly outlines the obligations of the company regarding storage of information on domestic communications. Section 2.4 states that unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, Yipes shall store domestic communications, transactional data, subscriber information, billing records, domestic network and domestic network management information exclusively in the U.S. Article 2.5 of the agreement clearly puts an obligation on Yipes to share such information on request with the U.S. government authorities. On a request made by a government authority, Yipes will have to provide any information in its possession and such information shall be stored exclusively in the U.S. The agreement envisages an elaborate security framework to guard zealously this information accessed by the service providers. It states that within 10 business days of the effective date, Yipes shall designate a security officer to act as a point of contact between the USG parties regarding compliance with this agreement. Article 3.1 of the agreement says that the security officer will have to be a resident U.S. citizen, hold a U.S. security clearance and possess the authority to enforce the agreement. The security officer is given considerable powers and access to information. The agreement states that the security officer “shall have access to all information necessary to perform his or her duties, including, without limitation, security-related and technical information and business information, including but not limited to information regarding the existing and emerging products and services of Yipes and business plans of the communications service providers affecting Yipes’ ability to perform its obligations under this agreement”. It further states that if any action of the security officer is blocked or if he is denied relevant information, the officer shall immediately report the fact to the USG parties within five days of such an incident occurring. Further, Article 3.10 of the agreement provides that Yipes, upon a request from the USG parties, shall provide the name, date of birth, and other relevant requested information of each person who regularly handles or deals with sensitive information. Also, the company is bound by the agreement not to disclose sensitive information to any third party, including those who serve in a supervisory, managerial or executive role with respect to the employees working with the information (Article 3.11). Article 4 of the agreement outlines attempts to manage the structure of the company and exert considerable control over ownership by foreign entities. Article 4.2 of the agreement says that a member of the management of Yipes acquiring information about a foreign entity acquiring ownership in the company or the domestic communications infrastructure above 10 per cent shall notify Yipes in writing within 10 business days. Also, Article 4.3 of the agreement states that if any foreign government or foreign government-controlled entity participates in the management of the company in a way so as to interfere with Yipes performing the terms of the agreement, then a member of the management aware of such developments will notify the USG parties within 10 business days of the timing and nature of the foreign government’s plans. Article 4.7 allows the USG parties to visit any time any part of the domestic communications infrastructure and Yipes’ security offices to conduct on-site reviews regarding the implementation of this agreement. Article 7.3 of the agreement says that violation of any obligations of this agreement shall be considered irreparable injury and monetary relief will not be adequate remedy. The agreement states that the USG parties shall be entitled “to any remedy available to law or equity, to specific performance and injunctive or other equitable relief”. A detailed questionnaire addressed to Reliance Communications remained unanswered at the time of writing this report. *Agreement with VSNL * A similar agreement was signed between VSNL and the U.S. government departments which also provided an elaborate framework of surveillance in collaboration with the telecom company. The agreement was signed by VSNL and its subsidiaries (VSNL America and VSNL Telecommunications (U.S.), or VSNL U.S.) with the DoJ, including the FBI and the DHS, and the Department of Defence, collectively referred to as the “Parties”, between April 5 and 7, 2005. This was to be followed up by an agreement, dated July 25, among VSNL, VSNL Telecommunications (Bermuda) Ltd and Teleglobe International Holdings Ltd and affiliated entities to facilitate the filing of applications with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for authorisation to assign and transfer control of certain licences granted by the FCC. (VSNL acquired Teleglobe in July 2005.) The agreement provides the U.S. government departments a mechanism for seamless and holistic access to information flowing through the physical infrastructure of VSNL and Teleglobe. Article 1.3 of the agreement says that VSNL shall ensure that all domestic telecommunications routed over the Teleglobe network shall not be routed outside of the U.S. and/or Canada except in emergency situations such as a natural disaster. The agreement also grants the U.S. government departments unimpeded access to information concerning technical matters and physical management or other security measures and the right to ensure compliance with its terms. Article 2.1 states that all domestic communications infrastructure shall at all times be located in the U.S. and it shall pass through the facility of VSNL America or VSNL U.S. located in the U.S. from which electronic surveillance can be conducted. As per Article 2.3, these two entities are obliged to store domestic communications, wire or electronic communications, transactional data, subscriber information, billing records of customers who are U.S.-domiciled, and network management information. This agreement also provides a similar elaborate security apparatus to enable electronic surveillance and access to sensitive information. Article 3.2 of the agreement states a security officer shall review visits by non-U.S. persons to any domestic communications infrastructure. A written request for approval of a visit was to be submitted to the security officer no less than seven days prior to the date of the proposed visit. Article 3.8 also talks about points of contact to be assigned to VSNL America and VSNL U.S. security offices who shall be available for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and shall be responsible for maintaining the security of classified, sensitive and controlled unclassified information. The two companies are also obliged to comply with any request from the U.S. government authorities for a background check or a security clearance process to be completed for a designated point of contact. The U.S. government departments are also given considerable powers regarding the appointment and screening of security officers handling sensitive information. The clauses of Article 3.14 clearly point to the degree of penetration that this agreement allows to the U.S. government departments. It states: “Upon request, VSNL America or VSNL U.S. shall provide to the investigation services of DHS, DOJ, FBI, and DOD, or in the alternative, to the investigation service of the United States office of Personnel Management (‘OPM’), all the information it collects in its screening process of each candidate.” This agreement also states that the breach of the terms will entail “irreparable injury” (Article 4.3) caused to the U.S. government departments and they will have the right to any other remedy available at law, to “specific performance and injunctive or other equitable relief”. An e-mail questionnaire to Tata Communications about the agreement did not elicit any response at the time of writing this article. The existence of these agreements highlights the concerted attempts by the U.S. government departments to appropriate global telecom infrastructure to establish dominance in the cyberspace. The involvement of two major Indian telecom companies in this elaborate framework of surveillance in collaboration with U.S. government departments has significant implications for cyber security policy in India. The larger question facing the advocates of Internet democracy and privacy in communication is whether the Indian telecommunications companies will be similarly appropriated by an overzealous Indian government to obtain information about unsuspecting citizens and eventually as an instrument to control and monitor forms of dissent both in the real and in the virtual world. *** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 7 10:12:59 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 16:12:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] News from this week's MAG call? In-Reply-To: <1375278170.51504.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> <1375278170.51504.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20130807161259.3148ce0d@quill> On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 06:42:50 -0700 (PDT) Nnenna wrote: > The next MAG call will be Tuesday next week at 13h00 UCT (GMT) > > Hopefully, by then,we will begin to know: > 1. If Indonesia is still HC > > 2. If Bali is still the venue > 3. If the dates are still maintained Has that call taken place? If so, I'd be very interested in an update, especially on the funding situation. (In particular, I'm interested in any news that allows me to somehow get an idea about how reliable the information is that the Bali IGF is going forward.) Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive 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 Wed Aug 7 11:10:17 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 00:10:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] News from this week's MAG call? In-Reply-To: <20130807161259.3148ce0d@quill> References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> <1375278170.51504.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20130807161259.3148ce0d@quill> Message-ID: See http://mail.intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/2013-August/000171.html you know the MAG list archive is now open? Archive In case the attachment doesn't open from the archived email, text copied below. Adam STATEMENT BY SARDJOENI MOEDJIONO (MAG MEMBER) ON THE VIRTUAL MAG MEETING, ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 6TH, 2013 Mr. Markus Kummer, Mr. Chengetai Masango, and all MAG Member, After a series of long and comprehensive discussions and preparations, including our previous virtual MAG Meeting on Wednesday, July 31st, 2013, and further discussions/ dialogs between the Global Internet Community including Mr. Chengetai Masango who joined the meeting via teleconference from Geneva and New York with Minister of Communication and Information Technology (CIT) Republic of Indonesia, Mr. Tifatul Sembiring, at his office on Monday, August 5th, 2013 – Indonesia is now confirm and pronounces ready to be the host country of the 8th Meeting of IGF 2013 in Bali as planned. We, the Indonesian Internet Governance Forum (ID-IGF) Multi-Stakeholder Organizing Committee is confidence, well-positioned and prepared to host the Global IGF 2013 in Bali, 22-25 October 2013. In addition, there is also a pre-event High Level Leaders Meeting (HLLM) on October 21st, 2013, which invites ICT Ministers and CEOs from over the world to discuss the Global – Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles. The topic and agenda of the HLLM is being discussed, and we are going to send the Term of Reference (TOR) to the invitees soon. I invite MAG Members to approach and invite their ICT Ministers in their regions to joint the HLLM on October 21st, 2013. Please send me the complete list of their name, position, country, contact number, and location/email address, so we can invite the Ministers. For the time being, I have received already the list of name, position, organization, contact number, and location/email address of around 40 CEOs of various Internet Business/Civil Society organizations to joint the HLLM, proposed and sent by ICC Basis officials (Ms. Ayesha Hassan and her staffs). Some aspects required to prepare the Global Internet Forum that will be held in Bali, including the funding sources availability have been thoroughly prepared. Minister of CIT and all bodies at the Ministry of CIT will do their best and take all necessary actions so that the Host Country Agreement (HCA) can be immediately signed by Indonesia and the UN, given that it is the essential element of the IGF 2013 Bali. Today, a letter was sent to the UNDESA from the Ministry of CIT conforming that HCA is agreed in principle and will be signed formally by August 20th, 2013, after the end of the Major Indonesian National Holiday of Idul Fitri 1434H/2013. The Global Internet Community ond organizations support the IGF 2013 Bali in a very positive and relieving. To that end, the Government of Indonesia and the ID-IGF Multi-stakeholder Organizing Committee thank the Internet Community, regional and global for their support so that the IGF 2013 Bali could be executed as planned. We invite the global Internet leaders and all stakeholders (Government, Business/Private Sector, and Civil Society) to joint us in IGF 2013 Bali to discuss relevant issues in cyber space especially matters concerning the global-multistakeholder cyber ethical principles that we are all share to achieve a safer, peace, and harmony cyber space for all. I thank you very much for attention and support. END On Aug 7, 2013, at 11:12 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 06:42:50 -0700 (PDT) > Nnenna wrote: > >> The next MAG call will be Tuesday next week at 13h00 UCT (GMT) >> >> Hopefully, by then,we will begin to know: >> 1. If Indonesia is still HC >> >> 2. If Bali is still the venue >> 3. If the dates are still maintained > > Has that call taken place? > > If so, I'd be very interested in an update, especially on the funding > situation. > > (In particular, I'm interested in any news that allows me to somehow > get an idea about how reliable the information is that the Bali IGF > is going forward.) > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive 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 ecrire at catherine-roy.net Wed Aug 7 11:22:15 2013 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (Catherine Roy) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 11:22:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waved for E-Book Readers In-Reply-To: <06E86831-490C-47FB-A6F1-9E89E0E5BFA6@comcast.net> References: <06E86831-490C-47FB-A6F1-9E89E0E5BFA6@comcast.net> Message-ID: <52026627.2090708@catherine-roy.net> [Apologies for cross posting] Forwarded from the Web Accessibility Initiative Interest Group mailing list. I find this development quite distressing. *Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waved for E-Book Readers* "The ) Twenty-First Century Communications and Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 requires companies who make electronic devices to make them accessible to people with disabilities. At this time, none of the Ebook readers that are on the market meet this requirement. Since many companies feel that this requirement should not apply to Ebook readers, Amazon, Kobo, and Sony have submitted a petition to the FCC asking for a waiver. According to the petition, this is the definition of an Ebook reader: "E-readers, sometimes called e-book readers, are mobile electronic devices that are designed, marketed and used primarily for the purpose of reading digital documents, including e-books and periodicals." Since Ebook readers are primarily designed for print reading, the companies are arguing that the disabled community would not significantly benefit from these devices becoming accessible. They also argue that because the devices are so simple, making the changes to the devices to make them accessible, would cause them to be heavier, have poorer battery life, and raise the cost of the devices. Finally, these companies argue that since their apps are accessible on other devices such as the iPad and other full featured tablets, that they are already providing access to their content." Source : http://www.blindbargains.com/bargains.php?m=9286 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Aug 7 11:30:40 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 11:30:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] SOPA reloaded Message-ID: <7wmamddg7y3qt26jcksdy06n.1375889440371@email.android.com> http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05/sopa-died-in-2012-but-obama-administration-wants-to-revive-part-of-it/ -- sent from mobile device -- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Aug 7 11:43:30 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 17:43:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk In-Reply-To: References: <00ec01ce91c0$8b5d9f00$a218dd00$@gmail.com> <802835F0-2031-4966-B93E-E301E5B88BE9@hserus.net> Message-ID: At 15:07 07/08/2013, Avri Doria wrote: >And yes I say we, for as long as I travel on a US passport and am >honored to be a civil society type who occasionally serves on US >delegations, I am responsible for what the US government does. > >As for Internet governance being at risk, I don't buy it. Yes it >again shows us why governments can never be more than equal partners >in the participatory democracy that we call the multistakeholder >model. But it again reinforces the need for all of us to be >involved in Ig, and for us all to fight for transparency and >accountability without vilifying the other. Or at least that is the >lesson I take from it. Avri, Forty years ago, the issue was transborder data flows and US influence through their databases. This was the time when people started speaking of information as a wealth and a source of power, after Shannon's information theory. Shannon's information remained the main issue while things developed through data communication systems sophistication, and no one has come forth yet with a communication theory considering the semantic spreading of meanings and thoughts on top of data, themselves on top of electric signaling. There is therefore no consideration yet of extended value over the added value. As a result there has been a lot of confusion over our society. Our society is not an "Information Society". The human society always was. Our society is an intellition society, which is a portmanteau word formed from intelligence and information. Our society's step ahead is to have built bots that can assist us in order to intelligently comprehend the information we obtain from the universe, our environment, and others. No one has to be ashamed of being intelligent. Using and developing a PRISM system to better comprehend (cum-pehendere) the different open access data, metadata (data on data), and syllodata (data between data) is a human survival right and duty. What MUST be submitted to a technical ethic (nethiquette) are: - the way the information (i.e. the data I ignored) is collected. - how this intellition (the data I did not know I had) is being used. - the precaution undertaken by everyone (starting with governments as entrusted protectors) to protect national, private, and personal information wealth, goods, and weaknesses. Cyberwarfare and economic intelligence are in the same league as cyber self-defense (which does not only concern privacy). The real concern with the is not so much its legitimate political attitude – as in every other government – but its architectonic effilience in the holistic best interest of its citizens. I fear that iIts strategy leaves too much leeway to the private industry over common good issues (economy, defense, cultural protection, ethics), thereby putting personal good at risk. Best, jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Aug 7 12:12:40 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 18:12:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Aug 7 16:07:02 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 22:07:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] Important standardization project in ISO/IEC Message-ID: <20130807220702.14c4b1a5@quill> In ISO/IEC JTC1 SC38, a new work item proposal with the title “SLA Framework and Terminology” has just been approved. This is in the context of cloud computing. If this standardization project is going to be influential (which I think it is going to be, for better or worse), it's going to determine to a large extent how the contracts between cloud service providers and their customers will be shaped. I think that this is a very important standardization project for civil society to be engaged in. For those with access to ISO/IEC documents, the relevant documents are ISO/IEC HTC1 SC38 N881 New Work Item Proposal ISO/IEC HTC1 SC38 N902 Summary of Voting ISO/IEC HTC1 SC38 N903 US National Body Contribution Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive 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 joy at apc.org Wed Aug 7 17:15:00 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 09:15:00 +1200 Subject: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk In-Reply-To: References: <00ec01ce91c0$8b5d9f00$a218dd00$@gmail.com> <802835F0-2031-4966-B93E-E301E5B88BE9@hserus.net> Message-ID: <5202B8D4.3030605@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Well said Avri - esp: 'As for Internet governance being at risk, I don't buy it. Yes it again shows us why governments can never be more than equal partners in the participatory democracy that we call the multistakeholder model. But it again reinforces the need for all of us to be involved in Ig, and for us all to fight for transparency and accountability without vilifying the other. Or at least that is the lesson I take from it.' Joy On 8/08/2013 1:07 a.m., Avri Doria wrote: > > On 7 Aug 2013, at 05:39, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> there are countries where Manning would have been tortured > > > Suresh, I really do respect the way you stand up to those who wish to make as much capital as possible from the sins of the US. You have more fortitude than I could ever muster. > > However, several thoughts occur to me: > > - when we need to resort to examples such as N. Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia or Uganda and ... to make excuses for our own sins and infractions, we have already sunk too low; > > - when the rule of law is perverted as it has been in the US on the FISA/Prism issue and by other governments on many other issues, we are reminded of the frailty of the rule of law that always serves the regime in power and the money behind their power and are reminded that often law serves the basest instincts of people (e.g. in the US our common fears can be used to excuse anything); > > - Manning was tortured to get a confession. It might not have been anything more that what the US has defined as extreme questioning, or whatever euphemism we use, by most humanitarian definitions of torture it was torture and we need to admit that we tortured and that this is not the first tim we used torture for our security mania and we MUST stop; > > Neither am I one to beatify Manning or Snowden, I think that while they did the world a favor I think they went about it quite badly and they did break vows taken voluntarily. I understand civil disobedience and the need sometimes to break a vow, but that does not excuse breaking a vow, it just explains it and mitigates it. I also strongly beleive in having good whistle blower protection and mechanism for revealing that things that need to be revealed. We mistreated Manning and I expect we would do the same to Snowden if we ever got our hands on him. So I understand his wanting to stay out of our reach, though I would have respected and supported him more had he stood his ground in his act of civil disobedience. > > And yes I say we, for as long as I travel on a US passport and am honored to be a civil society type who occasionally serves on US delegations, I am responsible for what the US government does. > > As for Internet governance being at risk, I don't buy it. Yes it again shows us why governments can never be more than equal partners in the participatory democracy that we call the multistakeholder model. But it again reinforces the need for all of us to be involved in Ig, and for us all to fight for transparency and accountability without vilifying the other. Or at least that is the lesson I take from it. > > avri > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSArjTAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqkmgH/AqykQ8jx3MCXzFxfS0xJFxi +bRc5qt8htNR8DfCkGc5MgjYEWK3ALoSAF8WYIBwA8kZO+xEjjQWYakjDf1zzsY8 F1ScuWiQvkOmdNbzUf1clwx5+yeifESJrQNfxuSnsqRXDjxnBajehd5hlZKDoHEi uUZEYi4Al8V31/rZGjsoDUNpODPijcXS5Mb6CKGY86pyMR4r0Boo+svplI2RDVzg lIo082oSIuRZj5h5YDpf2BX99JbG9BHWNMTKbeUsGW10sKMituAVv6jIRb6vYNNx TMil7wXzRVBzc+EE5CSo0RQYh1n4k5R1zeZR9cTPgb+RE0WAd2ya48pxWsBG16M= =xd3M -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Aug 7 17:40:19 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 02:40:19 +0500 Subject: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk In-Reply-To: <5202B8D4.3030605@apc.org> References: <00ec01ce91c0$8b5d9f00$a218dd00$@gmail.com> <802835F0-2031-4966-B93E-E301E5B88BE9@hserus.net> <5202B8D4.3030605@apc.org> Message-ID: <6BA949E1-471A-4E78-9002-6E6752E6E438@gmail.com> The challenge remains that we struggle for more transparency and accountability in the international and domestic IG settings we are involved in and one example was the recent IGF episode that revealed a number of things we weren't aware of in terms of the commercialization of the event by some in the host country and the issue of UN funding system for the IGF. The responsibility of what happens in the US may also have to be laid down on the CS groups and citizens that have either kept silent or not appropriately responded to on such issues as Avri raised. Each setting has its own set of rationales, politics and legitimacy that is evolved through some ideas or needs by someone or some group. The corporate lobbyists as well companies lead themselves in groups struggling for their version of their rights and then as the political economy plays its part, different forces act and react in opposition or favor or simply have it thrown outright. Once again, the challenges can pile up but how does one stay focused and get their house in order and manage things that need ones attention instead of jumping out and commenting on everything that comes their way? Best Regards Fouad Bajwa Sent from my mobile device On Aug 8, 2013, at 2:15 AM, joy wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Well said Avri - esp: > > 'As for Internet governance being at risk, I don't buy it. Yes it again > shows us why governments can never be more than equal partners in the > participatory democracy that we call the multistakeholder model. But it > again reinforces the need for all of us to be involved in Ig, and for us > all to fight for transparency and accountability without vilifying the > other. Or at least that is the lesson I take from it.' > > > Joy > > On 8/08/2013 1:07 a.m., Avri Doria wrote: >> >> On 7 Aug 2013, at 05:39, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >>> there are countries where Manning would have been tortured >> >> >> Suresh, I really do respect the way you stand up to those who wish to > make as much capital as possible from the sins of the US. You have more > fortitude than I could ever muster. >> >> However, several thoughts occur to me: >> >> - when we need to resort to examples such as N. Korea, Iran, Saudi > Arabia, and Russia or Uganda and ... to make excuses for our own sins > and infractions, we have already sunk too low; >> >> - when the rule of law is perverted as it has been in the US on the > FISA/Prism issue and by other governments on many other issues, we are > reminded of the frailty of the rule of law that always serves the regime > in power and the money behind their power and are reminded that often > law serves the basest instincts of people (e.g. in the US our common > fears can be used to excuse anything); >> >> - Manning was tortured to get a confession. It might not have been > anything more that what the US has defined as extreme questioning, or > whatever euphemism we use, by most humanitarian definitions of torture > it was torture and we need to admit that we tortured and that this is > not the first tim we used torture for our security mania and we MUST stop; >> >> Neither am I one to beatify Manning or Snowden, I think that while > they did the world a favor I think they went about it quite badly and > they did break vows taken voluntarily. I understand civil disobedience > and the need sometimes to break a vow, but that does not excuse breaking > a vow, it just explains it and mitigates it. I also strongly beleive in > having good whistle blower protection and mechanism for revealing that > things that need to be revealed. We mistreated Manning and I expect we > would do the same to Snowden if we ever got our hands on him. So I > understand his wanting to stay out of our reach, though I would have > respected and supported him more had he stood his ground in his act of > civil disobedience. >> >> And yes I say we, for as long as I travel on a US passport and am > honored to be a civil society type who occasionally serves on US > delegations, I am responsible for what the US government does. >> >> As for Internet governance being at risk, I don't buy it. Yes it > again shows us why governments can never be more than equal partners in > the participatory democracy that we call the multistakeholder model. > But it again reinforces the need for all of us to be involved in Ig, and > for us all to fight for transparency and accountability without > vilifying the other. Or at least that is the lesson I take from it. >> >> avri >> >> >> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSArjTAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqkmgH/AqykQ8jx3MCXzFxfS0xJFxi > +bRc5qt8htNR8DfCkGc5MgjYEWK3ALoSAF8WYIBwA8kZO+xEjjQWYakjDf1zzsY8 > F1ScuWiQvkOmdNbzUf1clwx5+yeifESJrQNfxuSnsqRXDjxnBajehd5hlZKDoHEi > uUZEYi4Al8V31/rZGjsoDUNpODPijcXS5Mb6CKGY86pyMR4r0Boo+svplI2RDVzg > lIo082oSIuRZj5h5YDpf2BX99JbG9BHWNMTKbeUsGW10sKMituAVv6jIRb6vYNNx > TMil7wXzRVBzc+EE5CSo0RQYh1n4k5R1zeZR9cTPgb+RE0WAd2ya48pxWsBG16M= > =xd3M > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Aug 7 19:35:33 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 01:35:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk In-Reply-To: <6BA949E1-471A-4E78-9002-6E6752E6E438@gmail.com> References: <00ec01ce91c0$8b5d9f00$a218dd00$@gmail.com> <802835F0-2031-4966-B93E-E301E5B88BE9@hserus.net> <5202B8D4.3030605@apc.org> <6BA949E1-471A-4E78-9002-6E6752E6E438@gmail.com> Message-ID: At 23:40 07/08/2013, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >IGF episode that revealed a number of things we weren't aware of in >terms of the commercialization of the event Actually are we aware of the way ISOC or ITU or UNESCO decide of who is going to be selected and which department is going to benefit from others' money? Also are we aware of the ways Governements round the world designate their representatives so they may travel with their wife to Bali? Or support their national manufacturers or ISPs? IMHO the customs of the other stakeholders classes have no importance to us. They are as much autonomous and authoritative as we want to be. Should not what we can actually do to support the people's best interests in the cyberspace and centricity in the information society be what is of real importance to us? I remember the dialogue between Bertrand de la Chapelle and Paul Towmey in the ICANN Paris meeting, when Bertrand told that France was concerned by the interests of the people who were not yet on the Internet and Paul answered that he was concerned by the interests of the people paying him. Both were legitimate in their own way. However, I do prefer the Homo humanus' philia which eventually led to mutual development over centuries, rather than the Homo economicus' best interest which opposed it so often and now results in the Crisis. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Wed Aug 7 21:57:47 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:57:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN DATABASE Message-ID: Dear friends, is there any repository with data about registries and registrars which is not the one available on ICANN's website? When one compares the data sets ICANN makes available and the Corporation's dashboard, one sees that there are discrepancies between them. And the latter is built with flash and is not an open source platform. Is there any discussion about it within ICANN? Thank you -- sent from mobile device -- Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: >http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05/sopa-died-in-2012-but-obama-administration-wants-to-revive-part-of-it/ >-- >sent from mobile device >-- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 7 22:26:24 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 07:56:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] ICANN DATABASE In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, what sort of discrepancies? --srs (iPad) On 08-Aug-2013, at 7:27, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > Dear friends, > > is there any repository with data about registries and registrars which is not the one available on ICANN's website? When one compares the data sets ICANN makes available and the Corporation's dashboard, one sees that there are discrepancies between them. And the latter is built with flash and is not an open source platform. > > Is there any discussion about it within ICANN? > > Thank you > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Aug 7 22:26:55 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 09:26:55 +0700 Subject: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk In-Reply-To: <802835F0-2031-4966-B93E-E301E5B88BE9@hserus.net> References: <00ec01ce91c0$8b5d9f00$a218dd00$@gmail.com> <802835F0-2031-4966-B93E-E301E5B88BE9@hserus.net> Message-ID: <000601ce93de$c6f01a50$54d04ef0$@gmail.com> Yes, for sure and we know that the trend globally has been towards more democratic accountability and less arbitrary governance so it is particularly disturbing to see that the loudest governmental advocate in support of these trends seems to be moving quite rapidly in the other direction. Move From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:39 AM To: Diego Rafael Canabarro Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk It is a matter of scale. There are governments where any and every citizen could expect to hear a midnight knock on the door to have his whole family shipped off to an undisclosed location. There are others where the rule of law exists, constitutional protections exist and such cases are aberrations. In all fairness, there are countries where Manning would have been tortured and shot without benefit of any sort of trial for what he did. --srs (iPad) On 07-Aug-2013, at 8:58, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: "the USA is far from being the sort of country North Korea, Iran or Saudi Arabia are" These days, it has been pretty hard to sustaion that argument without serious open flanks. Especially when one considers that the argument "the sort of ..." is naturally biased towards a very manichean ways of seeing things. Pursuing Sanchez makes Cuba evil. The same with Aaron Swarts or Assange is turned sacred with the bless (and bliss, and also the magic cape) of the rule of law. On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 6:04 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: It would be wrong to assume that any government at all doesn't wear multiple hats - a security service, regulators, etc all acting with a degree of independence can produce such contradictions Still, the USA is far from being the sort of country North Korea, Iran or Saudi Arabia are. Some perspective might actually help before tarring all governments with the same brush. Or before assuming that each and every government entity moves in lockstep with the other. Lacking that perspective would perhaps show almost as much naïveté --srs (iPad) On 05-Aug-2013, at 15:15, "michael gurstein" wrote: > This position strikes me as either naïve or duplicitous in the extreme. > > Does one really believe that the USG and its "Internet Freedom" allies were > supporting Internet Freedom because they believed in a free Internet (while > they were using the Internet to build the capacity to undermine the > fundamental human rights/freedoms of us all). > > Rather, it should I think, be evident that their real motivation was to > ensure that there were no structures or mechanisms of whatever sort > (governmental, inter-governmental, multi-stakeholder or whatever) that > are/were in a position to protect those human rights and against the > depredations which they were secretly constructing with which we all are > being threatened. > > Do you really believe that the good folks who built and/or funded the > current systems are going unbidden to build/fund out of the fineness of > their principles the systems that you are suggesting would "protect us from > government intrusion and ... revise Internet architectures so as to > eliminate the points of control that governments are so successful at > exploiting". > > Our strength such as it is, comes from the possibility of creating and > implementing democratic processes and mechanisms through which governments > and the increasingly global commons can be made transparent and held > accountable and through which the protection of human rights and fundamental > freedoms can be protected and extended. > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 3:06 PM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance > System at Risk > > > On 2 Aug 2013, at 18:35, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > > quoting: > >> Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk Friday >> August 02, 2013 >> >> http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6926/135/ > >> the U.S. has ceded the moral high ground on the issue. > > > Anyone who believes that any government anywhere occupies high ground is > likely to be disappointed. Governments, while unfortunately still a > necessary evil in this stage human moral development, are not to be trusted > but to be controlled and treated with suspicion by the people as much as > possible. sure there are good people in all governments, but government > themselves are not those good people, rather they are bureaucracies > motivated by a complex of intractable and often negative forces. > > The high ground in Dubai was not an issue of which government should be > trusted, it was the point of trying to remove all governments as much as > possible. Governments cannot be trusted. History shows us that they never > could be and it is only blind faith that indicates someday they may be > trustworthy. Of course when governments are the only voice we have for > limiting government intrusion - as they are in the ITU, the topic can get > perverted. > > But to view the confirmation of what we all knew, that all governments > monitor all people at all times as much as they can get away with, as an > excuse to give other governments more oversight is a bit confused to my > mind. > > I think all this has shown is that an Internet that allows any sort of > government interference is likely to be used by those governments for their > own purposes, whether they are, surveillance in the service of perceived > terror, pedophilia or intellectual 'property' threats , the silencing of > dissidents or the persecution of minorities such as the gay population and > other cultural/nation/racial minorities. > > While we can and must fight on the policy front to defend ourselves against > the vulnerabilities created and already exploited by the current Internet's > control points, we must put more and more focus into creating technologies > and processes that protect us from government intrusion and must revise > Internet architectures so as to eliminate the points of control that > governments are so successful at exploiting. > > 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 -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Aug 7 22:30:36 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 08:00:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk In-Reply-To: <000601ce93de$c6f01a50$54d04ef0$@gmail.com> References: <00ec01ce91c0$8b5d9f00$a218dd00$@gmail.com> <802835F0-2031-4966-B93E-E301E5B88BE9@hserus.net> <000601ce93de$c6f01a50$54d04ef0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: We're actually in agreement that there's a dichotomy here. However, court rather than administration oversight over such processes remains key to constitutional and democratic controls. --srs (iPad) On 08-Aug-2013, at 7:56, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Yes, for sure and we know that the trend globally has been towards more democratic accountability and less arbitrary governance so it is particularly disturbing to see that the loudest governmental advocate in support of these trends seems to be moving quite rapidly in the other direction. > > Move > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:39 AM > To: Diego Rafael Canabarro > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk > > It is a matter of scale. There are governments where any and every citizen could expect to hear a midnight knock on the door to have his whole family shipped off to an undisclosed location. > > There are others where the rule of law exists, constitutional protections exist and such cases are aberrations. > > In all fairness, there are countries where Manning would have been tortured and shot without benefit of any sort of trial for what he did. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 07-Aug-2013, at 8:58, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > > "the USA is far from being the sort of country North Korea, Iran or Saudi Arabia are" > > These days, it has been pretty hard to sustaion that argument without serious open flanks. Especially when one considers that the argument "the sort of ..." is naturally biased towards a very manichean ways of seeing things. Pursuing Sanchez makes Cuba evil. The same with Aaron Swarts or Assange is turned sacred with the bless (and bliss, and also the magic cape) of the rule of law. > > > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 6:04 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > It would be wrong to assume that any government at all doesn't wear multiple hats - a security service, regulators, etc all acting with a degree of independence can produce such contradictions > > Still, the USA is far from being the sort of country North Korea, Iran or Saudi Arabia are. Some perspective might actually help before tarring all governments with the same brush. Or before assuming that each and every government entity moves in lockstep with the other. > > Lacking that perspective would perhaps show almost as much naïveté > > --srs (iPad) > > On 05-Aug-2013, at 15:15, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > > This position strikes me as either naïve or duplicitous in the extreme. > > > > Does one really believe that the USG and its "Internet Freedom" allies were > > supporting Internet Freedom because they believed in a free Internet (while > > they were using the Internet to build the capacity to undermine the > > fundamental human rights/freedoms of us all). > > > > Rather, it should I think, be evident that their real motivation was to > > ensure that there were no structures or mechanisms of whatever sort > > (governmental, inter-governmental, multi-stakeholder or whatever) that > > are/were in a position to protect those human rights and against the > > depredations which they were secretly constructing with which we all are > > being threatened. > > > > Do you really believe that the good folks who built and/or funded the > > current systems are going unbidden to build/fund out of the fineness of > > their principles the systems that you are suggesting would "protect us from > > government intrusion and ... revise Internet architectures so as to > > eliminate the points of control that governments are so successful at > > exploiting". > > > > Our strength such as it is, comes from the possibility of creating and > > implementing democratic processes and mechanisms through which governments > > and the increasingly global commons can be made transparent and held > > accountable and through which the protection of human rights and fundamental > > freedoms can be protected and extended. > > > > Mike > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 3:06 PM > > To: IGC > > Subject: Re: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance > > System at Risk > > > > > > On 2 Aug 2013, at 18:35, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > > > > quoting: > > > >> Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk Friday > >> August 02, 2013 > >> > >> http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6926/135/ > > > >> the U.S. has ceded the moral high ground on the issue. > > > > > > Anyone who believes that any government anywhere occupies high ground is > > likely to be disappointed. Governments, while unfortunately still a > > necessary evil in this stage human moral development, are not to be trusted > > but to be controlled and treated with suspicion by the people as much as > > possible. sure there are good people in all governments, but government > > themselves are not those good people, rather they are bureaucracies > > motivated by a complex of intractable and often negative forces. > > > > The high ground in Dubai was not an issue of which government should be > > trusted, it was the point of trying to remove all governments as much as > > possible. Governments cannot be trusted. History shows us that they never > > could be and it is only blind faith that indicates someday they may be > > trustworthy. Of course when governments are the only voice we have for > > limiting government intrusion - as they are in the ITU, the topic can get > > perverted. > > > > But to view the confirmation of what we all knew, that all governments > > monitor all people at all times as much as they can get away with, as an > > excuse to give other governments more oversight is a bit confused to my > > mind. > > > > I think all this has shown is that an Internet that allows any sort of > > government interference is likely to be used by those governments for their > > own purposes, whether they are, surveillance in the service of perceived > > terror, pedophilia or intellectual 'property' threats , the silencing of > > dissidents or the persecution of minorities such as the gay population and > > other cultural/nation/racial minorities. > > > > While we can and must fight on the policy front to defend ourselves against > > the vulnerabilities created and already exploited by the current Internet's > > control points, we must put more and more focus into creating technologies > > and processes that protect us from government intrusion and must revise > > Internet architectures so as to eliminate the points of control that > > governments are so successful at exploiting. > > > > 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 > > > > > -- > 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 nb at bollow.ch Thu Aug 8 03:37:58 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 09:37:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] News from this week's MAG call? In-Reply-To: References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> <1375278170.51504.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20130807161259.3148ce0d@quill> Message-ID: Hmm... what are the “Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles”, and why are they going to be discussed in the absence of civil society? Are invitations to participate in that “High Level Leaders Meeting” available as part of some kind of sponsorshop package? Greetings, Norbert On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > See > > > http://mail.intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/2013-August/000171.html > > you know the MAG list archive is now open? Archive < > http://mail.intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/> > > In case the attachment doesn't open from the archived email, text copied > below. > > Adam > > > STATEMENT BY SARDJOENI MOEDJIONO (MAG MEMBER) ON THE VIRTUAL MAG MEETING, > ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 6TH, 2013 > > Mr. Markus Kummer, Mr. Chengetai Masango, and all MAG Member, > > After a series of long and comprehensive discussions and preparations, > including our previous virtual MAG Meeting on > Wednesday, July 31st, 2013, and further discussions/ dialogs between the > Global Internet Community including Mr. Chengetai Masango who joined the > meeting via teleconference from Geneva and New York with Minister of > Communication and Information Technology (CIT) Republic of Indonesia, Mr. > Tifatul Sembiring, at his office on Monday, August 5th, 2013 – Indonesia is > now confirm and pronounces ready to be the host country of the 8th Meeting > of IGF 2013 in Bali as planned. We, the Indonesian Internet Governance > Forum (ID-IGF) Multi-Stakeholder Organizing Committee is confidence, > well-positioned and prepared to host the Global IGF 2013 in Bali, 22-25 > October 2013. > > In addition, there is also a pre-event High Level Leaders Meeting (HLLM) > on October 21st, 2013, which invites ICT Ministers and CEOs from over the > world to discuss the Global – Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles. > The topic and agenda of the HLLM is being discussed, and we are going to > send the Term of Reference (TOR) to the invitees soon. > > I invite MAG Members to approach and invite their ICT Ministers in their > regions to joint the HLLM on October 21st, 2013. Please send me the > complete list of their name, position, country, contact number, and > location/email address, so we can invite the Ministers. > > For the time being, I have received already the list of name, position, > organization, contact number, and location/email address of around 40 CEOs > of various Internet Business/Civil Society organizations to joint the HLLM, > proposed and sent by ICC Basis officials (Ms. Ayesha Hassan and her staffs). > > Some aspects required to prepare the Global Internet Forum that will be > held in Bali, including the funding sources availability have been > thoroughly prepared. > > Minister of CIT and all bodies at the Ministry of CIT will do their best > and take all necessary actions so that the Host Country Agreement (HCA) can > be immediately signed by Indonesia and the UN, given that it is the > essential element of the IGF 2013 Bali. > > Today, a letter was sent to the UNDESA from the Ministry of CIT conforming > that HCA is agreed in principle and will be signed formally by August 20th, > 2013, after the end of the Major Indonesian National Holiday of Idul Fitri > 1434H/2013. > The Global Internet Community ond organizations support the IGF 2013 Bali > in a very positive and relieving. To that end, the Government of Indonesia > and the ID-IGF Multi-stakeholder Organizing Committee thank the Internet > Community, regional and global for their support so that the IGF 2013 Bali > could be executed as planned. > > We invite the global Internet leaders and all stakeholders (Government, > Business/Private Sector, and Civil Society) to joint us in IGF 2013 Bali to > discuss relevant issues in cyber space especially matters concerning the > global-multistakeholder cyber ethical principles that we are all share to > achieve a safer, peace, and harmony cyber space for all. > > I thank you very much for attention and support. > > END > > > On Aug 7, 2013, at 11:12 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 06:42:50 -0700 (PDT) > > Nnenna wrote: > > > >> The next MAG call will be Tuesday next week at 13h00 UCT (GMT) > >> > >> Hopefully, by then,we will begin to know: > >> 1. If Indonesia is still HC > >> > >> 2. If Bali is still the venue > >> 3. If the dates are still maintained > > > > Has that call taken place? > > > > If so, I'd be very interested in an update, especially on the funding > > situation. > > > > (In particular, I'm interested in any news that allows me to somehow > > get an idea about how reliable the information is that the Bali IGF > > is going forward.) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Aug 8 04:14:27 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 13:44:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] News from this week's MAG call? In-Reply-To: References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> <1375278170.51504.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20130807161259.3148ce0d@quill> Message-ID: <52035363.2060607@itforchange.net> Great news that Bali IGF is on! Very much look forward... Troubled to hear there is a pre-event high level leaders meeting of ICT minsters and CEOs to discuss Multi-stakeholder cyber-ethics principles...... The thing appears corporate dominated if not exclusively for them, apart from ministers... Till last year, the pre event used to be a ministerial event.... now we have a ministers plus CEO event, and that too deciding on cyber ethics principles.. (BTW, it was this high level meeting to which invitations were being sought to be sold as a fund raising strategy described in the problematic document ...... So really, if a big corporation is afraid that cyber ethics may tend towards, say open standards, or strict privacy principles, one could just quickly buy up some seats at the table where the discussion and perhaps finalisation of principles will take place. Fact is, I really still do not know how much funding has actually been generated against those promises, and if those promised quid pro quos still hold. We were told that this question will be raised and an answer obtained in the MAG meeting, but i dont see anything about it in the MAG meeting minutes . ) This is not acceptable... CS groups must write to the organisers against this... When Sarkozy announced an e- G8 forum that was to be a pre-event to the G 8 meeting on important Internet issues, and he invited just business CEOs along with government delegates, CS, including the IGC, wrote against this ( http://igcaucus.org/open-letter-president-sarkozy-eg8-meeting-plan )..... (This was widely covered in the French press, and as a result, I think they did invite some civil society persons) Civil society deserves a place at policy deliberation tables much before big corporates do..... BTW, in the latter part the statement says " For the time being, I have received already the list of name, position, organization, contact number, and location/email address of around 40 CEOs of various Internet Business/Civil Society organizations to joint the HLLM, proposed and sent by ICC Basis officials (Ms. Ayesha Hassan and her staffs). " Well, it speaks of CEOs of CS (civil society) organisations, but then in a list that has been sent to them by ICC? Has any civil society organisation/ network also been approached? Lets tell them, we dont believe in the CEO thing, and we believe in CS reps selected by CS networks for such meetings etc... And if indeed CS persons will be there, we need parity with other groups in terms of numbers - although, sorry, we cannot donate... parminder PS: Looks like confirming the suspicion that when push comes to shove, MSism tends to become corporate biggies sharing power with governments, and the rest is basically a charade of minions playing the MS cheering game... On Wednesday 07 August 2013 08:40 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > See > > http://mail.intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/2013-August/000171.html > > you know the MAG list archive is now open? Archive > > In case the attachment doesn't open from the archived email, text copied below. > > Adam > > > STATEMENT BY SARDJOENI MOEDJIONO (MAG MEMBER) ON THE VIRTUAL MAG MEETING, ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 6TH, 2013 > > Mr. Markus Kummer, Mr. Chengetai Masango, and all MAG Member, > > After a series of long and comprehensive discussions and preparations, including our previous virtual MAG Meeting on > Wednesday, July 31st, 2013, and further discussions/ dialogs between the Global Internet Community including Mr. Chengetai Masango who joined the meeting via teleconference from Geneva and New York with Minister of Communication and Information Technology (CIT) Republic of Indonesia, Mr. Tifatul Sembiring, at his office on Monday, August 5th, 2013 – Indonesia is now confirm and pronounces ready to be the host country of the 8th Meeting of IGF 2013 in Bali as planned. We, the Indonesian Internet Governance Forum (ID-IGF) Multi-Stakeholder Organizing Committee is confidence, well-positioned and prepared to host the Global IGF 2013 in Bali, 22-25 October 2013. > > In addition, there is also a pre-event High Level Leaders Meeting (HLLM) on October 21st, 2013, which invites ICT Ministers and CEOs from over the world to discuss the Global – Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles. The topic and agenda of the HLLM is being discussed, and we are going to send the Term of Reference (TOR) to the invitees soon. > > I invite MAG Members to approach and invite their ICT Ministers in their regions to joint the HLLM on October 21st, 2013. Please send me the complete list of their name, position, country, contact number, and location/email address, so we can invite the Ministers. > > For the time being, I have received already the list of name, position, organization, contact number, and location/email address of around 40 CEOs of various Internet Business/Civil Society organizations to joint the HLLM, proposed and sent by ICC Basis officials (Ms. Ayesha Hassan and her staffs). > > Some aspects required to prepare the Global Internet Forum that will be held in Bali, including the funding sources availability have been thoroughly prepared. > > Minister of CIT and all bodies at the Ministry of CIT will do their best and take all necessary actions so that the Host Country Agreement (HCA) can be immediately signed by Indonesia and the UN, given that it is the essential element of the IGF 2013 Bali. > > Today, a letter was sent to the UNDESA from the Ministry of CIT conforming that HCA is agreed in principle and will be signed formally by August 20th, 2013, after the end of the Major Indonesian National Holiday of Idul Fitri 1434H/2013. > The Global Internet Community ond organizations support the IGF 2013 Bali in a very positive and relieving. To that end, the Government of Indonesia and the ID-IGF Multi-stakeholder Organizing Committee thank the Internet Community, regional and global for their support so that the IGF 2013 Bali could be executed as planned. > > We invite the global Internet leaders and all stakeholders (Government, Business/Private Sector, and Civil Society) to joint us in IGF 2013 Bali to discuss relevant issues in cyber space especially matters concerning the global-multistakeholder cyber ethical principles that we are all share to achieve a safer, peace, and harmony cyber space for all. > > I thank you very much for attention and support. > > END > > > On Aug 7, 2013, at 11:12 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 06:42:50 -0700 (PDT) >> Nnenna wrote: >> >>> The next MAG call will be Tuesday next week at 13h00 UCT (GMT) >>> >>> Hopefully, by then,we will begin to know: >>> 1. If Indonesia is still HC >>> >>> 2. If Bali is still the venue >>> 3. If the dates are still maintained >> Has that call taken place? >> >> If so, I'd be very interested in an update, especially on the funding >> situation. >> >> (In particular, I'm interested in any news that allows me to somehow >> get an idea about how reliable the information is that the Bali IGF >> is going forward.) >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> -- >> Recommendations for effective and constructive 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Aug 8 04:22:31 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 13:52:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] News from this week's MAG call? In-Reply-To: <52035363.2060607@itforchange.net> References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> <1375278170.51504.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20130807161259.3148ce0d@quill> <52035363.2060607@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <02A5C4CD-3A4A-4935-939D-0EBC6D078A05@hserus.net> The point is moot given that the ITU has little or no presence in cybersecurity, and "ethics" .. well, it is going to be an excellent talk shop with a champagne and salmon reception but that is about all it is going to achieve. If civil society insists on parity there - well, a proportionate number of civil society reps are guaranteed an excellent meal and drinks, to compensate for all the hot air expended. --srs (iPad) On 08-Aug-2013, at 13:44, parminder wrote: > > > Great news that Bali IGF is on! Very much look forward... > > Troubled to hear there is a pre-event high level leaders meeting of ICT minsters and CEOs to discuss Multi-stakeholder cyber-ethics principles...... The thing appears corporate dominated if not exclusively for them, apart from ministers... > > Till last year, the pre event used to be a ministerial event.... now we have a ministers plus CEO event, and that too deciding on cyber ethics principles.. > > (BTW, it was this high level meeting to which invitations were being sought to be sold as a fund raising strategy described in the problematic document ...... So really, if a big corporation is afraid that cyber ethics may tend towards, say open standards, or strict privacy principles, one could just quickly buy up some seats at the table where the discussion and perhaps finalisation of principles will take place. Fact is, I really still do not know how much funding has actually been generated against those promises, and if those promised quid pro quos still hold. We were told that this question will be raised and an answer obtained in the MAG meeting, but i dont see anything about it in the MAG meeting minutes . ) > > This is not acceptable... CS groups must write to the organisers against this... When Sarkozy announced an e- G8 forum that was to be a pre-event to the G 8 meeting on important Internet issues, and he invited just business CEOs along with government delegates, CS, including the IGC, wrote against this ( http://igcaucus.org/open-letter-president-sarkozy-eg8-meeting-plan )..... (This was widely covered in the French press, and as a result, I think they did invite some civil society persons) > > Civil society deserves a place at policy deliberation tables much before big corporates do..... > > BTW, in the latter part the statement says " For the time being, I have received already the list of name, position, organization, contact number, and location/email address of around 40 CEOs of various Internet Business/Civil Society organizations to joint the HLLM, proposed and sent by ICC Basis officials (Ms. Ayesha Hassan and her staffs). " > > Well, it speaks of CEOs of CS (civil society) organisations, but then in a list that has been sent to them by ICC? Has any civil society organisation/ network also been approached? > > Lets tell them, we dont believe in the CEO thing, and we believe in CS reps selected by CS networks for such meetings etc... > > And if indeed CS persons will be there, we need parity with other groups in terms of numbers - although, sorry, we cannot donate... > > parminder > > PS: Looks like confirming the suspicion that when push comes to shove, MSism tends to become corporate biggies sharing power with governments, and the rest is basically a charade of minions playing the MS cheering game... > > > On Wednesday 07 August 2013 08:40 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> See >> >> http://mail.intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/2013-August/000171.html >> >> you know the MAG list archive is now open? Archive >> >> In case the attachment doesn't open from the archived email, text copied below. >> >> Adam >> >> >> STATEMENT BY SARDJOENI MOEDJIONO (MAG MEMBER) ON THE VIRTUAL MAG MEETING, ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 6TH, 2013 >> Mr. Markus Kummer, Mr. Chengetai Masango, and all MAG Member, >> >> After a series of long and comprehensive discussions and preparations, including our previous virtual MAG Meeting on >> Wednesday, July 31st, 2013, and further discussions/ dialogs between the Global Internet Community including Mr. Chengetai Masango who joined the meeting via teleconference from Geneva and New York with Minister of Communication and Information Technology (CIT) Republic of Indonesia, Mr. Tifatul Sembiring, at his office on Monday, August 5th, 2013 – Indonesia is now confirm and pronounces ready to be the host country of the 8th Meeting of IGF 2013 in Bali as planned. We, the Indonesian Internet Governance Forum (ID-IGF) Multi-Stakeholder Organizing Committee is confidence, well-positioned and prepared to host the Global IGF 2013 in Bali, 22-25 October 2013. >> >> In addition, there is also a pre-event High Level Leaders Meeting (HLLM) on October 21st, 2013, which invites ICT Ministers and CEOs from over the world to discuss the Global – Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles. The topic and agenda of the HLLM is being discussed, and we are going to send the Term of Reference (TOR) to the invitees soon. >> >> I invite MAG Members to approach and invite their ICT Ministers in their regions to joint the HLLM on October 21st, 2013. Please send me the complete list of their name, position, country, contact number, and location/email address, so we can invite the Ministers. >> >> For the time being, I have received already the list of name, position, organization, contact number, and location/email address of around 40 CEOs of various Internet Business/Civil Society organizations to joint the HLLM, proposed and sent by ICC Basis officials (Ms. Ayesha Hassan and her staffs). >> >> Some aspects required to prepare the Global Internet Forum that will be held in Bali, including the funding sources availability have been thoroughly prepared. >> >> Minister of CIT and all bodies at the Ministry of CIT will do their best and take all necessary actions so that the Host Country Agreement (HCA) can be immediately signed by Indonesia and the UN, given that it is the essential element of the IGF 2013 Bali. >> >> Today, a letter was sent to the UNDESA from the Ministry of CIT conforming that HCA is agreed in principle and will be signed formally by August 20th, 2013, after the end of the Major Indonesian National Holiday of Idul Fitri 1434H/2013. >> The Global Internet Community ond organizations support the IGF 2013 Bali in a very positive and relieving. To that end, the Government of Indonesia and the ID-IGF Multi-stakeholder Organizing Committee thank the Internet Community, regional and global for their support so that the IGF 2013 Bali could be executed as planned. >> >> We invite the global Internet leaders and all stakeholders (Government, Business/Private Sector, and Civil Society) to joint us in IGF 2013 Bali to discuss relevant issues in cyber space especially matters concerning the global-multistakeholder cyber ethical principles that we are all share to achieve a safer, peace, and harmony cyber space for all. >> >> I thank you very much for attention and support. >> END >> >> >> On Aug 7, 2013, at 11:12 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 06:42:50 -0700 (PDT) >>> Nnenna wrote: >>> >>>> The next MAG call will be Tuesday next week at 13h00 UCT (GMT) >>>> >>>> Hopefully, by then,we will begin to know: >>>> 1. If Indonesia is still HC >>>> >>>> 2. If Bali is still the venue >>>> 3. If the dates are still maintained >>> Has that call taken place? >>> >>> If so, I'd be very interested in an update, especially on the funding >>> situation. >>> >>> (In particular, I'm interested in any news that allows me to somehow >>> get an idea about how reliable the information is that the Bali IGF >>> is going forward.) >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> -- >>> Recommendations for effective and constructive 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 nb at bollow.ch Thu Aug 8 05:04:49 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 11:04:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] News from this week's MAG call? In-Reply-To: <02A5C4CD-3A4A-4935-939D-0EBC6D078A05@hserus.net> References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> <1375278170.51504.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20130807161259.3148ce0d@quill> <52035363.2060607@itforchange.net> <02A5C4CD-3A4A-4935-939D-0EBC6D078A05@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130808110449.0b3b2b45@quill> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > The point is moot given that the ITU has little or no presence in > cybersecurity, As far as I can see, neither Parminder nor the Indonesian statement is talking about the ITU or about “cybersecurity” at all. > and "ethics" .. well, it is going to be an excellent > talk shop with a champagne and salmon reception but that is about all > it is going to achieve. Well clearly the plan here is not to have an inclusive deliberative discourse as demanded by Habermas and Ulrich for this kind of thing. But IMO we shouldn't so quickly dismiss the possibility that the objectives here might really go beyond having a good meal and enjoying some intellectual entertainment. They explicitly state that they want to “discuss the Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles”. Ethics can be a very dangerous tool in unscrupulous hands. For example, medieval history is full of crimes against humanity that were fully justified from the perspective of the kind of ethics that were en vogue at the time, a sort of ethics that contained a lot of good insights but also subtle aspects designed to protect the power and the riches of those who were rich and powerful. Greetings, Norbert > If civil society insists on parity there - well, a proportionate > number of civil society reps are guaranteed an excellent meal and > drinks, to compensate for all the hot air expended. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 08-Aug-2013, at 13:44, parminder wrote: > > > > > > > Great news that Bali IGF is on! Very much look forward... > > > > Troubled to hear there is a pre-event high level leaders meeting of > > ICT minsters and CEOs to discuss Multi-stakeholder cyber-ethics > > principles...... The thing appears corporate dominated if not > > exclusively for them, apart from ministers... > > > > Till last year, the pre event used to be a ministerial event.... > > now we have a ministers plus CEO event, and that too deciding on > > cyber ethics principles.. > > > > (BTW, it was this high level meeting to which invitations were > > being sought to be sold as a fund raising strategy described in the > > problematic document ...... So really, if a big corporation is > > afraid that cyber ethics may tend towards, say open standards, or > > strict privacy principles, one could just quickly buy up some seats > > at the table where the discussion and perhaps finalisation of > > principles will take place. Fact is, I really still do not know > > how much funding has actually been generated against those > > promises, and if those promised quid pro quos still hold. We were > > told that this question will be raised and an answer obtained in > > the MAG meeting, but i dont see anything about it in the MAG > > meeting minutes . ) > > > > This is not acceptable... CS groups must write to the organisers > > against this... When Sarkozy announced an e- G8 forum that was to > > be a pre-event to the G 8 meeting on important Internet issues, > > and he invited just business CEOs along with government delegates, > > CS, including the IGC, wrote against this > > ( http://igcaucus.org/open-letter-president-sarkozy-eg8-meeting-plan > > )..... (This was widely covered in the French press, and as a > > result, I think they did invite some civil society persons) > > > > Civil society deserves a place at policy deliberation tables much > > before big corporates do..... > > > > BTW, in the latter part the statement says " For the time being, I > > have received already the list of name, position, organization, > > contact number, and location/email address of around 40 CEOs of > > various Internet Business/Civil Society organizations to joint the > > HLLM, proposed and sent by ICC Basis officials (Ms. Ayesha Hassan > > and her staffs). " > > > > Well, it speaks of CEOs of CS (civil society) organisations, but > > then in a list that has been sent to them by ICC? Has any civil > > society organisation/ network also been approached? > > > > Lets tell them, we dont believe in the CEO thing, and we believe in > > CS reps selected by CS networks for such meetings etc... > > > > And if indeed CS persons will be there, we need parity with other > > groups in terms of numbers - although, sorry, we cannot donate... > > > > parminder > > > > PS: Looks like confirming the suspicion that when push comes to > > shove, MSism tends to become corporate biggies sharing power with > > governments, and the rest is basically a charade of minions playing > > the MS cheering game... > > > > > > On Wednesday 07 August 2013 08:40 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> See > >> > >> http://mail.intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/2013-August/000171.html > >> > >> you know the MAG list archive is now open? > >> Archive > >> > >> In case the attachment doesn't open from the archived email, text > >> copied below. > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> STATEMENT BY SARDJOENI MOEDJIONO (MAG MEMBER) ON THE VIRTUAL MAG > >> MEETING, ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 6TH, 2013 Mr. Markus Kummer, Mr. > >> Chengetai Masango, and all MAG Member, > >> > >> After a series of long and comprehensive discussions and > >> preparations, including our previous virtual MAG Meeting on > >> Wednesday, July 31st, 2013, and further discussions/ dialogs > >> between the Global Internet Community including Mr. Chengetai > >> Masango who joined the meeting via teleconference from Geneva and > >> New York with Minister of Communication and Information Technology > >> (CIT) Republic of Indonesia, Mr. Tifatul Sembiring, at his office > >> on Monday, August 5th, 2013 – Indonesia is now confirm and > >> pronounces ready to be the host country of the 8th Meeting of IGF > >> 2013 in Bali as planned. We, the Indonesian Internet Governance > >> Forum (ID-IGF) Multi-Stakeholder Organizing Committee is > >> confidence, well-positioned and prepared to host the Global IGF > >> 2013 in Bali, 22-25 October 2013. > >> > >> In addition, there is also a pre-event High Level Leaders Meeting > >> (HLLM) on October 21st, 2013, which invites ICT Ministers and CEOs > >> from over the world to discuss the Global – Multi-Stakeholder > >> Cyber Ethics Principles. The topic and agenda of the HLLM is being > >> discussed, and we are going to send the Term of Reference (TOR) to > >> the invitees soon. > >> > >> I invite MAG Members to approach and invite their ICT Ministers in > >> their regions to joint the HLLM on October 21st, 2013. Please send > >> me the complete list of their name, position, country, contact > >> number, and location/email address, so we can invite the Ministers. > >> > >> For the time being, I have received already the list of name, > >> position, organization, contact number, and location/email address > >> of around 40 CEOs of various Internet Business/Civil Society > >> organizations to joint the HLLM, proposed and sent by ICC Basis > >> officials (Ms. Ayesha Hassan and her staffs). > >> > >> Some aspects required to prepare the Global Internet Forum that > >> will be held in Bali, including the funding sources availability > >> have been thoroughly prepared. > >> > >> Minister of CIT and all bodies at the Ministry of CIT will do > >> their best and take all necessary actions so that the Host Country > >> Agreement (HCA) can be immediately signed by Indonesia and the UN, > >> given that it is the essential element of the IGF 2013 Bali. > >> > >> Today, a letter was sent to the UNDESA from the Ministry of CIT > >> conforming that HCA is agreed in principle and will be signed > >> formally by August 20th, 2013, after the end of the Major > >> Indonesian National Holiday of Idul Fitri 1434H/2013. The Global > >> Internet Community ond organizations support the IGF 2013 Bali in > >> a very positive and relieving. To that end, the Government of > >> Indonesia and the ID-IGF Multi-stakeholder Organizing Committee > >> thank the Internet Community, regional and global for their > >> support so that the IGF 2013 Bali could be executed as planned. > >> > >> We invite the global Internet leaders and all stakeholders > >> (Government, Business/Private Sector, and Civil Society) to joint > >> us in IGF 2013 Bali to discuss relevant issues in cyber space > >> especially matters concerning the global-multistakeholder cyber > >> ethical principles that we are all share to achieve a safer, > >> peace, and harmony cyber space for all. > >> > >> I thank you very much for attention and support. > >> END > >> > >> > >> On Aug 7, 2013, at 11:12 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> > >>> On Wed, 31 Jul 2013 06:42:50 -0700 (PDT) > >>> Nnenna wrote: > >>> > >>>> The next MAG call will be Tuesday next week at 13h00 UCT (GMT) > >>>> > >>>> Hopefully, by then,we will begin to know: > >>>> 1. If Indonesia is still HC > >>>> > >>>> 2. If Bali is still the venue > >>>> 3. If the dates are still maintained > >>> Has that call taken place? > >>> > >>> If so, I'd be very interested in an update, especially on the > >>> funding situation. > >>> > >>> (In particular, I'm interested in any news that allows me to > >>> somehow get an idea about how reliable the information is that > >>> the Bali IGF is going forward.) > >>> > >>> Greetings, > >>> Norbert > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Recommendations for effective and constructive 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Thu Aug 8 05:38:52 2013 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 02:38:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] ICANN DATABASE In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1375954732.30559.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dear Mr Diego Rafael, Good After noon from Pakistan With reference to your query, you may access the required information about Registrar: http://www.icann.org/registrar-reports/accreditation-qualified-list.html Registrar with their Accredited TLD Registries  through following URL: http://www.icann.org/registrar-reports/accredited-list.html You may further track and cross check the validity & the status of any Accredited Registrar through the following URL of IANA where repository data is available for download in CVS and Txt format so you may sort the list for only Accredited Registrars: http://www.iana.org/assignments/registrar-ids/registrar-ids.xml#registrar-ids-1 Hopefully this information will satisfy your needs Thanking you and Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah >________________________________ > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian >To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Diego Rafael Canabarro >Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013, 7:26 >Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN DATABASE > > >Hi, what sort of discrepancies? > >--srs (iPad) > >On 08-Aug-2013, at 7:27, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > >> Dear friends, >> >> is there any repository with data about registries and registrars which is not the one available on ICANN's website? When one compares the data sets ICANN makes available and the Corporation's dashboard, one sees that there are discrepancies between them. And the latter is built with flash and is not an open source platform. >> >> Is there any discussion about it within ICANN? >> >> Thank you >> >> > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 8 05:44:54 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 15:14:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] ICANN DATABASE In-Reply-To: <1375954732.30559.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1375954732.30559.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I believe Diego's concern was that there was a discrepancy in the number of registrars from two different listings maintained by ICANN. Those could possibly be explained by having those two sources being updated at different times of the day or week whenever a registrar is added or removed. That XML is the canonical source. --srs (iPad) On 08-Aug-2013, at 15:08, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Dear Mr Diego Rafael, Good After noon from Pakistan > > With reference to your query, you may access the required information about Registrar: > > http://www.icann.org/registrar-reports/accreditation-qualified-list.html > > Registrar with their Accredited TLD Registries through following URL: > http://www.icann.org/registrar-reports/accredited-list.html > > You may further track and cross check the validity & the status of any Accredited Registrar through the following URL of IANA where repository data is available for download in CVS and Txt format so you may sort the list for only Accredited Registrars: > http://www.iana.org/assignments/registrar-ids/registrar-ids.xml#registrar-ids-1 > > Hopefully this information will satisfy your needs > > Thanking you and Best Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Diego Rafael Canabarro > Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013, 7:26 > Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN DATABASE > > Hi, what sort of discrepancies? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 08-Aug-2013, at 7:27, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > > > Dear friends, > > > > is there any repository with data about registries and registrars which is not the one available on ICANN's website? When one compares the data sets ICANN makes available and the Corporation's dashboard, one sees that there are discrepancies between them. And the latter is built with flash and is not an open source platform. > > > > Is there any discussion about it within ICANN? > > > > Thank you > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Thu Aug 8 06:30:32 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 12:30:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waved for E-Book Readers In-Reply-To: <52026627.2090708@catherine-roy.net> References: <06E86831-490C-47FB-A6F1-9E89E0E5BFA6@comcast.net> <52026627.2090708@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <178B8ABD-4415-43F0-A0DC-C8866B3831A9@ella.com> Hi, I am not clear. It this about adding Braille to e-books? Or is it about their only partial ability to read the book to a person? Or is it about the ability to use the book and have it be voice activated to turn the pages and activate other features for those who are paralyzed? I am not sure what capabilities they want the exemption from. thanks avri On 7 Aug 2013, at 17:22, Catherine Roy wrote: > [Apologies for cross posting] > > Forwarded from the Web Accessibility Initiative Interest Group mailing list. I find this development quite distressing. > > Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waved for E-Book Readers > > "The ) Twenty-First Century Communications and Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 requires companies who make electronic devices to make them accessible to people with disabilities. At this time, none of the Ebook readers that are on the market meet this requirement. Since many companies feel that this requirement should not apply to Ebook readers, Amazon, Kobo, and Sony have submitted a petition to the FCC asking for a waiver. According to the petition, this is the definition of an Ebook reader: "E-readers, sometimes called e-book readers, are mobile electronic devices that are designed, marketed and used primarily for the purpose of reading digital documents, including e-books and periodicals." Since Ebook readers are primarily designed for print reading, the companies are arguing that the disabled community would not significantly benefit from these devices becoming accessible. They also argue that because the devices are so simple, making the changes to the devices to make them accessible, would cause them to be heavier, have poorer battery life, and raise the cost of the devices. Finally, these companies argue that since their apps are accessible on other devices such as the iPad and other full featured tablets, that they are already providing access to their content." > > Source : http://www.blindbargains.com/bargains.php?m=9286 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Thu Aug 8 06:46:05 2013 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 12:46:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk In-Reply-To: References: <00ec01ce91c0$8b5d9f00$a218dd00$@gmail.com> <802835F0-2031-4966-B93E-E301E5B88BE9@hserus.net> <000601ce93de$c6f01a50$54d04ef0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Checks and balances means the best way to keep the surveillance state in check is both effective judicial and transparent parliamentarian oversight, but it needs to happen in a way that those watching over these processes a) are not being paid by those they are supposed to supervise b) are not being lied to by the administration c) do not operate in complete secrecy d) do not create a separate body of secret laws Still, a lot of damage has been done that is irreversible and will lead to far-reaching changes in Internet governance. If we want to prevent a Balkanization of the net, we will need to continue on the path of internationalization of the core processes and institutions while safeguarding against the numerous attempts by one stakeholder group to subvert the Multistakeholder principles that have made the Internet the success it currently still is. --- Peter On 08.08.2013, at 04:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: We're actually in agreement that there's a dichotomy here. However, court rather than administration oversight over such processes remains key to constitutional and democratic controls. --srs (iPad) On 08-Aug-2013, at 7:56, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Yes, for sure and we know that the trend globally has been towards more democratic accountability and less arbitrary governance so it is particularly disturbing to see that the loudest governmental advocate in support of these trends seems to be moving quite rapidly in the other direction. > > Move > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:39 AM > To: Diego Rafael Canabarro > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk > > It is a matter of scale. There are governments where any and every citizen could expect to hear a midnight knock on the door to have his whole family shipped off to an undisclosed location. > > There are others where the rule of law exists, constitutional protections exist and such cases are aberrations. > > In all fairness, there are countries where Manning would have been tortured and shot without benefit of any sort of trial for what he did. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 07-Aug-2013, at 8:58, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > > "the USA is far from being the sort of country North Korea, Iran or Saudi Arabia are" > > These days, it has been pretty hard to sustaion that argument without serious open flanks. Especially when one considers that the argument "the sort of ..." is naturally biased towards a very manichean ways of seeing things. Pursuing Sanchez makes Cuba evil. The same with Aaron Swarts or Assange is turned sacred with the bless (and bliss, and also the magic cape) of the rule of law. > > > > On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 6:04 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > It would be wrong to assume that any government at all doesn't wear multiple hats - a security service, regulators, etc all acting with a degree of independence can produce such contradictions > > Still, the USA is far from being the sort of country North Korea, Iran or Saudi Arabia are. Some perspective might actually help before tarring all governments with the same brush. Or before assuming that each and every government entity moves in lockstep with the other. > > Lacking that perspective would perhaps show almost as much naïveté > > --srs (iPad) > > On 05-Aug-2013, at 15:15, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > > This position strikes me as either naïve or duplicitous in the extreme. > > > > Does one really believe that the USG and its "Internet Freedom" allies were > > supporting Internet Freedom because they believed in a free Internet (while > > they were using the Internet to build the capacity to undermine the > > fundamental human rights/freedoms of us all). > > > > Rather, it should I think, be evident that their real motivation was to > > ensure that there were no structures or mechanisms of whatever sort > > (governmental, inter-governmental, multi-stakeholder or whatever) that > > are/were in a position to protect those human rights and against the > > depredations which they were secretly constructing with which we all are > > being threatened. > > > > Do you really believe that the good folks who built and/or funded the > > current systems are going unbidden to build/fund out of the fineness of > > their principles the systems that you are suggesting would "protect us from > > government intrusion and ... revise Internet architectures so as to > > eliminate the points of control that governments are so successful at > > exploiting". > > > > Our strength such as it is, comes from the possibility of creating and > > implementing democratic processes and mechanisms through which governments > > and the increasingly global commons can be made transparent and held > > accountable and through which the protection of human rights and fundamental > > freedoms can be protected and extended. > > > > Mike > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 3:06 PM > > To: IGC > > Subject: Re: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance > > System at Risk > > > > > > On 2 Aug 2013, at 18:35, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > > > > quoting: > > > >> Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk Friday > >> August 02, 2013 > >> > >> http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6926/135/ > > > >> the U.S. has ceded the moral high ground on the issue. > > > > > > Anyone who believes that any government anywhere occupies high ground is > > likely to be disappointed. Governments, while unfortunately still a > > necessary evil in this stage human moral development, are not to be trusted > > but to be controlled and treated with suspicion by the people as much as > > possible. sure there are good people in all governments, but government > > themselves are not those good people, rather they are bureaucracies > > motivated by a complex of intractable and often negative forces. > > > > The high ground in Dubai was not an issue of which government should be > > trusted, it was the point of trying to remove all governments as much as > > possible. Governments cannot be trusted. History shows us that they never > > could be and it is only blind faith that indicates someday they may be > > trustworthy. Of course when governments are the only voice we have for > > limiting government intrusion - as they are in the ITU, the topic can get > > perverted. > > > > But to view the confirmation of what we all knew, that all governments > > monitor all people at all times as much as they can get away with, as an > > excuse to give other governments more oversight is a bit confused to my > > mind. > > > > I think all this has shown is that an Internet that allows any sort of > > government interference is likely to be used by those governments for their > > own purposes, whether they are, surveillance in the service of perceived > > terror, pedophilia or intellectual 'property' threats , the silencing of > > dissidents or the persecution of minorities such as the gay population and > > other cultural/nation/racial minorities. > > > > While we can and must fight on the policy front to defend ourselves against > > the vulnerabilities created and already exploited by the current Internet's > > control points, we must put more and more focus into creating technologies > > and processes that protect us from government intrusion and must revise > > Internet architectures so as to eliminate the points of control that > > governments are so successful at exploiting. > > > > 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 > > > > > -- > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Aug 8 07:21:01 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 19:21:01 +0800 Subject: [governance] ICC selects the civil society invitees to High Level Leaders Meeting Message-ID: If you thought it was bad enough when ISOC decided that the "technical and academic communities" really only meant "technical community", then you're going to love this. Look at Sardjoeni Moedjiono's statement to the Virtual MAG meeting on Tuesday about the planned High Level Leaders Meeting (HLLM) in Bali, in which he says: > For the time being, I have received already the list of name, position, organization, contact number, and location/email address of around 40 CEOs of various Internet Business/Civil Society organizations to joint the HLLM, proposed and sent by ICC Basis officials (Ms. Ayesha Hassan and her staffs). Yes, the International Chamber of Commerce will be selecting the civil society organisations to join the HLLM. I can only assume that next year, the organisers will be asking the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus to select the members of the private sector to be invited to the next high level meeting. Moedjiono's full statement is at http://mail.intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20130807/d74fc16c/attachment-0001.bin (you have to rename the extension to .docx before you can open it). -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @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 Thu Aug 8 07:28:11 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 19:28:11 +0800 Subject: [governance] ICC selects the civil society invitees to High Level Leaders Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9E0BB26D-EDF0-44CE-94CC-C3B8F828641A@ciroap.org> Sorry, ignore me - Parminder already picked up on this. I'm still going through a backlog of mail. On 08/08/2013, at 7:21 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > If you thought it was bad enough when ISOC decided that the "technical and academic communities" really only meant "technical community", then you're going to love this. > > Look at Sardjoeni Moedjiono's statement to the Virtual MAG meeting on Tuesday about the planned High Level Leaders Meeting (HLLM) in Bali, in which he says: > >> For the time being, I have received already the list of name, position, organization, contact number, and location/email address of around 40 CEOs of various Internet Business/Civil Society organizations to joint the HLLM, proposed and sent by ICC Basis officials (Ms. Ayesha Hassan and her staffs). > > > Yes, the International Chamber of Commerce will be selecting the civil society organisations to join the HLLM. I can only assume that next year, the organisers will be asking the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus to select the members of the private sector to be invited to the next high level meeting. > > Moedjiono's full statement is at http://mail.intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20130807/d74fc16c/attachment-0001.bin (you have to rename the extension to .docx before you can open it). > > -- > 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 > > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > > @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 -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @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 chaitanyabd at gmail.com Thu Aug 8 07:29:14 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 16:59:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] ICC selects the civil society invitees to High Level Leaders Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In the previous sentence he does ask for more representation. He's not written though whether all interested parties would be engaged or if there's some form of selection. Would be interesting to know precisely WHO these people are though, as that would affect the reach of the current programme. I expect big names, but would rather not speculate yet... -C On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > If you thought it was bad enough when ISOC decided that the "technical and > academic communities" really only meant "technical community", then you're > going to love this. > > Look at Sardjoeni Moedjiono's statement to the Virtual MAG meeting on > Tuesday about the planned High Level Leaders Meeting (HLLM) in Bali, in > which he says: > > For the time being, I have received already the list of name, > position, organization, contact number, and location/email address of > around 40 CEOs of various Internet Business/Civil Society organizations > to joint the HLLM, proposed and sent by ICC Basis officials (Ms. > Ayesha Hassan and her staffs). > > > Yes, the International Chamber of Commerce will be selecting the civil > society organisations to join the HLLM. I can only assume that next year, > the organisers will be asking the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > to select the members of the private sector to be invited to the next high > level meeting. > > Moedjiono's full statement is at > http://mail.intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20130807/d74fc16c/attachment-0001.bin(you have to rename the extension to .docx before you can open it). > > -- > > *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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @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 chaitanyabd at gmail.com Thu Aug 8 07:30:13 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 17:00:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] ICC selects the civil society invitees to High Level Leaders Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And btw Jeremy I seem to have missed Parminder's post too :) -C On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > In the previous sentence he does ask for more representation. He's not > written though whether all interested parties would be engaged or if > there's some form of selection. > > Would be interesting to know precisely WHO these people are though, as > that would affect the reach of the current programme. I expect big names, > but would rather not speculate yet... > > -C > > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> If you thought it was bad enough when ISOC decided that the "technical >> and academic communities" really only meant "technical community", then >> you're going to love this. >> >> Look at Sardjoeni Moedjiono's statement to the Virtual MAG meeting on >> Tuesday about the planned High Level Leaders Meeting (HLLM) in Bali, in >> which he says: >> >> For the time being, I have received already the list of name, >> position, organization, contact number, and location/email address of >> around 40 CEOs of various Internet Business/Civil Society organizations >> to joint the HLLM, proposed and sent by ICC Basis officials (Ms. >> Ayesha Hassan and her staffs). >> >> >> Yes, the International Chamber of Commerce will be selecting the civil >> society organisations to join the HLLM. I can only assume that next year, >> the organisers will be asking the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus >> to select the members of the private sector to be invited to the next high >> level meeting. >> >> Moedjiono's full statement is at >> http://mail.intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20130807/d74fc16c/attachment-0001.bin(you have to rename the extension to .docx before you can open it). >> >> -- >> >> *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 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge >> hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Aug 8 07:48:08 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 17:18:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] ICC selects the civil society invitees to High Level Leaders Meeting Message-ID: That is a considerable misstatement of what ISOC has been doing for the last several years though i guess you have a different perception of this issue. Anyway as Chaitanya says the organizers don't rule out other participation and there is no decision making anywhere on the agenda as far as i can see. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Jeremy Malcolm" To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Subject: [governance] ICC selects the civil society invitees to High Level Leaders Meeting Date: Thu, Aug 8, 2013 4:51 PM If you thought it was bad enough when ISOC decided that the "technical and academic communities" really only meant "technical community", then you're going to love this. Look at Sardjoeni Moedjiono's statement to the Virtual MAG meeting on Tuesday about the planned High Level Leaders Meeting (HLLM) in Bali, in which he says: > For the time being, I have received already the list of name, position, organization, contact number, and location/email address of around 40 CEOs of various Internet Business/Civil Society organizations to joint the HLLM, proposed and sent by ICC Basis officials (Ms. Ayesha Hassan and her staffs). Yes, the International Chamber of Commerce will be selecting the civil society organisations to join the HLLM. I can only assume that next year, the organisers will be asking the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus to select the members of the private sector to be invited to the next high level meeting. Moedjiono's full statement is at http://mail.intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20130807/d74fc16c/attachment-0001.bin (you have to rename the extension to .docx before you can open it). -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @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 jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Aug 8 07:49:37 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 13:49:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICC selects the civil society invitees to High Level Leaders Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 13:21 08/08/2013, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >Yes, the International Chamber of Commerce will be selecting the >civil society organisations to join the HLLM. I can only assume >that next year, the organisers will be asking the Civil Society >Internet Governance Caucus to select the members of the private >sector to be invited to the next high level meeting. This depends on us. Let put ourself in a strength position to host it and we will pick our paying guests. This is the OpenIGF project. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Aug 8 08:07:16 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 08:07:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk In-Reply-To: References: <00ec01ce91c0$8b5d9f00$a218dd00$@gmail.com> <802835F0-2031-4966-B93E-E301E5B88BE9@hserus.net> <000601ce93de$c6f01a50$54d04ef0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yesterday we had a public hearing in Brazil on our Internet Bill of Rights (Marco Civil). One of the business associations made a very compelling presentation on the negative effects of Internet Balkanization, presenting its points on economic terms and how any regulation regarding local servers and local data storage would increase the country cost and make a country even less competitive. It followed to present comparative country costs regarding storage and data centers. Pretty compelling for the politicians in the audience. Carolina Sent from my iPhone On Aug 8, 2013, at 6:46 AM, "Peter H. Hellmonds" wrote: > Checks and balances means the best way to keep the surveillance state in check is both effective judicial and transparent parliamentarian oversight, but it needs to happen in a way that those watching over these processes > a) are not being paid by those they are supposed to supervise > b) are not being lied to by the administration > c) do not operate in complete secrecy > d) do not create a separate body of secret laws > > Still, a lot of damage has been done that is irreversible and will lead to far-reaching changes in Internet governance. If we want to prevent a Balkanization of the net, we will need to continue on the path of internationalization of the core processes and institutions while safeguarding against the numerous attempts by one stakeholder group to subvert the Multistakeholder principles that have made the Internet the success it currently still is. > > --- Peter > > > On 08.08.2013, at 04:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > We're actually in agreement that there's a dichotomy here. > > However, court rather than administration oversight over such processes remains key to constitutional and democratic controls. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 08-Aug-2013, at 7:56, "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> Yes, for sure and we know that the trend globally has been towards more democratic accountability and less arbitrary governance so it is particularly disturbing to see that the loudest governmental advocate in support of these trends seems to be moving quite rapidly in the other direction. >> >> Move >> >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:39 AM >> To: Diego Rafael Canabarro >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; Avri Doria >> Subject: Re: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk >> >> It is a matter of scale. There are governments where any and every citizen could expect to hear a midnight knock on the door to have his whole family shipped off to an undisclosed location. >> >> There are others where the rule of law exists, constitutional protections exist and such cases are aberrations. >> >> In all fairness, there are countries where Manning would have been tortured and shot without benefit of any sort of trial for what he did. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 07-Aug-2013, at 8:58, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: >> >> "the USA is far from being the sort of country North Korea, Iran or Saudi Arabia are" >> >> These days, it has been pretty hard to sustaion that argument without serious open flanks. Especially when one considers that the argument "the sort of ..." is naturally biased towards a very manichean ways of seeing things. Pursuing Sanchez makes Cuba evil. The same with Aaron Swarts or Assange is turned sacred with the bless (and bliss, and also the magic cape) of the rule of law. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 6:04 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> It would be wrong to assume that any government at all doesn't wear multiple hats - a security service, regulators, etc all acting with a degree of independence can produce such contradictions >> >> Still, the USA is far from being the sort of country North Korea, Iran or Saudi Arabia are. Some perspective might actually help before tarring all governments with the same brush. Or before assuming that each and every government entity moves in lockstep with the other. >> >> Lacking that perspective would perhaps show almost as much naïveté >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 05-Aug-2013, at 15:15, "michael gurstein" wrote: >> >> > This position strikes me as either naïve or duplicitous in the extreme. >> > >> > Does one really believe that the USG and its "Internet Freedom" allies were >> > supporting Internet Freedom because they believed in a free Internet (while >> > they were using the Internet to build the capacity to undermine the >> > fundamental human rights/freedoms of us all). >> > >> > Rather, it should I think, be evident that their real motivation was to >> > ensure that there were no structures or mechanisms of whatever sort >> > (governmental, inter-governmental, multi-stakeholder or whatever) that >> > are/were in a position to protect those human rights and against the >> > depredations which they were secretly constructing with which we all are >> > being threatened. >> > >> > Do you really believe that the good folks who built and/or funded the >> > current systems are going unbidden to build/fund out of the fineness of >> > their principles the systems that you are suggesting would "protect us from >> > government intrusion and ... revise Internet architectures so as to >> > eliminate the points of control that governments are so successful at >> > exploiting". >> > >> > Our strength such as it is, comes from the possibility of creating and >> > implementing democratic processes and mechanisms through which governments >> > and the increasingly global commons can be made transparent and held >> > accountable and through which the protection of human rights and fundamental >> > freedoms can be protected and extended. >> > >> > Mike >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 3:06 PM >> > To: IGC >> > Subject: Re: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance >> > System at Risk >> > >> > >> > On 2 Aug 2013, at 18:35, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: >> > >> > quoting: >> > >> >> Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk Friday >> >> August 02, 2013 >> >> >> >> http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6926/135/ >> > >> >> the U.S. has ceded the moral high ground on the issue. >> > >> > >> > Anyone who believes that any government anywhere occupies high ground is >> > likely to be disappointed. Governments, while unfortunately still a >> > necessary evil in this stage human moral development, are not to be trusted >> > but to be controlled and treated with suspicion by the people as much as >> > possible. sure there are good people in all governments, but government >> > themselves are not those good people, rather they are bureaucracies >> > motivated by a complex of intractable and often negative forces. >> > >> > The high ground in Dubai was not an issue of which government should be >> > trusted, it was the point of trying to remove all governments as much as >> > possible. Governments cannot be trusted. History shows us that they never >> > could be and it is only blind faith that indicates someday they may be >> > trustworthy. Of course when governments are the only voice we have for >> > limiting government intrusion - as they are in the ITU, the topic can get >> > perverted. >> > >> > But to view the confirmation of what we all knew, that all governments >> > monitor all people at all times as much as they can get away with, as an >> > excuse to give other governments more oversight is a bit confused to my >> > mind. >> > >> > I think all this has shown is that an Internet that allows any sort of >> > government interference is likely to be used by those governments for their >> > own purposes, whether they are, surveillance in the service of perceived >> > terror, pedophilia or intellectual 'property' threats , the silencing of >> > dissidents or the persecution of minorities such as the gay population and >> > other cultural/nation/racial minorities. >> > >> > While we can and must fight on the policy front to defend ourselves against >> > the vulnerabilities created and already exploited by the current Internet's >> > control points, we must put more and more focus into creating technologies >> > and processes that protect us from government intrusion and must revise >> > Internet architectures so as to eliminate the points of control that >> > governments are so successful at exploiting. >> > >> > 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 8 08:14:04 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 17:44:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk In-Reply-To: References: <00ec01ce91c0$8b5d9f00$a218dd00$@gmail.com> <802835F0-2031-4966-B93E-E301E5B88BE9@hserus.net> <000601ce93de$c6f01a50$54d04ef0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52038B8C.3000100@itforchange.net> Yes, moving towards 'digital sovereignty' is not easily sustainable, on many counts.... But then a global architecture of data flows. storage and generally cloud computing will require global norms, principles and regulation that are arrived at in an open, participative and democratic manner... And also US has to stop enforcing such digital sovereignty conditions on telecom and Internet businesses inside US, to make for a level playing field for others - a field which even with such a change in US's position would remain highly uneven.... parminder On Thursday 08 August 2013 05:37 PM, Carolina wrote: > Yesterday we had a public hearing in Brazil on our Internet Bill of > Rights (Marco Civil). > > One of the business associations made a very compelling presentation > on the negative effects of Internet Balkanization, presenting its > points on economic terms and how any regulation regarding local > servers and local data storage would increase the country cost and > make a country even less competitive. It followed to present > comparative country costs regarding storage and data centers. Pretty > compelling for the politicians in the audience. > > Carolina > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 8, 2013, at 6:46 AM, "Peter H. Hellmonds" > > > wrote: > >> Checks and balances means the best way to keep the surveillance state >> in check is both effective judicial and transparent parliamentarian >> oversight, but it needs to happen in a way that those watching over >> these processes >> a) are not being paid by those they are supposed to supervise >> b) are not being lied to by the administration >> c) do not operate in complete secrecy >> d) do not create a separate body of secret laws >> >> Still, a lot of damage has been done that is irreversible and will >> lead to far-reaching changes in Internet governance. If we want to >> prevent a Balkanization of the net, we will need to continue on the >> path of internationalization of the core processes and institutions >> while safeguarding against the numerous attempts by one stakeholder >> group to subvert the Multistakeholder principles that have made the >> Internet the success it currently still is. >> >> --- Peter >> >> >> On 08.08.2013, at 04:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > wrote: >> >> We're actually in agreement that there's a dichotomy here. >> >> However, court rather than administration oversight over such >> processes remains key to constitutional and democratic controls. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 08-Aug-2013, at 7:56, "michael gurstein" > > wrote: >> >>> Yes, for sure and we know that the trend globally has been towards >>> more democratic accountability and less arbitrary governance so it >>> is particularly disturbing to see that the loudest governmental >>> advocate in support of these trends seems to be moving quite rapidly >>> in the other direction. >>> >>> Move >>> >>> *From:*Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:39 AM >>> *To:* Diego Rafael Canabarro >>> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> ; michael gurstein; Avri Doria >>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet >>> Governance System at Risk >>> >>> It is a matter of scale. There are governments where any and every >>> citizen could expect to hear a midnight knock on the door to have >>> his whole family shipped off to an undisclosed location. >>> >>> There are others where the rule of law exists, constitutional >>> protections exist and such cases are aberrations. >>> >>> In all fairness, there are countries where Manning would have been >>> tortured and shot without benefit of any sort of trial for what he did. >>> >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> >>> On 07-Aug-2013, at 8:58, Diego Rafael Canabarro >>> > wrote: >>> >>> "the USA is far from being the sort of country North Korea, Iran >>> or Saudi Arabia are" >>> >>> These days, it has been pretty hard to sustaion that argument >>> without serious open flanks. Especially when one considers that >>> the argument "the sort of ..." is naturally biased towards a >>> very manichean ways of seeing things. Pursuing Sanchez makes >>> Cuba evil. The same with Aaron Swarts or Assange is turned >>> sacred with the bless (and bliss, and also the magic cape) of >>> the rule of law. >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 6:04 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >>> > wrote: >>> >>> It would be wrong to assume that any government at all doesn't >>> wear multiple hats - a security service, regulators, etc all >>> acting with a degree of independence can produce such contradictions >>> >>> Still, the USA is far from being the sort of country North >>> Korea, Iran or Saudi Arabia are. Some perspective might >>> actually help before tarring all governments with the same >>> brush. Or before assuming that each and every government entity >>> moves in lockstep with the other. >>> >>> Lacking that perspective would perhaps show almost as much naïveté >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> >>> On 05-Aug-2013, at 15:15, "michael gurstein" >> > wrote: >>> >>> > This position strikes me as either naïve or duplicitous in the >>> extreme. >>> > >>> > Does one really believe that the USG and its "Internet >>> Freedom" allies were >>> > supporting Internet Freedom because they believed in a free >>> Internet (while >>> > they were using the Internet to build the capacity to >>> undermine the >>> > fundamental human rights/freedoms of us all). >>> > >>> > Rather, it should I think, be evident that their real >>> motivation was to >>> > ensure that there were no structures or mechanisms of whatever >>> sort >>> > (governmental, inter-governmental, multi-stakeholder or >>> whatever) that >>> > are/were in a position to protect those human rights and >>> against the >>> > depredations which they were secretly constructing with which >>> we all are >>> > being threatened. >>> > >>> > Do you really believe that the good folks who built and/or >>> funded the >>> > current systems are going unbidden to build/fund out of the >>> fineness of >>> > their principles the systems that you are suggesting would >>> "protect us from >>> > government intrusion and ... revise Internet architectures so >>> as to >>> > eliminate the points of control that governments are so >>> successful at >>> > exploiting". >>> > >>> > Our strength such as it is, comes from the possibility of >>> creating and >>> > implementing democratic processes and mechanisms through which >>> governments >>> > and the increasingly global commons can be made transparent >>> and held >>> > accountable and through which the protection of human rights >>> and fundamental >>> > freedoms can be protected and extended. >>> > >>> > Mike >>> > >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>> ] On Behalf Of >>> Avri Doria >>> > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 3:06 PM >>> > To: IGC >>> > Subject: Re: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet >>> Governance >>> > System at Risk >>> > >>> > >>> > On 2 Aug 2013, at 18:35, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: >>> > >>> > quoting: >>> > >>> >> Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk >>> Friday >>> >> August 02, 2013 >>> >> >>> >> http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6926/135/ >>> > >>> >> the U.S. has ceded the moral high ground on the issue. >>> > >>> > >>> > Anyone who believes that any government anywhere occupies high >>> ground is >>> > likely to be disappointed. Governments, while unfortunately >>> still a >>> > necessary evil in this stage human moral development, are not >>> to be trusted >>> > but to be controlled and treated with suspicion by the people >>> as much as >>> > possible. sure there are good people in all governments, but >>> government >>> > themselves are not those good people, rather they are >>> bureaucracies >>> > motivated by a complex of intractable and often negative forces. >>> > >>> > The high ground in Dubai was not an issue of which government >>> should be >>> > trusted, it was the point of trying to remove all governments >>> as much as >>> > possible. Governments cannot be trusted. History shows us >>> that they never >>> > could be and it is only blind faith that indicates someday >>> they may be >>> > trustworthy. Of course when governments are the only voice we >>> have for >>> > limiting government intrusion - as they are in the ITU, the >>> topic can get >>> > perverted. >>> > >>> > But to view the confirmation of what we all knew, that all >>> governments >>> > monitor all people at all times as much as they can get away >>> with, as an >>> > excuse to give other governments more oversight is a bit >>> confused to my >>> > mind. >>> > >>> > I think all this has shown is that an Internet that allows any >>> sort of >>> > government interference is likely to be used by those >>> governments for their >>> > own purposes, whether they are, surveillance in the service of >>> perceived >>> > terror, pedophilia or intellectual 'property' threats , the >>> silencing of >>> > dissidents or the persecution of minorities such as the gay >>> population and >>> > other cultural/nation/racial minorities. >>> > >>> > While we can and must fight on the policy front to defend >>> ourselves against >>> > the vulnerabilities created and already exploited by the >>> current Internet's >>> > control points, we must put more and more focus into creating >>> technologies >>> > and processes that protect us from government intrusion and >>> must revise >>> > Internet architectures so as to eliminate the points of >>> control that >>> > governments are so successful at exploiting. >>> > >>> > 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ayesha.hassan at iccwbo.org Thu Aug 8 08:20:50 2013 From: ayesha.hassan at iccwbo.org (HASSAN Ayesha) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 12:20:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] ICC selects the civil society invitees to High Level Leaders Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1BBFA07D05B4B3439A0D8943CDE6FEA05499B0FF@IVORITE.icchq.org> Dear all, ICC was asked by the Indonesian hosts to identify business executives only for the host country high level event on 21 October. We have sent in a preliminary list of business executives to the hosts. ICC has not been asked to identify civil society representatives for this host country event, and we have no intention of submitting a list of civil society representatives for this event. May I suggest someone from civil society contacts the host country or IGF secretariat to manage this matter? I hope this clarifies the matter. Regards, Ayesha Hassan -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of JFC Morfin Sent: jeudi 8 août 2013 13:50 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] ICC selects the civil society invitees to High Level Leaders Meeting At 13:21 08/08/2013, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >Yes, the International Chamber of Commerce will be selecting the civil >society organisations to join the HLLM. I can only assume that next >year, the organisers will be asking the Civil Society Internet >Governance Caucus to select the members of the private sector to be >invited to the next high level meeting. This depends on us. Let put ourself in a strength position to host it and we will pick our paying guests. This is the OpenIGF project. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Aug 8 08:32:10 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 18:02:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk In-Reply-To: References: <00ec01ce91c0$8b5d9f00$a218dd00$@gmail.com> <802835F0-2031-4966-B93E-E301E5B88BE9@hserus.net> <000601ce93de$c6f01a50$54d04ef0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: there's more than one group engaged in this subversion, at one level or the other but otherwise, thank you for making those points --srs (iPad) On 08-Aug-2013, at 16:16, "Peter H. Hellmonds" wrote: > Checks and balances means the best way to keep the surveillance state in check is both effective judicial and transparent parliamentarian oversight, but it needs to happen in a way that those watching over these processes > a) are not being paid by those they are supposed to supervise > b) are not being lied to by the administration > c) do not operate in complete secrecy > d) do not create a separate body of secret laws > > Still, a lot of damage has been done that is irreversible and will lead to far-reaching changes in Internet governance. If we want to prevent a Balkanization of the net, we will need to continue on the path of internationalization of the core processes and institutions while safeguarding against the numerous attempts by one stakeholder group to subvert the Multistakeholder principles that have made the Internet the success it currently still is. > > --- Peter > > > On 08.08.2013, at 04:30, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > We're actually in agreement that there's a dichotomy here. > > However, court rather than administration oversight over such processes remains key to constitutional and democratic controls. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 08-Aug-2013, at 7:56, "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> Yes, for sure and we know that the trend globally has been towards more democratic accountability and less arbitrary governance so it is particularly disturbing to see that the loudest governmental advocate in support of these trends seems to be moving quite rapidly in the other direction. >> >> Move >> >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 10:39 AM >> To: Diego Rafael Canabarro >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; Avri Doria >> Subject: Re: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk >> >> It is a matter of scale. There are governments where any and every citizen could expect to hear a midnight knock on the door to have his whole family shipped off to an undisclosed location. >> >> There are others where the rule of law exists, constitutional protections exist and such cases are aberrations. >> >> In all fairness, there are countries where Manning would have been tortured and shot without benefit of any sort of trial for what he did. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 07-Aug-2013, at 8:58, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: >> >> "the USA is far from being the sort of country North Korea, Iran or Saudi Arabia are" >> >> These days, it has been pretty hard to sustaion that argument without serious open flanks. Especially when one considers that the argument "the sort of ..." is naturally biased towards a very manichean ways of seeing things. Pursuing Sanchez makes Cuba evil. The same with Aaron Swarts or Assange is turned sacred with the bless (and bliss, and also the magic cape) of the rule of law. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 6:04 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> It would be wrong to assume that any government at all doesn't wear multiple hats - a security service, regulators, etc all acting with a degree of independence can produce such contradictions >> >> Still, the USA is far from being the sort of country North Korea, Iran or Saudi Arabia are. Some perspective might actually help before tarring all governments with the same brush. Or before assuming that each and every government entity moves in lockstep with the other. >> >> Lacking that perspective would perhaps show almost as much naïveté >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 05-Aug-2013, at 15:15, "michael gurstein" wrote: >> >> > This position strikes me as either naïve or duplicitous in the extreme. >> > >> > Does one really believe that the USG and its "Internet Freedom" allies were >> > supporting Internet Freedom because they believed in a free Internet (while >> > they were using the Internet to build the capacity to undermine the >> > fundamental human rights/freedoms of us all). >> > >> > Rather, it should I think, be evident that their real motivation was to >> > ensure that there were no structures or mechanisms of whatever sort >> > (governmental, inter-governmental, multi-stakeholder or whatever) that >> > are/were in a position to protect those human rights and against the >> > depredations which they were secretly constructing with which we all are >> > being threatened. >> > >> > Do you really believe that the good folks who built and/or funded the >> > current systems are going unbidden to build/fund out of the fineness of >> > their principles the systems that you are suggesting would "protect us from >> > government intrusion and ... revise Internet architectures so as to >> > eliminate the points of control that governments are so successful at >> > exploiting". >> > >> > Our strength such as it is, comes from the possibility of creating and >> > implementing democratic processes and mechanisms through which governments >> > and the increasingly global commons can be made transparent and held >> > accountable and through which the protection of human rights and fundamental >> > freedoms can be protected and extended. >> > >> > Mike >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> > Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 3:06 PM >> > To: IGC >> > Subject: Re: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance >> > System at Risk >> > >> > >> > On 2 Aug 2013, at 18:35, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: >> > >> > quoting: >> > >> >> Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk Friday >> >> August 02, 2013 >> >> >> >> http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6926/135/ >> > >> >> the U.S. has ceded the moral high ground on the issue. >> > >> > >> > Anyone who believes that any government anywhere occupies high ground is >> > likely to be disappointed. Governments, while unfortunately still a >> > necessary evil in this stage human moral development, are not to be trusted >> > but to be controlled and treated with suspicion by the people as much as >> > possible. sure there are good people in all governments, but government >> > themselves are not those good people, rather they are bureaucracies >> > motivated by a complex of intractable and often negative forces. >> > >> > The high ground in Dubai was not an issue of which government should be >> > trusted, it was the point of trying to remove all governments as much as >> > possible. Governments cannot be trusted. History shows us that they never >> > could be and it is only blind faith that indicates someday they may be >> > trustworthy. Of course when governments are the only voice we have for >> > limiting government intrusion - as they are in the ITU, the topic can get >> > perverted. >> > >> > But to view the confirmation of what we all knew, that all governments >> > monitor all people at all times as much as they can get away with, as an >> > excuse to give other governments more oversight is a bit confused to my >> > mind. >> > >> > I think all this has shown is that an Internet that allows any sort of >> > government interference is likely to be used by those governments for their >> > own purposes, whether they are, surveillance in the service of perceived >> > terror, pedophilia or intellectual 'property' threats , the silencing of >> > dissidents or the persecution of minorities such as the gay population and >> > other cultural/nation/racial minorities. >> > >> > While we can and must fight on the policy front to defend ourselves against >> > the vulnerabilities created and already exploited by the current Internet's >> > control points, we must put more and more focus into creating technologies >> > and processes that protect us from government intrusion and must revise >> > Internet architectures so as to eliminate the points of control that >> > governments are so successful at exploiting. >> > >> > 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 8 08:47:30 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 18:17:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] Important standardization project in ISO/IEC In-Reply-To: <20130807220702.14c4b1a5@quill> References: <20130807220702.14c4b1a5@quill> Message-ID: SOA actually? Service Oriented Architecture, not Service Level Agreement. http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_tc_browse.htm?commid=601355&development=on --srs (iPad) On 08-Aug-2013, at 1:37, Norbert Bollow wrote: > In ISO/IEC JTC1 SC38, a new work item proposal with the title “SLA > Framework and Terminology” has just been approved. > > This is in the context of cloud computing. If this standardization > project is going to be influential (which I think it is going to be, > for better or worse), it's going to determine to a large extent how > the contracts between cloud service providers and their customers > will be shaped. > > I think that this is a very important standardization project for civil > society to be engaged in. > > For those with access to ISO/IEC documents, the relevant documents are > ISO/IEC HTC1 SC38 N881 New Work Item Proposal > ISO/IEC HTC1 SC38 N902 Summary of Voting > ISO/IEC HTC1 SC38 N903 US National Body Contribution > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Aug 8 08:49:51 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 21:49:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] ICC selects the civil society invitees to High Level Leaders Meeting In-Reply-To: <1BBFA07D05B4B3439A0D8943CDE6FEA05499B0FF@IVORITE.icchq.org> References: <1BBFA07D05B4B3439A0D8943CDE6FEA05499B0FF@IVORITE.icchq.org> Message-ID: Thanks Ayesha, very helpful to know. As the MAG members have already been invited and Mr. Moedjiono is a member of the MAG, perhaps the civil society MAG members could write to him and sort this out. Adam On Aug 8, 2013, at 9:20 PM, HASSAN Ayesha wrote: > Dear all, > ICC was asked by the Indonesian hosts to identify business executives only for the host country high level event on 21 October. We have sent in a preliminary list of business executives to the hosts. > ICC has not been asked to identify civil society representatives for this host country event, and we have no intention of submitting a list of civil society representatives for this event. > > May I suggest someone from civil society contacts the host country or IGF secretariat to manage this matter? > > I hope this clarifies the matter. > Regards, > Ayesha Hassan > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of JFC Morfin > Sent: jeudi 8 août 2013 13:50 > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeremy Malcolm > Subject: Re: [governance] ICC selects the civil society invitees to High Level Leaders Meeting > > At 13:21 08/08/2013, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> Yes, the International Chamber of Commerce will be selecting the civil >> society organisations to join the HLLM. I can only assume that next >> year, the organisers will be asking the Civil Society Internet >> Governance Caucus to select the members of the private sector to be >> invited to the next high level meeting. > > This depends on us. Let put ourself in a strength position to host it and we will pick our paying guests. > This is the OpenIGF project. > > jfc > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Thu Aug 8 09:23:04 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 06:23:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] ICC selects the civil society invitees to High Level Leaders Meeting In-Reply-To: References: <1BBFA07D05B4B3439A0D8943CDE6FEA05499B0FF@IVORITE.icchq.org> Message-ID: <1375968184.57917.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>  === As the MAG members have already been invited and Mr. Moedjiono is a member of the MAG, perhaps the civil society MAG members could write to him and sort this out. Adam == My opinion will be to have the co-conveners of the IGC contact Indonesia. N -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 8 10:00:04 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 23:00:04 +0900 Subject: [governance] ICC selects the civil society invitees to High Level Leaders Meeting In-Reply-To: <1375968184.57917.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1BBFA07D05B4B3439A0D8943CDE6FEA05499B0FF@IVORITE.icchq.org> <1375968184.57917.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <84AA2AD1-E802-485A-9360-191471BA61E6@glocom.ac.jp> Hi Nnenna, In my opinion the civil society MAG members represent a much broader section of civil society than this caucus. Adam On Aug 8, 2013, at 10:23 PM, Nnenna wrote: > > === > As the MAG members have already been invited and Mr. Moedjiono is a member of the MAG, perhaps the civil society MAG members could write to him and sort this out. > > Adam > == > My opinion will be to have the co-conveners of the IGC contact Indonesia. > > N > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Aug 8 10:03:52 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 19:33:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] ICC selects the civil society invitees to High Level Leaders Meeting In-Reply-To: <84AA2AD1-E802-485A-9360-191471BA61E6@glocom.ac.jp> References: <1BBFA07D05B4B3439A0D8943CDE6FEA05499B0FF@IVORITE.icchq.org> <1375968184.57917.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <84AA2AD1-E802-485A-9360-191471BA61E6@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <8CA79AC1-528E-40AD-854C-195C4C470683@hserus.net> Agree. --srs (iPad) On 08-Aug-2013, at 19:30, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Nnenna, > > In my opinion the civil society MAG members represent a much broader section of civil society than this caucus. > > Adam > > > > On Aug 8, 2013, at 10:23 PM, Nnenna wrote: > >> >> === >> As the MAG members have already been invited and Mr. Moedjiono is a member of the MAG, perhaps the civil society MAG members could write to him and sort this out. >> >> Adam >> == >> My opinion will be to have the co-conveners of the IGC contact Indonesia. >> >> N >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 diegocanabarro at gmail.com Thu Aug 8 10:22:11 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 10:22:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN DATABASE In-Reply-To: References: <1375954732.30559.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Exactly, Suresh. I know those databases, Imran. My point was: ICANN seems to use updated versions for the dashboard faster than for those tables. Note, also, that only one of those lists can be exported to a CSV file. In case you guys know a way of extracting data from the dashboard in real time, let me know. I will keep trying. Regards Diego On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 5:44 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I believe Diego's concern was that there was a discrepancy in the number > of registrars from two different listings maintained by ICANN. > > Those could possibly be explained by having those two sources being > updated at different times of the day or week whenever a registrar is added > or removed. > > That XML is the canonical source. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 08-Aug-2013, at 15:08, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > Dear Mr Diego Rafael, Good After noon from Pakistan > > With reference to your query, you may access the required information > about Registrar: > > http://www.icann.org/registrar-reports/accreditation-qualified-list.html > > Registrar with their Accredited TLD Registries through following URL: > http://www.icann.org/registrar-reports/accredited-list.html > > You may further track and cross check the validity & the status of any > Accredited Registrar through the following URL of IANA where repository > data is available for download in CVS and Txt format so you may sort the > list for only Accredited Registrars: > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/registrar-ids/registrar-ids.xml#registrar-ids-1 > > Hopefully this information will satisfy your needs > > Thanking you and Best Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Suresh Ramasubramanian > *To:* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; > Diego Rafael Canabarro > *Sent:* Thursday, 8 August 2013, 7:26 > *Subject:* Re: [governance] ICANN DATABASE > > Hi, what sort of discrepancies? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 08-Aug-2013, at 7:27, Diego Rafael Canabarro > wrote: > > > Dear friends, > > > > is there any repository with data about registries and registrars which > is not the one available on ICANN's website? When one compares the data > sets ICANN makes available and the Corporation's dashboard, one sees that > there are discrepancies between them. And the latter is built with flash > and is not an open source platform. > > > > Is there any discussion about it within ICANN? > > > > Thank you > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Aug 8 10:27:45 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 19:57:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] ICANN DATABASE In-Reply-To: References: <1375954732.30559.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: ICANN should certainly be responsive to such a request. Ask them? --srs (iPad) On 08-Aug-2013, at 19:52, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > Exactly, Suresh. > I know those databases, Imran. My point was: ICANN seems to use updated versions for the dashboard faster than for those tables. Note, also, that only one of those lists can be exported to a CSV file. In case you guys know a way of extracting data from the dashboard in real time, let me know. I will keep trying. > > Regards > Diego > > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 5:44 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> I believe Diego's concern was that there was a discrepancy in the number of registrars from two different listings maintained by ICANN. >> >> Those could possibly be explained by having those two sources being updated at different times of the day or week whenever a registrar is added or removed. >> >> That XML is the canonical source. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 08-Aug-2013, at 15:08, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >> >>> Dear Mr Diego Rafael, Good After noon from Pakistan >>> >>> With reference to your query, you may access the required information about Registrar: >>> >>> http://www.icann.org/registrar-reports/accreditation-qualified-list.html >>> >>> Registrar with their Accredited TLD Registries through following URL: >>> http://www.icann.org/registrar-reports/accredited-list.html >>> >>> You may further track and cross check the validity & the status of any Accredited Registrar through the following URL of IANA where repository data is available for download in CVS and Txt format so you may sort the list for only Accredited Registrars: >>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/registrar-ids/registrar-ids.xml#registrar-ids-1 >>> >>> Hopefully this information will satisfy your needs >>> >>> Thanking you and Best Regards >>> >>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>> >>> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian >>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Diego Rafael Canabarro >>> Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013, 7:26 >>> Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN DATABASE >>> >>> Hi, what sort of discrepancies? >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> On 08-Aug-2013, at 7:27, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: >>> >>> > Dear friends, >>> > >>> > is there any repository with data about registries and registrars which is not the one available on ICANN's website? When one compares the data sets ICANN makes available and the Corporation's dashboard, one sees that there are discrepancies between them. And the latter is built with flash and is not an open source platform. >>> > >>> > Is there any discussion about it within ICANN? >>> > >>> > Thank you >>> > >>> > >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > 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 diegocanabarro at gmail.com Thu Aug 8 10:30:47 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 10:30:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN DATABASE In-Reply-To: References: <1375954732.30559.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Tried. Failed. :) Let you know in case they reply in the future. Thank you On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > ICANN should certainly be responsive to such a request. Ask them? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 08-Aug-2013, at 19:52, Diego Rafael Canabarro > wrote: > > Exactly, Suresh. > I know those databases, Imran. My point was: ICANN seems to use updated > versions for the dashboard faster than for those tables. Note, also, that > only one of those lists can be exported to a CSV file. In case you guys > know a way of extracting data from the dashboard in real time, let me know. > I will keep trying. > > Regards > Diego > > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 5:44 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> I believe Diego's concern was that there was a discrepancy in the number >> of registrars from two different listings maintained by ICANN. >> >> Those could possibly be explained by having those two sources being >> updated at different times of the day or week whenever a registrar is added >> or removed. >> >> That XML is the canonical source. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 08-Aug-2013, at 15:08, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >> >> Dear Mr Diego Rafael, Good After noon from Pakistan >> >> With reference to your query, you may access the required information >> about Registrar: >> >> http://www.icann.org/registrar-reports/accreditation-qualified-list.html >> >> Registrar with their Accredited TLD Registries through following URL: >> http://www.icann.org/registrar-reports/accredited-list.html >> >> You may further track and cross check the validity & the status of any >> Accredited Registrar through the following URL of IANA where repository >> data is available for download in CVS and Txt format so you may sort the >> list for only Accredited Registrars: >> >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/registrar-ids/registrar-ids.xml#registrar-ids-1 >> >> Hopefully this information will satisfy your needs >> >> Thanking you and Best Regards >> >> Imran Ahmed Shah >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Suresh Ramasubramanian >> *To:* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; >> Diego Rafael Canabarro >> *Sent:* Thursday, 8 August 2013, 7:26 >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] ICANN DATABASE >> >> Hi, what sort of discrepancies? >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 08-Aug-2013, at 7:27, Diego Rafael Canabarro >> wrote: >> >> > Dear friends, >> > >> > is there any repository with data about registries and registrars which >> is not the one available on ICANN's website? When one compares the data >> sets ICANN makes available and the Corporation's dashboard, one sees that >> there are discrepancies between them. And the latter is built with flash >> and is not an open source platform. >> > >> > Is there any discussion about it within ICANN? >> > >> > Thank you >> > >> > >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > > > -- > 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 > > -- 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Aug 8 11:48:49 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 00:48:49 +0900 Subject: [governance] ICANN DATABASE In-Reply-To: References: <1375954732.30559.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <19E9D033-866C-4DA7-ACC1-A9641E55F180@glocom.ac.jp> Try ICANN's At Large group. They are usually interested in compliance issues, and I think this would fall under that topic (?) Try the North American region group, they've pushed most of this type of issue, the mailing list Adam On Aug 8, 2013, at 11:30 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > Tried. Failed. :) > Let you know in case they reply in the future. > Thank you > > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > ICANN should certainly be responsive to such a request. Ask them? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 08-Aug-2013, at 19:52, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > >> Exactly, Suresh. >> I know those databases, Imran. My point was: ICANN seems to use updated versions for the dashboard faster than for those tables. Note, also, that only one of those lists can be exported to a CSV file. In case you guys know a way of extracting data from the dashboard in real time, let me know. I will keep trying. >> >> Regards >> Diego >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 5:44 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> I believe Diego's concern was that there was a discrepancy in the number of registrars from two different listings maintained by ICANN. >> >> Those could possibly be explained by having those two sources being updated at different times of the day or week whenever a registrar is added or removed. >> >> That XML is the canonical source. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 08-Aug-2013, at 15:08, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >> >>> Dear Mr Diego Rafael, Good After noon from Pakistan >>> >>> With reference to your query, you may access the required information about Registrar: >>> >>> http://www.icann.org/registrar-reports/accreditation-qualified-list.html >>> >>> Registrar with their Accredited TLD Registries through following URL: >>> http://www.icann.org/registrar-reports/accredited-list.html >>> >>> You may further track and cross check the validity & the status of any Accredited Registrar through the following URL of IANA where repository data is available for download in CVS and Txt format so you may sort the list for only Accredited Registrars: >>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/registrar-ids/registrar-ids.xml#registrar-ids-1 >>> >>> Hopefully this information will satisfy your needs >>> >>> Thanking you and Best Regards >>> >>> Imran Ahmed Shah >>> >>> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian >>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Diego Rafael Canabarro >>> Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013, 7:26 >>> Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN DATABASE >>> >>> Hi, what sort of discrepancies? >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> On 08-Aug-2013, at 7:27, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: >>> >>> > Dear friends, >>> > >>> > is there any repository with data about registries and registrars which is not the one available on ICANN's website? When one compares the data sets ICANN makes available and the Corporation's dashboard, one sees that there are discrepancies between them. And the latter is built with flash and is not an open source platform. >>> > >>> > Is there any discussion about it within ICANN? >>> > >>> > Thank you >>> > >>> > >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 > > > > -- > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Aug 8 11:53:20 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 11:53:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN DATABASE In-Reply-To: <19E9D033-866C-4DA7-ACC1-A9641E55F180@glocom.ac.jp> References: <1375954732.30559.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <19E9D033-866C-4DA7-ACC1-A9641E55F180@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Thank you, Adam. As I wrote yesterday, McTim, from time to time, when you compare what ICANN shows on those unstructured tables is different from what the dashboard displays. For instance, two weeks ago, the USA had 602 accredited registrars on the registrars list, and the dashboard map was showing 610. Canada had 39-41. The difference is small of course. But I was wondering why those infos are not integrated write away. And why the database that is the source of the dashboard is not simply made available in real time for download. On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Try ICANN's At Large group. They are usually interested in compliance > issues, and I think this would fall under that topic (?) Try the North > American region group, they've pushed most of this type of issue, the > mailing list > > Adam > > > > On Aug 8, 2013, at 11:30 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > > > Tried. Failed. :) > > Let you know in case they reply in the future. > > Thank you > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < > suresh at hserus.net> wrote: > > ICANN should certainly be responsive to such a request. Ask them? > > > > --srs (iPad) > > > > On 08-Aug-2013, at 19:52, Diego Rafael Canabarro < > diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Exactly, Suresh. > >> I know those databases, Imran. My point was: ICANN seems to use updated > versions for the dashboard faster than for those tables. Note, also, that > only one of those lists can be exported to a CSV file. In case you guys > know a way of extracting data from the dashboard in real time, let me know. > I will keep trying. > >> > >> Regards > >> Diego > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 5:44 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < > suresh at hserus.net> wrote: > >> I believe Diego's concern was that there was a discrepancy in the > number of registrars from two different listings maintained by ICANN. > >> > >> Those could possibly be explained by having those two sources being > updated at different times of the day or week whenever a registrar is added > or removed. > >> > >> That XML is the canonical source. > >> > >> --srs (iPad) > >> > >> On 08-Aug-2013, at 15:08, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > >> > >>> Dear Mr Diego Rafael, Good After noon from Pakistan > >>> > >>> With reference to your query, you may access the required information > about Registrar: > >>> > >>> > http://www.icann.org/registrar-reports/accreditation-qualified-list.html > >>> > >>> Registrar with their Accredited TLD Registries through following URL: > >>> http://www.icann.org/registrar-reports/accredited-list.html > >>> > >>> You may further track and cross check the validity & the status of any > Accredited Registrar through the following URL of IANA where repository > data is available for download in CVS and Txt format so you may sort the > list for only Accredited Registrars: > >>> > http://www.iana.org/assignments/registrar-ids/registrar-ids.xml#registrar-ids-1 > >>> > >>> Hopefully this information will satisfy your needs > >>> > >>> Thanking you and Best Regards > >>> > >>> Imran Ahmed Shah > >>> > >>> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > >>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; > Diego Rafael Canabarro > >>> Sent: Thursday, 8 August 2013, 7:26 > >>> Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN DATABASE > >>> > >>> Hi, what sort of discrepancies? > >>> > >>> --srs (iPad) > >>> > >>> On 08-Aug-2013, at 7:27, Diego Rafael Canabarro < > diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > Dear friends, > >>> > > >>> > is there any repository with data about registries and registrars > which is not the one available on ICANN's website? When one compares the > data sets ICANN makes available and the Corporation's dashboard, one sees > that there are discrepancies between them. And the latter is built with > flash and is not an open source platform. > >>> > > >>> > Is there any discussion about it within ICANN? > >>> > > >>> > Thank you > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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 > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > -- 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 acm.org Thu Aug 8 11:56:40 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 17:56:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk In-Reply-To: References: <00ec01ce91c0$8b5d9f00$a218dd00$@gmail.com> <802835F0-2031-4966-B93E-E301E5B88BE9@hserus.net> <000601ce93de$c6f01a50$54d04ef0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <206D4CD0-6301-4BB2-A4F4-50C8ABB112FB@acm.org> On 8 Aug 2013, at 12:46, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > If we want to prevent a Balkanization of the net, Why is this a problem? Any Balkanization will eventually be routed around. Remember that the Internet is a network of networks, if countries are so isolationist as to want to isolate themselves they can and they will. And then when they discover that culture and business requires re-joining the rest of the Internet, ways will be found to do that - not that they will ever really break away as there will be all sorts of circumventions to any break in the network. For countries that are isolationist, any excuse will do. I have never been able to understand the fear of this. It is a trend that is already well under way and no event, even one as great as Prism etc is going to achieve more that to create yet another excuse for what they were doing anyway. 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 diegocanabarro at gmail.com Thu Aug 8 11:59:57 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 11:59:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk In-Reply-To: <206D4CD0-6301-4BB2-A4F4-50C8ABB112FB@acm.org> References: <00ec01ce91c0$8b5d9f00$a218dd00$@gmail.com> <802835F0-2031-4966-B93E-E301E5B88BE9@hserus.net> <000601ce93de$c6f01a50$54d04ef0$@gmail.com> <206D4CD0-6301-4BB2-A4F4-50C8ABB112FB@acm.org> Message-ID: "no event, even one as great as Prism etc is going to achieve more that to create yet another excuse for what they were doing anyway." Giving the rationale for the trend is not a problem? On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 8 Aug 2013, at 12:46, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > > > If we want to prevent a Balkanization of the net, > > > Why is this a problem? > > Any Balkanization will eventually be routed around. > Remember that the Internet is a network of networks, if countries are so > isolationist as to want to isolate themselves they can and they will. And > then when they discover that culture and business requires re-joining the > rest of the Internet, ways will be found to do that - not that they will > ever really break away as there will be all sorts of circumventions to any > break in the network. > > For countries that are isolationist, any excuse will do. I have never > been able to understand the fear of this. It is a trend that is already > well under way and no event, even one as great as Prism etc is going to > achieve more that to create yet another excuse for what they were doing > anyway. > > 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 > > -- 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 nb at bollow.ch Thu Aug 8 12:02:00 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 18:02:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Important standardization project in ISO/IEC In-Reply-To: References: <20130807220702.14c4b1a5@quill> Message-ID: <20130808180200.118294e9@quill> Suresh Ramasubramanian : > SOA actually? Service Oriented Architecture, not Service Level > Agreement. Actually the project that I'm talking about is about standardization of service level agreements, including in regard to aspects such as “Privacy”, “Data Protection Handling, Classification and Use”, “Data Control”, “Personally Identifiable Information”, “Data Portability and Reversibility”, “Data Deletion”, “Data Location”, “Law enforcement Access”. (All of these points copy-pasted from the US national body contribution referenced below.) > http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_tc_browse.htm?commid=601355&development=on Although the US National Body Contribution referenced below is likely to become or evolve into the first formal working draft (I say that on the basis that the only offer to provide an editor for the standardization project is also coming from the US national body), there is not yet a document with formal working draft or committee draft status, hence noting that would be listed on that page. As I wrote, the new work item proposal has only just passed its vote. Greetings, Norbert > On 08-Aug-2013, at 1:37, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > In ISO/IEC JTC1 SC38, a new work item proposal with the title “SLA > > Framework and Terminology” has just been approved. > > > > This is in the context of cloud computing. If this standardization > > project is going to be influential (which I think it is going to be, > > for better or worse), it's going to determine to a large extent how > > the contracts between cloud service providers and their customers > > will be shaped. > > > > I think that this is a very important standardization project for > > civil society to be engaged in. > > > > For those with access to ISO/IEC documents, the relevant documents > > are > > ISO/IEC JTC1 SC38 N881 New Work Item Proposal > > ISO/IEC JTC1 SC38 N902 Summary of Voting > > ISO/IEC JTC1 SC38 N903 US National Body Contribution > > > > 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 Thu Aug 8 13:19:38 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 19:19:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] News from this week's MAG call? In-Reply-To: References: <20130731150238.1afbe786@quill> <1375278170.51504.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20130807161259.3148ce0d@quill> Message-ID: At 09:37 08/08/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote: >Hmm... what are the "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics >Principles", and why are they going to be discussed in the absence >of civil society? Are invitations to participate in that "High Level >Leaders Meeting" available as part of some kind of sponsorshop package? These "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" are what I call "nethiquette". This debate is about what I explained to be happening, and Jeremy has introduced the leaders. This is the private sector's strategy to consolidate a common regalian domain (ICT Ministers) + private sector statUS-quo oriented doctrine + an international terminology based conceptual evolution of the information technology (cf. Norbert Bollow recent mail on JTC1/SC38). The HLLM is only to entrap governments between champagne and salmon into the belief that there is a consensus. The case is not really against us, as a civil society, but against a reality that they cannot master. They just do not know (*) how to cope with it in a concordant enough coopetitive manner. This is because reality is to be addressed at the architectonic layer, which is something no one ever mastered (it is the first time in history that nations and people not only use their natural environment but also have to build first their cyber global artificial environment). In front of this HLLM we have two possible attitudes: - to force our place in their bandwagon as Parminder wishes to do and Ayesha advises us. I certainly support that in order to try to wake up some allies, for those having the time and money for it. I don't. - to explore and settle in the new world, so that we may survive our current dominants. This calls for time, coordination, and software development work. We don't have those either. I only have a proven architecture to expose (reality will take care of imposing it, it will only take more time and cost more). jfc (*) This looks too complex to them. So they are trying to build a virtual dam against it (through terminology, mutual agreements, SOPA, PRISM, pseudo-science like in the economy, and a general disregarding of what they wish to consider as intricate mutually resolving Gaussian probabilities) in order to save the system they know. Or at least parts of it. This is the "statUS-quo" because the US industry seems (along Gaussian or "normal" probabilities) to be the strongest existing structure that is able to resist the "cyberstorm". For them all it is a question of survival. However, their raft cannot survive because their model (as banks financing them) is wrong: just because normal distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution) is for past events. Possible (hence future) events obey to power law distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale-free_network). There is nothing special, about this: this purely mathematical. If you want to fully enjoy understanding what is happening please watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPQViNNOAkw. And tell me if this is not what you experiment all around? If you want to understand the thread on the "normal business" and why they fear for their market share, have a look at http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/22/mitra-zoho-india-tech-inter-cx_sm_0222mitra.html and click the more detailed interview. The whole issue is summarized in the difference between business and people oriented business models of SalesForce.com and Zoho.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 jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Aug 8 13:18:32 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 19:18:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Secret Surveillance Puts Internet Governance System at Risk In-Reply-To: References: <00ec01ce91c0$8b5d9f00$a218dd00$@gmail.com> <802835F0-2031-4966-B93E-E301E5B88BE9@hserus.net> <000601ce93de$c6f01a50$54d04ef0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ecrire at catherine-roy.net Thu Aug 8 14:07:49 2013 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (Catherine Roy) Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 14:07:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waved for E-Book Readers In-Reply-To: <178B8ABD-4415-43F0-A0DC-C8866B3831A9@ella.com> References: <06E86831-490C-47FB-A6F1-9E89E0E5BFA6@comcast.net> <52026627.2090708@catherine-roy.net> <178B8ABD-4415-43F0-A0DC-C8866B3831A9@ella.com> Message-ID: <5203DE75.3050502@catherine-roy.net> Hi Avri, Hereafter follows more information on the case[1]. I am not a lawyer but from what I gather, in a nutshell, the waiver request targets particularly the cost and technical issues with screen reading (a software used by visually impaired people to access digital content through sound) as a reason to waive all of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) requirements. So in reality however, not only would this exempt manufacturers of e-readers from making their devices accessible to the visually impaired but this could have broader implications for people with other types of disabilities, such as those with physical or hearing impairments. If granted, this request opens the door to exclusions. Some have argued[2] that people with disabilities can just use some other device (such as a tablet or other reading apps) to access the type of content supported by e-readers. But then it comes down to, among other things, limiting the choices people with disabilities have, perhaps excluding them from less costly alternatives. One final note. Although some may feel this is a US related issue only, I think we need to keep in mind that, for example, a kindle is a kindle wherever you go. There may be slight differences with regards to language or power supply, but the device itself is sold all over the world regardless of what state or local legislation applies. It may prevent public institutions or agencies (like schools) from adopting those devices as part of a curriculum if their are specific accessibility requirements for said entities in terms of procurement, for example, but it will not prevent their sale in general. Best regards, Catherine -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net [1] Copied from the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative mailing list: Request for Comment on Petition for Class Waiver of Accessibility Rules for ACS On August 1, 2013, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) released a Public Notice requesting comment on a petition filed by the Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers. The Coalition requests that the Commission waive its rules requiring equipment used for advanced communications services (ACS) to be accessible by people with disabilities. The Coalition states that, although e-readers are equipment that consumers can use for ACS, they are designed primarily for reading. To distinguish e-readers from tablets and other devices that would not be subject to the waiver request, the Coalition requests a waiver for e-readers that have the following features: (1) they have no LCD screen; (2) they have no camera; (3) they are not offered or shipped to consumers with built-in ACS client applications and their manufacturers do not develop ACS applications for their respective devices, though the devices may include a browser and social media applications; and (4) they are marketed to consumers as reading devices and promotional material does not tout the capability to access ACS. Comment Deadline: September 3, 2013 Reply Comment Deadline: September 13, 2013 Links to the Public Notice (including filing instructions): (PDF)http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1686A1.pdf (Word)http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1686A1.doc (Text)http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1686A1.txt Link to the Coalition Petition (May 15, 2013): http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022314526 Link to the Letter Supplementing the Coalition Petition (July 17, 2013):http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520931307 For further information, please contact Eliot Greenwald at (202) 418-2235orEliot.Greenwald at fcc.gov; or Rosaline Crawford at (202) 418-2075orRosaline.Crawford at fcc.gov. [2] http://www.the-digital-reader.com/2013/08/07/debunked-amazon-kobo-and-sony-didnt-request-ereaders-be-exempt-from-accessibility-laws On 08/08/2013 6:30 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I am not clear. It this about adding Braille to e-books? > Or is it about their only partial ability to read the book to a person? > Or is it about the ability to use the book and have it be voice activated to turn the pages and activate other features for those who are paralyzed? > > I am not sure what capabilities they want the exemption from. > > thanks > > avri > > > On 7 Aug 2013, at 17:22, Catherine Roy wrote: > >> [Apologies for cross posting] >> >> Forwarded from the Web Accessibility Initiative Interest Group mailing list. I find this development quite distressing. >> >> Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waved for E-Book Readers >> >> "The ) Twenty-First Century Communications and Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 requires companies who make electronic devices to make them accessible to people with disabilities. At this time, none of the Ebook readers that are on the market meet this requirement. Since many companies feel that this requirement should not apply to Ebook readers, Amazon, Kobo, and Sony have submitted a petition to the FCC asking for a waiver. According to the petition, this is the definition of an Ebook reader: "E-readers, sometimes called e-book readers, are mobile electronic devices that are designed, marketed and used primarily for the purpose of reading digital documents, including e-books and periodicals." Since Ebook readers are primarily designed for print reading, the companies are arguing that the disabled community would not significantly benefit from these devices becoming accessible. They also argue that because the devices are so simple, making the changes to the devices to make them accessible, would cause them to be heavier, have poorer battery life, and raise the cost of the devices. Finally, these companies argue that since their apps are accessible on other devices such as the iPad and other full featured tablets, that they are already providing access to their content." >> >> Source : http://www.blindbargains.com/bargains.php?m=9286 >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 Thu Aug 8 15:30:12 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 21:30:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waved for E-Book Readers In-Reply-To: <5203DE75.3050502@catherine-roy.net> References: <06E86831-490C-47FB-A6F1-9E89E0E5BFA6@comcast.net> <52026627.2090708@catherine-roy.net> <178B8ABD-4415-43F0-A0DC-C8866B3831A9@ella.com> <5203DE75.3050502@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: Hi, thanks for the explanation. avri On 8 Aug 2013, at 20:07, Catherine Roy wrote: > Hi Avri, > > Hereafter follows more information on the case[1]. I am not a lawyer but from what I gather, in a nutshell, the waiver request targets particularly the cost and technical issues with screen reading (a software used by visually impaired people to access digital content through sound) as a reason to waive all of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) requirements. So in reality however, not only would this exempt manufacturers of e-readers from making their devices accessible to the visually impaired but this could have broader implications for people with other types of disabilities, such as those with physical or hearing impairments. If granted, this request opens the door to exclusions. Some have argued[2] that people with disabilities can just use some other device (such as a tablet or other reading apps) to access the type of content supported by e-readers. But then it comes down to, among other things, limiting the choices people with disabilities have, perhaps excluding them from less costly alternatives. > > One final note. Although some may feel this is a US related issue only, I think we need to keep in mind that, for example, a kindle is a kindle wherever you go. There may be slight differences with regards to language or power supply, but the device itself is sold all over the world regardless of what state or local legislation applies. It may prevent public institutions or agencies (like schools) from adopting those devices as part of a curriculum if their are specific accessibility requirements for said entities in terms of procurement, for example, but it will not prevent their sale in general. > > Best regards, > > Catherine > > -- > Catherine Roy > http://www.catherine-roy.net > > > > [1] Copied from the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative mailing list: > > Request for Comment on Petition for Class Waiver of Accessibility Rules for ACS > > On August 1, 2013, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) released a Public Notice requesting comment on a petition filed by the Coalition of E-Reader Manufacturers. The Coalition requests that the Commission waive its rules requiring equipment used for advanced communications services (ACS) to be accessible by people with disabilities. The Coalition states that, although e-readers are equipment that consumers can use for ACS, they are designed primarily for reading. > > To distinguish e-readers from tablets and other devices that would not be subject to the waiver request, the Coalition requests a waiver for e-readers that have the following features: > > (1) they have no LCD screen; > (2) they have no camera; > (3) they are not offered or shipped to consumers with built-in ACS client applications and their manufacturers do not develop ACS applications for their respective devices, though the devices may include a browser and social media applications; and > (4) they are marketed to consumers as reading devices and promotional material does not tout the capability to access ACS. > > Comment Deadline: September 3, 2013 > Reply Comment Deadline: September 13, 2013 > > Links to the Public Notice (including filing instructions): > > (PDF)http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1686A1.pdf > (Word)http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1686A1.doc > (Text)http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-13-1686A1.txt > > Link to the Coalition Petition (May 15, 2013): > http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022314526 > > Link to the Letter Supplementing the Coalition Petition (July 17, 2013):http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520931307 > > For further information, please contact Eliot Greenwald at (202) 418-2235orEliot.Greenwald at fcc.gov; or Rosaline Crawford at (202) 418-2075orRosaline.Crawford at fcc.gov. > > > [2] http://www.the-digital-reader.com/2013/08/07/debunked-amazon-kobo-and-sony-didnt-request-ereaders-be-exempt-from-accessibility-laws > > > > > > On 08/08/2013 6:30 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am not clear. It this about adding Braille to e-books? >> Or is it about their only partial ability to read the book to a person? >> Or is it about the ability to use the book and have it be voice activated to turn the pages and activate other features for those who are paralyzed? >> >> I am not sure what capabilities they want the exemption from. >> >> thanks >> >> avri >> >> >> On 7 Aug 2013, at 17:22, Catherine Roy wrote: >> >>> [Apologies for cross posting] >>> >>> Forwarded from the Web Accessibility Initiative Interest Group mailing list. I find this development quite distressing. >>> >>> Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waved for E-Book Readers >>> >>> "The ) Twenty-First Century Communications and Video ) Accessibility Act of 2010 requires companies who make electronic devices to make them accessible to people with disabilities. At this time, none of the Ebook readers that are on the market meet this requirement. Since many companies feel that this requirement should not apply to Ebook readers, Amazon, Kobo, and Sony have submitted a petition to the FCC asking for a waiver. According to the petition, this is the definition of an Ebook reader: "E-readers, sometimes called e-book readers, are mobile electronic devices that are designed, marketed and used primarily for the purpose of reading digital documents, including e-books and periodicals." Since Ebook readers are primarily designed for print reading, the companies are arguing that the disabled community would not significantly benefit from these devices becoming accessible. They also argue that because the devices are so simple, making the changes to the devices to make them accessible, would cause them to be heavier, have poorer battery life, and raise the cost of the devices. Finally, these companies argue that since their apps are accessible on other devices such as the iPad and other full featured tablets, that they are already providing access to their content." >>> >>> Source : http://www.blindbargains.com/bargains.php?m=9286 >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Thu Aug 8 17:28:13 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 23:28:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Amazon and Sony Are Requesting That The Accessibility Requirement Be Waved for E-Book Readers In-Reply-To: <5203DE75.3050502@catherine-roy.net> References: <06E86831-490C-47FB-A6F1-9E89E0E5BFA6@comcast.net> <52026627.2090708@catherine-roy.net> <178B8ABD-4415-43F0-A0DC-C8866B3831A9@ella.com> <5203DE75.3050502@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <20130808232813.0cd749b0@quill> Catherine Roy wrote: > One final note. Although some may feel this is a US related issue > only, I think we need to keep in mind that, for example, a kindle is > a kindle wherever you go. There may be slight differences with > regards to language or power supply, but the device itself is sold > all over the world regardless of what state or local legislation > applies. It may prevent public institutions or agencies (like > schools) from adopting those devices as part of a curriculum if their > are specific accessibility requirements for said entities in terms of > procurement, for example, but it will not prevent their sale in > general. The argument is convincing that regulation of accessibility requirements for devices that are produced for the global market is fundamentally a global issue. What kind of governance arrangement is appropriate for this global public policy issue? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Aug 8 19:09:45 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 04:39:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Important standardization project in ISO/IEC Message-ID: Interesting, thanks for the pointer --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Norbert Bollow" To: Subject: [governance] Important standardization project in ISO/IEC Date: Thu, Aug 8, 2013 9:32 PM Suresh Ramasubramanian : > SOA actually? Service Oriented Architecture, not Service Level > Agreement. Actually the project that I'm talking about is about standardization of service level agreements, including in regard to aspects such as “Privacy”, “Data Protection Handling, Classification and Use”, “Data Control”, “Personally Identifiable Information”, “Data Portability and Reversibility”, “Data Deletion”, “Data Location”, “Law enforcement Access”. (All of these points copy-pasted from the US national body contribution referenced below.) > http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_tc_browse.htm?commid=601355&development=on Although the US National Body Contribution referenced below is likely to become or evolve into the first formal working draft (I say that on the basis that the only offer to provide an editor for the standardization project is also coming from the US national body), there is not yet a document with formal working draft or committee draft status, hence noting that would be listed on that page. As I wrote, the new work item proposal has only just passed its vote. Greetings, Norbert > On 08-Aug-2013, at 1:37, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > In ISO/IEC JTC1 SC38, a new work item proposal with the title “SLA > > Framework and Terminology” has just been approved. > > > > This is in the context of cloud computing. If this standardization > > project is going to be influential (which I think it is going to be, > > for better or worse), it's going to determine to a large extent how > > the contracts between cloud service providers and their customers > > will be shaped. > > > > I think that this is a very important standardization project for > > civil society to be engaged in. > > > > For those with access to ISO/IEC documents, the relevant documents > > are > > ISO/IEC JTC1 SC38 N881 New Work Item Proposal > > ISO/IEC JTC1 SC38 N902 Summary of Voting > > ISO/IEC JTC1 SC38 N903 US National Body Contribution > > > > 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 iza at anr.org Thu Aug 8 21:47:55 2013 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 10:47:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] ICC selects the civil society invitees to High Level Leaders Meeting In-Reply-To: <8CA79AC1-528E-40AD-854C-195C4C470683@hserus.net> References: <1BBFA07D05B4B3439A0D8943CDE6FEA05499B0FF@IVORITE.icchq.org> <1375968184.57917.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <84AA2AD1-E802-485A-9360-191471BA61E6@glocom.ac.jp> <8CA79AC1-528E-40AD-854C-195C4C470683@hserus.net> Message-ID: I plan to write to Mr. Moedjiono and MAG list. izumi 2013/8/8 Suresh Ramasubramanian > Agree. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 08-Aug-2013, at 19:30, Adam Peake wrote: > > > Hi Nnenna, > > > > In my opinion the civil society MAG members represent a much broader > section of civil society than this caucus. > > > > Adam > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Aug 9 05:41:20 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 16:41:20 +0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [SPAM] Statement: Why Secure Email Provider Lavabit closes down In-Reply-To: <201308090905.r79952TP031725@vcn.bc.ca> References: <201308090905.r79952TP031725@vcn.bc.ca> Message-ID: <004b01ce94e4$a1408ea0$e3c1abe0$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org [mailto:nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org] On Behalf Of nettime's paranoid reader Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 5:58 PM To: nettime-l at mx.kein.org Subject: [SPAM] Statement: Why Secure Email Provider Lavabit closes down http://lavabit.com My Fellow Users, I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in crimes against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of hard work by shutting down Lavabit. After significant soul searching, I have decided to suspend operations. I wish that I could legally share with you the events that led to my decision. I cannot. I feel you deserve to know what?s going on--the first amendment is supposed to guarantee me the freedom to speak out in situations like this. Unfortunately, Congress has passed laws that say otherwise. As things currently stand, I cannot share my experiences over the last six weeks, even though I have twice made the appropriate requests. What?s going to happen now? We?ve already started preparing the paperwork needed to continue to fight for the Constitution in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. A favorable decision would allow me resurrect Lavabit as an American company. This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would _strongly_ recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States. Sincerely, Ladar Levison Owner and Operator, Lavabit LLC Defending the constitution is expensive! Help us by donating to the Lavabit Legal Defense Fund here [1]. [1] https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=7BCR4A5 W9PNN4 # distributed via : no commercial use without permission # is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at kein.org !DSPAM:2676,5204b0c192533112212877! -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 9 06:42:47 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 12:42:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICC selects the civil society invitees to High Level Leaders Meeting In-Reply-To: References: <1BBFA07D05B4B3439A0D8943CDE6FEA05499B0FF@IVORITE.icchq.org> <1375968184.57917.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <84AA2AD1-E802-485A-9360-191471BA61E6@glocom.ac.jp> <8CA79AC1-528E-40AD-854C-195C4C470683@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130809124247.6b57038c@quill> Izumi AIZU wrote: > I plan to write to Mr. Moedjiono and MAG list. Thanks; I'm looking forward to learning what you find out. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive 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 Fri Aug 9 06:58:30 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 12:58:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: [SPAM] Statement: Why Secure Email Provider Lavabit closes down In-Reply-To: <004b01ce94e4$a1408ea0$e3c1abe0$@gmail.com> References: <201308090905.r79952TP031725@vcn.bc.ca> <004b01ce94e4$a1408ea0$e3c1abe0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: An important bit of context here is that according to [1], Edward Snowden used the email address *edsnowden at lavabit.com [1] http://news.rapgenius.com/Edward-snowden-letter-to-human-rights-activists-lyrics * *Greetings, * *Norbert * ** On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 11:41 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org > [mailto:nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org] On Behalf Of nettime's paranoid > reader > Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 5:58 PM > To: nettime-l at mx.kein.org > Subject: [SPAM] Statement: Why Secure Email Provider Lavabit > closes down > > http://lavabit.com > > My Fellow Users, > > I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in > crimes against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of > hard work by shutting down Lavabit. After significant soul searching, I > have > decided to suspend operations. I wish that I could legally share with you > the events that led to my decision. I cannot. I feel you deserve to know > what?s going on--the first amendment is supposed to guarantee me the > freedom > to speak out in situations like this. > Unfortunately, Congress has passed laws that say otherwise. As things > currently stand, I cannot share my experiences over the last six weeks, > even > though I have twice made the appropriate requests. > > What?s going to happen now? We?ve already started preparing the paperwork > needed to continue to fight for the Constitution in the Fourth Circuit > Court > of Appeals. A favorable decision would allow me resurrect Lavabit as an > American company. > > This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without > congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would _strongly_ > recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with > physical ties to the United States. > > Sincerely, > Ladar Levison > Owner and Operator, Lavabit LLC > > Defending the constitution is expensive! Help us by donating to the Lavabit > Legal Defense Fund here [1]. > > [1] > > https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=7BCR4A5 > W9PNN4 > > > # distributed via : no commercial use without permission # > is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative > text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: > http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at kein.org > > > !DSPAM:2676,5204b0c192533112212877! > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 9 09:08:16 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 09:08:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] Greetings Message-ID: Eid mubarrak - I hope I spelled it properly. Here the new moon was pink - caused by dust from the Sahara that blows across the Atlantic. It's a very small world really. 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 lucabelli at hotmail.it Fri Aug 9 09:14:10 2013 From: lucabelli at hotmail.it (Luca Belli) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 15:14:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] RFC: Model Framework on Network Neutrality Message-ID: Dear all, Please note that it is still possible to comment the model framework on network neutrality that will be proposed by the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality (see: http://networkneutrality.info/events.html ) The 30-day comment period will close on 20 August 2013. Every interested stakeholder is invited to send its comments via the mailing-list of the coalition (see: http://mailman.edri.org/mailman/listinfo/nncoalition) Best regards, Luca Luca Belli Doctorant en Droit PublicCERSA,Université Panthéon-AssasSorbonne University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Aug 9 09:16:54 2013 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 15:16:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" Message-ID: Parminder, I have stopped posting on this list for a quite some time now for exactly the reasons that Avri has mentioned. And as one of the people who were at the origin of the creation of this very list and caucus to empower civil society, I am extremely saddened by the way it is currently evolving and indeed becoming irrelevant. I nonetheless feel compelled to react to the most recent exchange. You wrote: "*Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist people's words in order to score political points*"". I would like to differ. "*You tend to twist people's words in order to score political points*" is NOT an ad hominem attack (see Wikipedia) because it does not use your behavior to weaken a specific argument of yours. It is rather a judgement about your behavior, about whether you display (or not) the necessary fairness in representing somebody else's position. To illustrate the point: An ad hominem attack, would be for instance: "This person is usually lying, hence, when they (really) say A, this must not be true". However, if someone says A and another person says: "this person said B and therefore this person is wrong and should be condemned", this IS twisting people's words. In this case, you are basically saying: Anriette did not explicitly denounce something, therefore she supports it. This is putting words in somebody else's mouth. To be frank, I understand the tactic of discarding as an ad hominem attack a judgment about your behavior to avoid having to respond to it or ask yourself whether it is true. But it would be more credible if you did not yourself frequently attribute ulterior motives to other people's comments just because of their alleged political preferences, ties to certain types of actors (for instance business), geographical origin, lack of civil society purity, etc... This behavior is harming the civility of discourse on this list and actually weakening its influence in the global debate. I always respect your expressing positions, even when I disagree with them and engage in debates with you. But I resent your becoming one of the main sources of ad hominem attack on this list. There are moments when one must call a spade a spade. I wish the co-coordinators of this list had called your attitude to accountability earlier, for the sake of a sound debate. This is below you. You have more to contribute. Respectfully still. Bertrand On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:37 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 02 August 2013 02:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> On 31 Jul 2013, at 09:33, parminder wrote: >> >> ad hominem comment >>> >> (to misquote an old IETF adage - comments made wearing asbestos - >> i tried to ignore this the first time hoping it would just go away and we >> could all get back to rational calm conversations) >> >> an ad hominem attack would be an attack that: because someone is a bully, >> their views are illegitimate/irrelevant. >> It does not include the content of calling a bully a bully. >> >> I am not sure I have ever heard an ad hominem attack on this list. >> > > Then you are not quite right in your understanding of what is ad hominem. > Literally, attack against man, it occurs when, in a discussion, someone > attacks a person's character or personal traits, instead of, and with a > view to undermine, her/ his argument. You are making a specious > distinction above that does not hold. In middle of a discussion, personal > attacks are almost always made - certainly in conditions like of this list, > where people otherwise have little or no offline relationship and thus no > particular reason for animosity - with a view to undermine that person's > argument. > > On the other hand there is indeed some difference between just an > allegation and an ad hominem attack. > > Saying something like , to stick to present case of Anriette's email to > me, 'you are twisting my words' is an allegation. (Allegations themselves > could become quite serious, like you are deceiving, lying, cheating etc, > whereby they may be tending towards ad hominem.) > > , Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist people's > words in order to score political points". That is attacking someone in > terms of ones character and personal traits, and as in this case, obviously > to distract from the argument made - which in this case what that Anriette > seemed to see nothing wrong or new with the Indonesian document, which I > said was problematic to me for a CS rep on the MAG to say, which is just my > view. Nothing personal here. > > > For example a comment one might hear: X is a terrible bully, but >> sometimes, if you can get past the bullying, X makes a lot of sense. >> Another comment one might hear: I think I agree with what X is saying, >> but X is such a bully I am afraid that if I put my agreement in the wrong >> way I will get beat up for it. >> >> One could also say, I agree with a lot of what CX says, but X is just so >> mean. >> >> (I have versions of all of these about certain unnamed IGC participants) >> >> Those you accuse of ad hominem attacks against you, are among the >> greatest defenders off-list of some of the positions you represent. >> Many of us disagree with you but would never dare say so on the list for >> fear of starting a flame war. >> Many of the rest of us just try to hunker down and wait for the storm to >> pass. >> > > BTW, it is ad hominen whether the attack on one's character is made > directly or rather more subtly. Your above statements themselves tends > towards such an ad hominem attack, and you have very often said such things > about me. And I claim you say it to undermine my arguments rather than > anything else. However, I would give you an opportunity to disprove my > claim. And I hope you will take this challenge. Please point out the > precise language in the current exchange over the last few days that you > find problematic in my emails, that is something other than a critique of > someone's views, that I have a right to make, and rather of the nature of a > personal attack. Please just give even one example. You may even go back > further to earlier emails, becuase from the above it appears you are a very > good record keeping and retrieval methods. Ok, I promise, I will not argue > with the example/ instance you provide, I wont even respond, I just want > it to out for everyone to see, rather that your be subject to your > insinuations. > > > Someone/everyone, please stop the venom. >> It has rendered the IGC nearly irrelevant. >> > > I have a different theory of what has rendered IGC irrelevant, which I am > ready to enter a discussion about. > > When the IGC is discussed, pretty much the main content is the >> outrageousness of a few individuals. >> > > Certainly, I do often express strong feelings on some views - not people, > never - that I feel strongly about. (And the fact is that there enough > degree of difference in views on this list that at times one side and at > other times the other side will feel strongly about things.) But, never > against any person as such, unlike what I am almost regularly subjected to. > Again, I am open to be given an instance to prove my statement wrong. As > for personal attacks on me, apart from Anriette's email, even your > reference above of not responding to me with the fear of starting a flame > war is such an attack, although a somewhat lighter one, given the normal > standards. > > (Another thing - yes, I have a structural critique of the role and > positions of a good part of civil society involved in IG space - often > dominant in its expression - and its support for certain power structures, > which I do often voice, which I understand may not go well with some > people. But I always voice it in a collective structural manner and never > directed at an individual, or even a set f them. This is the view I have - > and I consider it very important in the current global circumstances - and > I cannot desist from offering when the occasion so demands.) > > > The words of a few serving to delegitimize the efforts of many. >> > > Well, that, who are 'few' and who 'many' itself needs to examined.... That > is always the million dollar democratic question! > > parminder > > > please stop >> >> Note to coordinators. I would never quit IGC, but sometimes I beleive >> being kicked of the list would bring great relief. >> I have heard others say similar things. >> >> And now back to hunkering down hoping the storm will pass. >> >> 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 > > -- ____________________ 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 mail at christopherwilkinson.eu Fri Aug 9 09:54:13 2013 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 15:54:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 CW On 09 Aug 2013, at 15:16, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Parminder, > > I have stopped posting on this list for a quite some time now for exactly the reasons that Avri has mentioned. And as one of the people who were at the origin of the creation of this very list and caucus to empower civil society, I am extremely saddened by the way it is currently evolving and indeed becoming irrelevant. > > I nonetheless feel compelled to react to the most recent exchange. You wrote: "Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist people's words in order to score political points"". > > I would like to differ. "You tend to twist people's words in order to score political points" is NOT an ad hominem attack (see Wikipedia) because it does not use your behavior to weaken a specific argument of yours. It is rather a judgement about your behavior, about whether you display (or not) the necessary fairness in representing somebody else's position. > > To illustrate the point: An ad hominem attack, would be for instance: "This person is usually lying, hence, when they (really) say A, this must not be true". However, if someone says A and another person says: "this person said B and therefore this person is wrong and should be condemned", this IS twisting people's words. In this case, you are basically saying: Anriette did not explicitly denounce something, therefore she supports it. This is putting words in somebody else's mouth. > > To be frank, I understand the tactic of discarding as an ad hominem attack a judgment about your behavior to avoid having to respond to it or ask yourself whether it is true. But it would be more credible if you did not yourself frequently attribute ulterior motives to other people's comments just because of their alleged political preferences, ties to certain types of actors (for instance business), geographical origin, lack of civil society purity, etc... > > This behavior is harming the civility of discourse on this list and actually weakening its influence in the global debate. > > I always respect your expressing positions, even when I disagree with them and engage in debates with you. But I resent your becoming one of the main sources of ad hominem attack on this list. There are moments when one must call a spade a spade. I wish the co-coordinators of this list had called your attitude to accountability earlier, for the sake of a sound debate. > > This is below you. You have more to contribute. > > Respectfully still. > > Bertrand > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:37 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 02 August 2013 02:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 31 Jul 2013, at 09:33, parminder wrote: > > ad hominem comment > (to misquote an old IETF adage - comments made wearing asbestos - > i tried to ignore this the first time hoping it would just go away and we could all get back to rational calm conversations) > > an ad hominem attack would be an attack that: because someone is a bully, their views are illegitimate/irrelevant. > It does not include the content of calling a bully a bully. > > I am not sure I have ever heard an ad hominem attack on this list. > > Then you are not quite right in your understanding of what is ad hominem. Literally, attack against man, it occurs when, in a discussion, someone attacks a person's character or personal traits, instead of, and with a view to undermine, her/ his argument. You are making a specious distinction above that does not hold. In middle of a discussion, personal attacks are almost always made - certainly in conditions like of this list, where people otherwise have little or no offline relationship and thus no particular reason for animosity - with a view to undermine that person's argument. > > On the other hand there is indeed some difference between just an allegation and an ad hominem attack. > > Saying something like , to stick to present case of Anriette's email to me, 'you are twisting my words' is an allegation. (Allegations themselves could become quite serious, like you are deceiving, lying, cheating etc, whereby they may be tending towards ad hominem.) > > , Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist people's words in order to score political points". That is attacking someone in terms of ones character and personal traits, and as in this case, obviously to distract from the argument made - which in this case what that Anriette seemed to see nothing wrong or new with the Indonesian document, which I said was problematic to me for a CS rep on the MAG to say, which is just my view. Nothing personal here. > > > For example a comment one might hear: X is a terrible bully, but sometimes, if you can get past the bullying, X makes a lot of sense. > Another comment one might hear: I think I agree with what X is saying, but X is such a bully I am afraid that if I put my agreement in the wrong way I will get beat up for it. > > One could also say, I agree with a lot of what CX says, but X is just so mean. > > (I have versions of all of these about certain unnamed IGC participants) > > Those you accuse of ad hominem attacks against you, are among the greatest defenders off-list of some of the positions you represent. > Many of us disagree with you but would never dare say so on the list for fear of starting a flame war. > Many of the rest of us just try to hunker down and wait for the storm to pass. > > BTW, it is ad hominen whether the attack on one's character is made directly or rather more subtly. Your above statements themselves tends towards such an ad hominem attack, and you have very often said such things about me. And I claim you say it to undermine my arguments rather than anything else. However, I would give you an opportunity to disprove my claim. And I hope you will take this challenge. Please point out the precise language in the current exchange over the last few days that you find problematic in my emails, that is something other than a critique of someone's views, that I have a right to make, and rather of the nature of a personal attack. Please just give even one example. You may even go back further to earlier emails, becuase from the above it appears you are a very good record keeping and retrieval methods. Ok, I promise, I will not argue with the example/ instance you provide, I wont even respond, I just want it to out for everyone to see, rather that your be subject to your insinuations. > > > Someone/everyone, please stop the venom. > It has rendered the IGC nearly irrelevant. > > I have a different theory of what has rendered IGC irrelevant, which I am ready to enter a discussion about. > > When the IGC is discussed, pretty much the main content is the outrageousness of a few individuals. > > Certainly, I do often express strong feelings on some views - not people, never - that I feel strongly about. (And the fact is that there enough degree of difference in views on this list that at times one side and at other times the other side will feel strongly about things.) But, never against any person as such, unlike what I am almost regularly subjected to. Again, I am open to be given an instance to prove my statement wrong. As for personal attacks on me, apart from Anriette's email, even your reference above of not responding to me with the fear of starting a flame war is such an attack, although a somewhat lighter one, given the normal standards. > > (Another thing - yes, I have a structural critique of the role and positions of a good part of civil society involved in IG space - often dominant in its expression - and its support for certain power structures, which I do often voice, which I understand may not go well with some people. But I always voice it in a collective structural manner and never directed at an individual, or even a set f them. This is the view I have - and I consider it very important in the current global circumstances - and I cannot desist from offering when the occasion so demands.) > > > The words of a few serving to delegitimize the efforts of many. > > Well, that, who are 'few' and who 'many' itself needs to examined.... That is always the million dollar democratic question! > > parminder > > > please stop > > Note to coordinators. I would never quit IGC, but sometimes I beleive being kicked of the list would bring great relief. > I have heard others say similar things. > > And now back to hunkering down hoping the storm will pass. > > 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 > > > > > -- > ____________________ > 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") > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 9 11:20:02 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 20:50:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] Greetings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Miniscule. Its pinkish here too. :) Eid Mubarak! {}{}{} -C On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > It's a very small world really. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 9 19:22:23 2013 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 08:22:23 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: CS members to the HLLM In-Reply-To: References: <1510492700-1376015808-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1778312579-@b25.c5.bise3.blackberry> Message-ID: Dear list, Below is the email exchange on the MAG list which is archived and open to all. So, now it is our turn to respond to this open call (with MAG members). best, izumi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Izumi AIZU Date: 2013/8/10 Subject: Re: CS members to the HLLM To: Sardjoeni Moedjiono Cc: "igf_members at intgovforum.org" Dear Mr. Moedjiono (and also all MAG members), Many thanks for the encouraging reply to my suggestions. Now, then, it is our responsibility to send you the list of candidates to attend HLLM. I will ask our colleagues, from Civil Society, to forward this message to relevant bodies or groups and get back to Mr. Moedjiono for their invitation. I am sure he will receive too many names to choose from ;-) izumi 2013/8/9 ** > Dear Mr. Izumi and all MAG Members, > Thank you very much for your suggestions. I agree with you. I invite all > the MAG Members to invite ICT Ministers, Business/Private sectors CEOs, and > Civil Society organization leaders to attend the HLLM. Please send me the > complete list so we the OC can invite them formally. > Best regards, > Moedjiono > Powered by Telkomsel BlackBerry® > ------------------------------ > *From: * Izumi AIZU > *Sender: * izumiaizu at gmail.com > *Date: *Fri, 9 Aug 2013 11:22:44 +0900 > *To: *Sardjoeni Moedjiono > *Cc: *igf_members at intgovforum.org > *Subject: *Re: CS members to the HLLM > > Dear Mr Moedjiono, > > As a MAG member form the Civil Society, I would like to first thank you > and all Indonesian colleagues for the hard work to host the next IGF in > Bali despite financial and other constraints we all share. > > Now, I would like to clarify one thing. In your statement to the MAG, we > got an impression that the participants from the Civil Society to the High > Level Leaders Meeting will be nominated by ICC, the private sector focal > point to IGF. However, we received a message that ICC has no intention to > select other stakeholders for this matter, sent by Ms. Ayesha Hassan of > ICC. I believe you are open to the suggestions from the civil society > members at large. > > We like to ask you to make an open call for suggestions and contact a > number of civil society groups active in the IGF related activities to > submit their recommendations for the participants to the HLM. If I may, I > like ID-Config, the Indonesian Civil Society group, to be the focal point > on this matter, as we have high respect to them. Civil Society Internet > Governance Caucus, with two co-coordinators, is also a good candidate for > such work. I am also a member of this group, IGC, and if you so think I can > liaise to them. > > I am sure other MAG members from Civil Society also have good ideas about > this matter so that we can all help make the meeting a real > multi-stakeholder endeavor, without disenfranchising any. > > I appreciate your wise consideration in advance and look forward to seeing > you all in Bali soon for the successful IGF. > > Sincerely, > > 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 kabani.asif at gmail.com Fri Aug 9 19:25:04 2013 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 04:25:04 +0500 Subject: [governance] Greetings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Wishing all the Muslims friends and family Happy EID Mubarak ------- *Stay Connected* [image: Facebook] [image: Twitter] [image: Youtube] [image: LinkedIn] * * *My Blog: Internet Governance and Policy* Stay on top - NEWS, Views and Event - Live Visit: http://internetgovernancepolicy.blogspot.com *Before you print - Think about the** **ENVIRONMENT* On 9 August 2013 20:20, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > Miniscule. Its pinkish here too. :) > > Eid Mubarak! {}{}{} > > -C > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Deirdre Williams < > williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > >> It's a very small world really. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hasansf at gmail.com Fri Aug 9 20:44:10 2013 From: hasansf at gmail.com (Faisal Hasan) Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 19:44:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 Faisal On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 8:54 AM, CW Mail wrote: > +1 > > CW > > On 09 Aug 2013, at 15:16, Bertrand de La Chapelle > wrote: > > Parminder, > > I have stopped posting on this list for a quite some time now for exactly > the reasons that Avri has mentioned. And as one of the people who were at > the origin of the creation of this very list and caucus to empower civil > society, I am extremely saddened by the way it is currently evolving and > indeed becoming irrelevant. > > I nonetheless feel compelled to react to the most recent exchange. You > wrote: "*Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist > people's words in order to score political points*"". > > I would like to differ. "*You tend to twist people's words in order to > score political points*" is NOT an ad hominem attack (see Wikipedia) > because it does not use your behavior to weaken a specific argument of > yours. It is rather a judgement about your behavior, about whether you > display (or not) the necessary fairness in representing somebody else's > position. > > To illustrate the point: An ad hominem attack, would be for instance: > "This person is usually lying, hence, when they (really) say A, this must > not be true". However, if someone says A and another person says: "this > person said B and therefore this person is wrong and should be condemned", > this IS twisting people's words. In this case, you are basically saying: > Anriette did not explicitly denounce something, therefore she supports it. > This is putting words in somebody else's mouth. > > To be frank, I understand the tactic of discarding as an ad hominem attack > a judgment about your behavior to avoid having to respond to it or ask > yourself whether it is true. But it would be more credible if you did not > yourself frequently attribute ulterior motives to other people's comments > just because of their alleged political preferences, ties to certain types > of actors (for instance business), geographical origin, lack of civil > society purity, etc... > > This behavior is harming the civility of discourse on this list and > actually weakening its influence in the global debate. > > I always respect your expressing positions, even when I disagree with them > and engage in debates with you. But I resent your becoming one of the > main sources of ad hominem attack on this list. There are moments when > one must call a spade a spade. I wish the co-coordinators of this list had > called your attitude to accountability earlier, for the sake of a sound > debate. > > This is below you. You have more to contribute. > > Respectfully still. > > Bertrand > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:37 AM, parminder wrote: > >> >> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> On 31 Jul 2013, at 09:33, parminder wrote: >>> >>> ad hominem comment >>>> >>> (to misquote an old IETF adage - comments made wearing asbestos - >>> i tried to ignore this the first time hoping it would just go away and >>> we could all get back to rational calm conversations) >>> >>> an ad hominem attack would be an attack that: because someone is a >>> bully, their views are illegitimate/irrelevant. >>> It does not include the content of calling a bully a bully. >>> >>> I am not sure I have ever heard an ad hominem attack on this list. >>> >> >> Then you are not quite right in your understanding of what is ad hominem. >> Literally, attack against man, it occurs when, in a discussion, someone >> attacks a person's character or personal traits, instead of, and with a >> view to undermine, her/ his argument. You are making a specious >> distinction above that does not hold. In middle of a discussion, personal >> attacks are almost always made - certainly in conditions like of this list, >> where people otherwise have little or no offline relationship and thus no >> particular reason for animosity - with a view to undermine that person's >> argument. >> >> On the other hand there is indeed some difference between just an >> allegation and an ad hominem attack. >> >> Saying something like , to stick to present case of Anriette's email to >> me, 'you are twisting my words' is an allegation. (Allegations themselves >> could become quite serious, like you are deceiving, lying, cheating etc, >> whereby they may be tending towards ad hominem.) >> >> , Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist people's >> words in order to score political points". That is attacking someone in >> terms of ones character and personal traits, and as in this case, obviously >> to distract from the argument made - which in this case what that Anriette >> seemed to see nothing wrong or new with the Indonesian document, which I >> said was problematic to me for a CS rep on the MAG to say, which is just my >> view. Nothing personal here. >> >> >> For example a comment one might hear: X is a terrible bully, but >>> sometimes, if you can get past the bullying, X makes a lot of sense. >>> Another comment one might hear: I think I agree with what X is saying, >>> but X is such a bully I am afraid that if I put my agreement in the wrong >>> way I will get beat up for it. >>> >>> One could also say, I agree with a lot of what CX says, but X is just so >>> mean. >>> >>> (I have versions of all of these about certain unnamed IGC participants) >>> >>> Those you accuse of ad hominem attacks against you, are among the >>> greatest defenders off-list of some of the positions you represent. >>> Many of us disagree with you but would never dare say so on the list for >>> fear of starting a flame war. >>> Many of the rest of us just try to hunker down and wait for the storm to >>> pass. >>> >> >> BTW, it is ad hominen whether the attack on one's character is made >> directly or rather more subtly. Your above statements themselves tends >> towards such an ad hominem attack, and you have very often said such things >> about me. And I claim you say it to undermine my arguments rather than >> anything else. However, I would give you an opportunity to disprove my >> claim. And I hope you will take this challenge. Please point out the >> precise language in the current exchange over the last few days that you >> find problematic in my emails, that is something other than a critique of >> someone's views, that I have a right to make, and rather of the nature of a >> personal attack. Please just give even one example. You may even go back >> further to earlier emails, becuase from the above it appears you are a very >> good record keeping and retrieval methods. Ok, I promise, I will not argue >> with the example/ instance you provide, I wont even respond, I just want >> it to out for everyone to see, rather that your be subject to your >> insinuations. >> >> >> Someone/everyone, please stop the venom. >>> It has rendered the IGC nearly irrelevant. >>> >> >> I have a different theory of what has rendered IGC irrelevant, which I am >> ready to enter a discussion about. >> >> When the IGC is discussed, pretty much the main content is the >>> outrageousness of a few individuals. >>> >> >> Certainly, I do often express strong feelings on some views - not people, >> never - that I feel strongly about. (And the fact is that there enough >> degree of difference in views on this list that at times one side and at >> other times the other side will feel strongly about things.) But, never >> against any person as such, unlike what I am almost regularly subjected to. >> Again, I am open to be given an instance to prove my statement wrong. As >> for personal attacks on me, apart from Anriette's email, even your >> reference above of not responding to me with the fear of starting a flame >> war is such an attack, although a somewhat lighter one, given the normal >> standards. >> >> (Another thing - yes, I have a structural critique of the role and >> positions of a good part of civil society involved in IG space - often >> dominant in its expression - and its support for certain power structures, >> which I do often voice, which I understand may not go well with some >> people. But I always voice it in a collective structural manner and never >> directed at an individual, or even a set f them. This is the view I have - >> and I consider it very important in the current global circumstances - and >> I cannot desist from offering when the occasion so demands.) >> >> >> The words of a few serving to delegitimize the efforts of many. >>> >> >> Well, that, who are 'few' and who 'many' itself needs to examined.... >> That is always the million dollar democratic question! >> >> parminder >> >> >> please stop >>> >>> Note to coordinators. I would never quit IGC, but sometimes I beleive >>> being kicked of the list would bring great relief. >>> I have heard others say similar things. >>> >>> And now back to hunkering down hoping the storm will pass. >>> >>> 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 >> >> > > > -- > ____________________ > 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") > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Aug 9 21:08:23 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 06:38:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" Message-ID: I agree with Bertrand definition and would also point out that ad hominem isn't 'a statement you find unpalatable ' --srs -------- Original message -------- From: Faisal Hasan Date: 08/10/2013 6:14 AM (GMT+05:30) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,CW Mail Subject: Re: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" +1 Faisal On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 8:54 AM, CW Mail wrote: +1 CW On 09 Aug 2013, at 15:16, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Parminder, I have stopped posting on this list for a quite some time now for exactly the reasons that Avri has mentioned. And as one of the people who were at the origin of the creation of this very list and caucus to empower civil society, I am extremely saddened by the way it is currently evolving and indeed becoming irrelevant. I nonetheless feel compelled to react to the most recent exchange. You wrote: "Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist people's words in order to score political points"". I would like to differ. "You tend to twist people's words in order to score political points" is NOT an ad hominem attack (see Wikipedia) because it does not use your behavior to weaken a specific argument of yours. It is rather a judgement about your behavior, about whether you display (or not) the necessary fairness in representing somebody else's position.  To illustrate the point: An ad hominem attack, would be for instance: "This person is usually lying, hence, when they (really) say A, this must not be true". However, if someone says A and another person says: "this person said B and therefore this person is wrong and should be condemned", this IS twisting people's words.  In this case, you are basically saying: Anriette did not explicitly denounce something, therefore she supports it. This is putting words in somebody else's mouth.   To be frank, I understand the tactic of discarding as an ad hominem attack a judgment about your behavior to avoid having to respond to it or ask yourself whether it is true. But it would be more credible if you did not yourself frequently attribute ulterior motives to other people's comments just because of their alleged political preferences, ties to certain types of actors (for instance business), geographical origin, lack of civil society purity, etc...  This behavior is harming the civility of discourse on this list and actually weakening its influence in the global debate.  I always respect your expressing positions, even when I disagree with them and engage in debates with you. But I resent your becoming one of the main sources of ad hominem attack on this list. There are moments when one must call a spade a spade. I wish the co-coordinators of this list had called your attitude to accountability earlier, for the sake of a sound debate. This is below you. You have more to contribute.   Respectfully still. Bertrand    On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:37 AM, parminder wrote: On Friday 02 August 2013 02:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: On 31 Jul 2013, at 09:33, parminder wrote: ad hominem comment (to misquote an old IETF adage - comments made wearing asbestos - i tried to ignore this the first time hoping it would just go away and we could all get back to rational calm conversations) an ad hominem attack would be an attack that: because someone is a bully, their views are illegitimate/irrelevant. It does not include the content of calling a bully a bully. I am not sure I have ever heard an ad hominem attack on this list. Then you are not quite right in your understanding of what is ad hominem. Literally, attack against man, it occurs when, in a discussion, someone attacks a person's character or personal traits, instead of, and with a view to undermine, her/ his argument.  You are making a specious distinction above that  does not hold. In middle of a discussion, personal attacks are almost always made - certainly in conditions like of this list, where people otherwise have little or no offline relationship and thus no particular reason for animosity - with a view to undermine that person's argument. On the other hand there is indeed some difference between just an allegation and an ad hominem attack.  Saying something like , to stick to present case of Anriette's email to me, 'you are twisting my words' is an allegation. (Allegations themselves could become quite serious, like you are deceiving, lying, cheating etc, whereby they may be tending towards ad hominem.) , Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist people's words in order to score political points". That is attacking someone in terms of ones character and personal traits, and as in this case, obviously to distract from the argument made - which in this case what that Anriette seemed to see nothing wrong or new with the Indonesian document, which I said was problematic to me for a CS rep on the MAG to say, which is just my view. Nothing personal here. For example a comment one might hear: X is a terrible bully, but sometimes, if you can get past the bullying, X makes a lot of sense. Another comment one might hear: I think I agree with what X is saying, but X is such a bully I am afraid that if I put my agreement in the wrong way I will get beat up for it. One could also say, I agree with a lot of what CX says, but X is just so mean. (I have versions of all of these about certain unnamed IGC participants) Those you accuse of ad hominem attacks against you, are among the greatest defenders off-list of some of the positions you represent. Many of us disagree with you but would never dare say so on the list for fear of starting a flame war. Many of the rest of us just try to hunker down and wait for the storm to pass. BTW, it is ad hominen whether the attack on one's character is made directly or rather more subtly. Your above statements themselves tends towards such an ad hominem attack, and you have very often said such things about me. And I claim you say it to undermine my arguments rather than anything else. However, I would give you an opportunity to disprove my claim. And I hope you will take this challenge. Please point out the precise language in the current exchange over the last few days that you find problematic in my emails, that is something other than a critique of someone's views, that I have a right to make, and rather of the nature of a personal attack. Please just give even one example. You may even go back further to earlier emails, becuase from the above it appears you are a very good record keeping and retrieval methods. Ok, I promise, I will not argue with the example/ instance you provide, I wont even respond, I  just want it to out for everyone to see,  rather that your be subject to your insinuations. Someone/everyone, please stop the venom. It has rendered the IGC nearly irrelevant. I have a different theory of what has rendered IGC irrelevant, which I am ready to enter a discussion about. When the IGC is discussed, pretty much the main content is the outrageousness of a few individuals. Certainly, I do often express strong feelings on some views - not people, never - that I feel strongly about. (And the fact is that there enough degree of difference in views on this list that at times one side and at other times the other  side will feel strongly about things.) But, never against any person as such, unlike what I am almost regularly subjected to. Again, I am open to be given an instance to prove my statement wrong. As for personal attacks on me, apart from Anriette's email, even your reference above of not responding to me with the fear of starting a flame war is such an attack, although a somewhat lighter one, given the normal standards. (Another thing - yes, I have a structural critique of the role and positions of a good part of  civil society involved in IG space - often dominant in its expression - and its support for certain power structures, which I do often voice, which I understand may not go well with some people. But I always voice it in a collective structural manner and never directed at an individual, or even a set f them. This is the view I have - and I consider it very important in the current global circumstances -  and I cannot desist from offering when the occasion so demands.) The words of a few serving to delegitimize the efforts of many. Well, that, who are 'few' and who 'many' itself needs to examined.... That is always the million dollar democratic question! parminder please stop Note to coordinators.  I would never quit IGC, but sometimes I beleive being kicked of the list would bring great relief. I have heard others say similar things. And now back to hunkering down hoping the storm will pass. 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 -- ____________________ 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") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 9 21:30:24 2013 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 10:30:24 +0900 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well said, Bertrand! Izumi 2013年8月9日金曜日 Bertrand de La Chapelle bdelachapelle at gmail.com: > Parminder, > > I have stopped posting on this list for a quite some time now for exactly > the reasons that Avri has mentioned. And as one of the people who were at > the origin of the creation of this very list and caucus to empower civil > society, I am extremely saddened by the way it is currently evolving and > indeed becoming irrelevant. > > I nonetheless feel compelled to react to the most recent exchange. You > wrote: "*Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist > people's words in order to score political points*"". > > I would like to differ. "*You tend to twist people's words in order to > score political points*" is NOT an ad hominem attack (see Wikipedia) > because it does not use your behavior to weaken a specific argument of > yours. It is rather a judgement about your behavior, about whether you > display (or not) the necessary fairness in representing somebody else's > position. > > To illustrate the point: An ad hominem attack, would be for instance: > "This person is usually lying, hence, when they (really) say A, this must > not be true". However, if someone says A and another person says: "this > person said B and therefore this person is wrong and should be condemned", > this IS twisting people's words. In this case, you are basically saying: > Anriette did not explicitly denounce something, therefore she supports it. > This is putting words in somebody else's mouth. > > To be frank, I understand the tactic of discarding as an ad hominem attack > a judgment about your behavior to avoid having to respond to it or ask > yourself whether it is true. But it would be more credible if you did not > yourself frequently attribute ulterior motives to other people's comments > just because of their alleged political preferences, ties to certain types > of actors (for instance business), geographical origin, lack of civil > society purity, etc... > > This behavior is harming the civility of discourse on this list and > actually weakening its influence in the global debate. > > I always respect your expressing positions, even when I disagree with them > and engage in debates with you. But I resent your becoming one of the > main sources of ad hominem attack on this list. There are moments when > one must call a spade a spade. I wish the co-coordinators of this list had > called your attitude to accountability earlier, for the sake of a sound > debate. > > This is below you. You have more to contribute. > > Respectfully still. > > Bertrand > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:37 AM, parminder > > wrote: > >> >> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> On 31 Jul 2013, at 09:33, parminder wrote: >>> >>> ad hominem comment >>>> >>> (to misquote an old IETF adage - comments made wearing asbestos - >>> i tried to ignore this the first time hoping it would just go away and >>> we could all get back to rational calm conversations) >>> >>> an ad hominem attack would be an attack that: because someone is a >>> bully, their views are illegitimate/irrelevant. >>> It does not include the content of calling a bully a bully. >>> >>> I am not sure I have ever heard an ad hominem attack on this list. >>> >> >> Then you are not quite right in your understanding of what is ad hominem. >> Literally, attack against man, it occurs when, in a discussion, someone >> attacks a person's character or personal traits, instead of, and with a >> view to undermine, her/ his argument. You are making a specious >> distinction above that does not hold. In middle of a discussion, personal >> attacks are almost always made - certainly in conditions like of this list, >> where people otherwise have little or no offline relationship and thus no >> particular reason for animosity - with a view to undermine that person's >> argument. >> >> On the other hand there is indeed some difference between just an >> allegation and an ad hominem attack. >> >> Saying something like , to stick to present case of Anriette's email to >> me, 'you are twisting my words' is an allegation. (Allegations themselves >> could become quite serious, like you are deceiving, lying, cheating etc, >> whereby they may be tending towards ad hominem.) >> >> , Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist people's >> words in order to score political points". That is attacking someone in >> terms of ones character and personal traits, and as in this case, obviously >> to distract from the argument made - which in this case what that Anriette >> seemed to see nothing wrong or new with the Indonesian document, which I >> said was problematic to me for a CS rep on the MAG to say, which is just my >> view. Nothing personal here. >> >> >> For example a comment one might hear: X is a terrible bully, but >>> sometimes, if you can get past the bullying, X makes a lot of sense. >>> Another comment one might hear: I think I agree with what X is saying, >>> but X is such a bully I am afraid that if I put my agreement in the wrong >>> way I will get beat up for it. >>> >>> One could also say, I agree with a lot of what CX says, but X is just so >>> mean. >>> >>> (I have versions of all of these about certain unnamed IGC participants) >>> >>> Those you accuse of ad hominem attacks against you, are among the >>> greatest defenders off-list of some of the positions you represent. >>> Many of us disagree with you but would never dare say so on the list for >>> fear of starting a flame war. >>> Many of the rest of us just try to hunker down and wait for the storm to >>> pass. >>> >> >> BTW, it is ad hominen whether the attack on one's character is made >> directly or rather more subtly. Your above statements themselves tends >> towards such an ad hominem attack, and you have very often said such things >> about me. And I claim you say it to undermine my arguments rather than >> anything else. However, I would give you an opportunity to disprove my >> claim. And I hope you will take this challenge. Please point out the >> precise language in the current exchange over the last few days that you >> find problematic in my emails, that is something other than a critique of >> someone's views, that I have a right to make, and rather of the nature of a >> personal attack. Please just give even one example. You may even go back >> further to earlier emails, becuase from the above it appears you are a very >> good record keeping and retrieval methods. Ok, I promise, I will not argue >> with the example/ instance you provide, I wont even respond, I just want >> it to out for everyone to see, rather that your be subject to your >> insinuations. >> >> >> Someone/everyone, please stop the venom. >>> It has rendered the IGC nearly irrelevant. >>> >> >> I have a different theory of what has rendered IGC irrelevant, which I am >> ready to enter a discussion about. >> >> When the IGC is discussed, pretty much the main content is the >>> outrageousness of a few individuals. >>> >> >> Certainly, I do often express strong feelings on some views - not people, >> never - that I feel strongly about. (And the fact is that there enough >> degree of difference in views on this list that at times one side and at >> other times the other side will feel strongly about things.) But, never >> against any person as such, unlike what I am almost regularly subjected to. >> Again, I am open to be given an instance to prove my statement wrong. As >> for personal attacks on me, apart from Anriette's email, even your >> reference above of not responding to me with the fear of starting a flame >> war is such an attack, although a somewhat lighter one, given the normal >> standards. >> >> (Another thing - yes, I have a structural critique of the role and >> positions of a good part of civil society involved in IG space - often >> dominant in its expression - and its support for certain power structures, >> which I do often voice, which I understand may not go well with some >> people. But I always voice it in a collective structural manner and never >> directed at an individual, or even a set f them. This is the view I have - >> and I consider it very important in the current global circumstances - and >> I cannot desist from offering when the occasion so demands.) >> >> >> The words of a few serving to delegitimize the efforts of many. >>> >> >> Well, that, who are 'few' and who 'many' itself needs to examined.... >> That is always the million dollar democratic question! >> >> parminder >> >> >> please stop >>> >>> Note to coordinators. I would never quit IGC, but sometimes I beleive >>> being kicked of the list would bring great relief. >>> I have heard others say similar things. >>> >>> And now back to hunkering down hoping the storm will pass. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > ____________________ > 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") > -- >> 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 kabani.asif at gmail.com Fri Aug 9 21:48:18 2013 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 06:48:18 +0500 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1 well said Bertrand On Friday, August 9, 2013, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Parminder, > > I have stopped posting on this list for a quite some time now for exactly > the reasons that Avri has mentioned. And as one of the people who were at > the origin of the creation of this very list and caucus to empower civil > society, I am extremely saddened by the way it is currently evolving and > indeed becoming irrelevant. > > I nonetheless feel compelled to react to the most recent exchange. You > wrote: "*Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist > people's words in order to score political points*"". > > I would like to differ. "*You tend to twist people's words in order to > score political points*" is NOT an ad hominem attack (see Wikipedia) > because it does not use your behavior to weaken a specific argument of > yours. It is rather a judgement about your behavior, about whether you > display (or not) the necessary fairness in representing somebody else's > position. > > To illustrate the point: An ad hominem attack, would be for instance: > "This person is usually lying, hence, when they (really) say A, this must > not be true". However, if someone says A and another person says: "this > person said B and therefore this person is wrong and should be condemned", > this IS twisting people's words. In this case, you are basically saying: > Anriette did not explicitly denounce something, therefore she supports it. > This is putting words in somebody else's mouth. > > To be frank, I understand the tactic of discarding as an ad hominem attack > a judgment about your behavior to avoid having to respond to it or ask > yourself whether it is true. But it would be more credible if you did not > yourself frequently attribute ulterior motives to other people's comments > just because of their alleged political preferences, ties to certain types > of actors (for instance business), geographical origin, lack of civil > society purity, etc... > > This behavior is harming the civility of discourse on this list and > actually weakening its influence in the global debate. > > I always respect your expressing positions, even when I disagree with them > and engage in debates with you. But I resent your becoming one of the > main sources of ad hominem attack on this list. There are moments when > one must call a spade a spade. I wish the co-coordinators of this list had > called your attitude to accountability earlier, for the sake of a sound > debate. > > This is below you. You have more to contribute. > > Respectfully still. > > Bertrand > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:37 AM, parminder > > wrote: > >> >> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> On 31 Jul 2013, at 09:33, parminder wrote: >>> >>> ad hominem comment >>>> >>> (to misquote an old IETF adage - comments made wearing asbestos - >>> i tried to ignore this the first time hoping it would just go away and >>> we could all get back to rational calm conversations) >>> >>> an ad hominem attack would be an attack that: because someone is a >>> bully, their views are illegitimate/irrelevant. >>> It does not include the content of calling a bully a bully. >>> >>> I am not sure I have ever heard an ad hominem attack on this list. >>> >> >> Then you are not quite right in your understanding of what is ad hominem. >> Literally, attack against man, it occurs when, in a discussion, someone >> attacks a person's character or personal traits, instead of, and with a >> view to undermine, her/ his argument. You are making a specious >> distinction above that does not hold. In middle of a discussion, personal >> attacks are almost always made - certainly in conditions like of this list, >> where people otherwise have little or no offline relationship and thus no >> particular reason for animosity - with a view to undermine that person's >> argument. >> >> On the other hand there is indeed some difference between just an >> allegation and an ad hominem attack. >> >> Saying something like , to stick to present case of Anriette's email to >> me, 'you are twisting my words' is an allegation. (Allegations themselves >> could become quite serious, like you are deceiving, lying, cheating etc, >> whereby they may be tending towards ad hominem.) >> >> , Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist people's >> words in order to score political points". That is attacking someone in >> terms of ones character and personal traits, and as in this case, obviously >> to distract from the argument made - which in this case what that Anriette >> seemed to see nothing wrong or new with the Indonesian document, which I >> said was problematic to me for a CS rep on the MAG to say, which is just my >> view. Nothing personal here. >> >> >> For example a comment one might hear: X is a terrible bully, but >>> sometimes, if you can get past the bullying, X makes a lot of sense. >>> Another comment one might hear: I think I agree with what X is saying, >>> but X is such a bully I am afraid that if I put my agreement in the wrong >>> way I will get beat up for it. >>> >>> One could also say, I agree with a lot of what CX says, but X is just so >>> mean. >>> >>> (I have versions of all of these about certain unnamed IGC participants) >>> >>> Those you accuse of ad hominem attacks against you, are among the >>> greatest defenders off-list of some of the positions you represent. >>> Many of us disagree with you but would never dare say so on the list for >>> fear of starting a flame war. >>> Many of the rest of us just try to hunker down and wait for the storm to >>> pass. >>> >> >> BTW, it is ad hominen whether the attack on one's character is made >> directly or rather more subtly. Your above statements themselves tends >> towards such an ad hominem attack, and you have very often said such things >> about me. And I claim you say it to undermine my arguments rather than >> anything else. However, I would give you an opportunity to disprove my >> claim. And I hope you will take this challenge. Please point out the >> precise language in the current exchange over the last few days that you >> find problematic in my emails, that is something other than a critique of >> someone's views, that I have a right to make, and rather of the nature of a >> personal attack. Please just give even one example. You may even go back >> further to earlier emails, becuase from the above it appears you are a very >> good record keeping and retrieval methods. Ok, I promise, I will not argue >> with the example/ instance you provide, I wont even respond, I just want >> it to out for everyone to see, rather that your be subject to your >> insinuations. >> >> >> Someone/everyone, please stop the venom. >>> It has rendered the IGC nearly irrelevant. >>> >> >> I have a different theory of what has rendered IGC irrelevant, which I am >> ready to enter a discussion about. >> >> When the IGC is discussed, pretty much the main content is the >>> outrageousness of a few individuals. >>> >> >> Certainly, I do often express strong feelings on some views - not people, >> never - that I feel strongly about. (And the fact is that there enough >> degree of difference in views on this list that at times one side and at >> other times the other side will feel strongly about things.) But, never >> against any person as such, unlike what I am almost regularly subjected to. >> Again, I am open to be given an instance to prove my statement wrong. As >> for personal attacks on me, apart from Anriette's email, even your >> reference above of not responding to me with the fear of starting a flame >> war is such an attack, although a somewhat lighter one, given the normal >> standards. >> >> (Another thing - yes, I have a structural critique of the role and >> positions of a good part of civil society involved in IG space - often >> dominant in its expression - and its support for certain power structures, >> which I do often voice, which I understand may not go well with some >> people. But I always voice it in a collective structural manner and never >> directed at an individual, or even a set f them. This is the view I have - >> and I consider it very important in the current global circumstances - and >> I cannot desist from offering when the occasion so demands.) >> >> >> The words of a few serving to delegitimize the efforts of many. >>> >> >> Well, that, who are 'few' and who 'many' itself needs to examined.... >> That is always the million dollar democratic question! >> >> parminder >> >> >> please stop >>> >>> Note to coordinators. I would never quit IGC, but sometimes I beleive >>> being kicked of the list would bring great relief. >>> I have heard others say similar things. >>> >>> And now back to hunkering down hoping the storm will pass. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > ____________________ > 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") > -- Sent from iPad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Aug 9 22:57:18 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 09:57:18 +0700 Subject: [governance] Guardian: Fears over NSA surveillance revelations endanger US cloud computing industry Message-ID: <02e401ce9575$55022800$ff067800$@gmail.com> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/08/nsa-revelations-fears-cloud-computing Fears over NSA surveillance revelations endanger US cloud computing industry Companies say they could lose billions as customers become wary about their data being turned over to US authorities Charles Arthur, technology editor theguardian.com, Thursday 8 August 2013 13.16 EDT Some UK and European businesses are reluctant to trust US organisations with their data. Photograph: Adam Gault / Alamy American technology businesses fear they could lose between $21.5bn and $35bn in cloud computing contracts worldwide over the next three years, as part of the fallout from the NSA revelations. Some US companies said they have already lost business, while UK rivals said that UK and European businesses are increasingly wary of trusting their data to American organisations, which might have to turn it over secretly to the National Security Agency, its government surveillance organisation. One British executive, Simon Wardley at the Leading Edge Forum thinktank, celebrated the publication of the information about the NSA's spying and its Prism data collection program: "Do I like Prism ... yes, and god bless America and the NSA for handing this golden opportunity to us," he wrote on his blog. "Do I think we should be prepared to go the whole hog, ban US services and create a €100bn investment fund for small tech startups in Europe to boost the market ... oh yes, without hesitation." A survey by the US-based Cloud Security Alliance, quoted by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) found that American companies which offer file storage and computing in cloud systems – so they can be stored and accessed anywhere in the world – are gloomy about the effects of the Guardian's revelations of the extent of US government snooping and data gathering through projects such as Prism and Xkeyscore . Daniel Castro, author of the ITIF survey, said that it seemed reasonable to suggest that US cloud businesses could lose between 10% and 20% of the overseas market to rivals. The effect has already been felt, Castro said. The ITIF survey found that of those outside the US, 10% had cancelled a project with a US-based cloud computing provider, and 56% would be "less likely" to use a US-based cloud computing service. Of those surveyed inside the US, 36% said that the NSA leaks had "made it more difficult" for them to do business outside the US. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Fri Aug 9 23:02:45 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 04:02:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Some time we need to understand issues properly before we go ahead to release our bad behaviors in wordings. We know interest had brought so many depressive oppressions, we can gradually deliberate it without attacks. People go into ventures and business for profits while many lost their lives for the profit of the greedy businessman. How can we solve the equality approach of LIFE ? Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Aug 10, 2013 2:48 AM, "Kabani" wrote: > +1 well said Bertrand > > On Friday, August 9, 2013, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > >> Parminder, >> >> I have stopped posting on this list for a quite some time now for exactly >> the reasons that Avri has mentioned. And as one of the people who were at >> the origin of the creation of this very list and caucus to empower civil >> society, I am extremely saddened by the way it is currently evolving and >> indeed becoming irrelevant. >> >> I nonetheless feel compelled to react to the most recent exchange. You >> wrote: "*Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist >> people's words in order to score political points*"". >> >> I would like to differ. "*You tend to twist people's words in order to >> score political points*" is NOT an ad hominem attack (see Wikipedia) >> because it does not use your behavior to weaken a specific argument of >> yours. It is rather a judgement about your behavior, about whether you >> display (or not) the necessary fairness in representing somebody else's >> position. >> >> To illustrate the point: An ad hominem attack, would be for instance: >> "This person is usually lying, hence, when they (really) say A, this must >> not be true". However, if someone says A and another person says: "this >> person said B and therefore this person is wrong and should be condemned", >> this IS twisting people's words. In this case, you are basically saying: >> Anriette did not explicitly denounce something, therefore she supports it. >> This is putting words in somebody else's mouth. >> >> To be frank, I understand the tactic of discarding as an ad hominem >> attack a judgment about your behavior to avoid having to respond to it or >> ask yourself whether it is true. But it would be more credible if you did >> not yourself frequently attribute ulterior motives to other people's >> comments just because of their alleged political preferences, ties to >> certain types of actors (for instance business), geographical origin, lack >> of civil society purity, etc... >> >> This behavior is harming the civility of discourse on this list and >> actually weakening its influence in the global debate. >> >> I always respect your expressing positions, even when I disagree with >> them and engage in debates with you. But I resent your becoming one of >> the main sources of ad hominem attack on this list. There are moments >> when one must call a spade a spade. I wish the co-coordinators of this list had >> called your attitude to accountability earlier, for the sake of a sound >> debate. >> >> This is below you. You have more to contribute. >> >> Respectfully still. >> >> Bertrand >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:37 AM, parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>>> On 31 Jul 2013, at 09:33, parminder wrote: >>>> >>>> ad hominem comment >>>>> >>>> (to misquote an old IETF adage - comments made wearing asbestos - >>>> i tried to ignore this the first time hoping it would just go away and >>>> we could all get back to rational calm conversations) >>>> >>>> an ad hominem attack would be an attack that: because someone is a >>>> bully, their views are illegitimate/irrelevant. >>>> It does not include the content of calling a bully a bully. >>>> >>>> I am not sure I have ever heard an ad hominem attack on this list. >>>> >>> >>> Then you are not quite right in your understanding of what is ad >>> hominem. Literally, attack against man, it occurs when, in a discussion, >>> someone attacks a person's character or personal traits, instead of, and >>> with a view to undermine, her/ his argument. You are making a specious >>> distinction above that does not hold. In middle of a discussion, personal >>> attacks are almost always made - certainly in conditions like of this list, >>> where people otherwise have little or no offline relationship and thus no >>> particular reason for animosity - with a view to undermine that person's >>> argument. >>> >>> On the other hand there is indeed some difference between just an >>> allegation and an ad hominem attack. >>> >>> Saying something like , to stick to present case of Anriette's email to >>> me, 'you are twisting my words' is an allegation. (Allegations themselves >>> could become quite serious, like you are deceiving, lying, cheating etc, >>> whereby they may be tending towards ad hominem.) >>> >>> , Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist people's >>> words in order to score political points". That is attacking someone in >>> terms of ones character and personal traits, and as in this case, obviously >>> to distract from the argument made - which in this case what that Anriette >>> seemed to see nothing wrong or new with the Indonesian document, which I >>> said was problematic to me for a CS rep on the MAG to say, which is just my >>> view. Nothing personal here. >>> >>> >>> For example a comment one might hear: X is a terrible bully, but >>>> sometimes, if you can get past the bullying, X makes a lot of sense. >>>> Another comment one might hear: I think I agree with what X is saying, >>>> but X is such a bully I am afraid that if I put my agreement in the wrong >>>> way I will get beat up for it. >>>> >>>> One could also say, I agree with a lot of what CX says, but X is just >>>> so mean. >>>> >>>> (I have versions of all of these about certain unnamed IGC participants) >>>> >>>> Those you accuse of ad hominem attacks against you, are among the >>>> greatest defenders off-list of some of the positions you represent. >>>> Many of us disagree with you but would never dare say so on the list >>>> for fear of starting a flame war. >>>> Many of the rest of us just try to hunker down and wait for the storm >>>> to pass. >>>> >>> >>> BTW, it is ad hominen whether the attack on one's character is made >>> directly or rather more subtly. Your above statements themselves tends >>> towards such an ad hominem attack, and you have very often said such things >>> about me. And I claim you say it to undermine my arguments rather than >>> anything else. However, I would give you an opportunity to disprove my >>> claim. And I hope you will take this challenge. Please point out the >>> precise language in the current exchange over the last few days that you >>> find problematic in my emails, that is something other than a critique of >>> someone's views, that I have a right to make, and rather of the nature of a >>> personal attack. Please just give even one example. You may even go back >>> further to earlier emails, becuase from the above it appears you are a very >>> good record keeping and retrieval methods. Ok, I promise, I will not argue >>> with the example/ instance you provide, I wont even respond, I just want >>> it to out for everyone to see, rather that your be subject to your >>> insinuations. >>> >>> >>> Someone/everyone, please stop the venom. >>>> It has rendered the IGC nearly irrelevant. >>>> >>> >>> I have a different theory of what has rendered IGC irrelevant, which I >>> am ready to enter a discussion about. >>> >>> When the IGC is discussed, pretty much the main content is the >>>> outrageousness of a few individuals. >>>> >>> >>> Certainly, I do often express strong feelings on some views - not >>> people, never - that I feel strongly about. (And the fact is that there >>> enough degree of difference in views on this list that at times one side >>> and at other times the other side will feel strongly about things.) But, >>> never against any person as such, unlike what I am almost regularly >>> subjected to. Again, I am open to be given an instance to prove my >>> statement wrong. As for personal attacks on me, apart from Anriette's >>> email, even your reference above of not responding to me with the fear of >>> starting a flame war is such an attack, although a somewhat lighter one, >>> given the normal standards. >>> >>> (Another thing - yes, I have a structural critique of the role and >>> positions of a good part of civil society involved in IG space - often >>> dominant in its expression - and its support for certain power structures, >>> which I do often voice, which I understand may not go well with some >>> people. But I always voice it in a collective structural manner and never >>> directed at an individual, or even a set f them. This is the view I have - >>> and I consider it very important in the current global circumstances - and >>> I cannot desist from offering when the occasion so demands.) >>> >>> >>> The words of a few serving to delegitimize the efforts of many. >>>> >>> >>> Well, that, who are 'few' and who 'many' itself needs to examined.... >>> That is always the million dollar democratic question! >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> please stop >>>> >>>> Note to coordinators. I would never quit IGC, but sometimes I beleive >>>> being kicked of the list would bring great relief. >>>> I have heard others say similar things. >>>> >>>> And now back to hunkering down hoping the storm will pass. >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> ____________________ >> 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") >> > > > -- > Sent from iPad > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Aug 10 00:19:19 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 09:49:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: CS members to the HLLM In-Reply-To: References: <1510492700-1376015808-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1778312579-@b25.c5.bise3.blackberry> Message-ID: <5205BF47.5010104@itforchange.net> Izumi Are we not asking for a parity with business reps in terms of numbers and speaking slots - and BTW do we have an idea how this HLM (high level meeting) is structured.... This year it is called high level leaders meeting instead of high level ministerial meeting, presumably to accommodate business sector leaders ( ICANN and ISOC were already in at Baku HLM). Is this a big meeting with a very large number of attendees and just a few speakers, or more of a round table kind of interactive thing.... I heard stuff like 40 CEOs already listed... So how does this really work.... I understand that it has the status of pre events and is not an IGF event per se, and thus not really under the MAG but with the local hosts to organise. Although for the Baku IGF, the high level 'ministerial' meeting is mentioned on the main IGF page and not on the pre events page, which does list other pre events.. It is therefore important for us to be clear on the status of the HLM - whether it is IGF or not... Also, this meeting does come up with a declaration.... and since there is no other specific declaration etc is adopted at the IGFs, with time, it can be excepted/ feared that this HLM declaration will become 'the' declaration coming from the IGF. Also, will be important to know who is going to draft the expected declaration, and how... Last year the declaration was on a very general topic "challanges of a hyper connected world", However cyber -ethics is a much more complex and sensitive issues, so we better be more careful on this... parminder On Saturday 10 August 2013 04:52 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Dear list, > > Below is the email exchange on the MAG list which is archived and open > to all. > > So, now it is our turn to respond to this open call (with MAG members). > > best, > > izumi > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Izumi AIZU* > > Date: 2013/8/10 > Subject: Re: CS members to the HLLM > To: Sardjoeni Moedjiono > > Cc: "igf_members at intgovforum.org " > > > > > Dear Mr. Moedjiono (and also all MAG members), > > Many thanks for the encouraging reply to my suggestions. > Now, then, it is our responsibility to send you the list of candidates > to attend HLLM. > > I will ask our colleagues, from Civil Society, to forward this message > to relevant bodies or groups and get back to Mr. Moedjiono for > their invitation. > > I am sure he will receive too many names to choose from ;-) > > izumi > > > 2013/8/9 > > > Dear Mr. Izumi and all MAG Members, > Thank you very much for your suggestions. I agree with you. I > invite all the MAG Members to invite ICT Ministers, > Business/Private sectors CEOs, and Civil Society organization > leaders to attend the HLLM. Please send me the complete list so we > the OC can invite them formally. > Best regards, > Moedjiono > Powered by Telkomsel BlackBerry® > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: * Izumi AIZU > > *Sender: * izumiaizu at gmail.com > *Date: *Fri, 9 Aug 2013 11:22:44 +0900 > *To: *Sardjoeni Moedjiono > > *Cc: *igf_members at intgovforum.org > > > *Subject: *Re: CS members to the HLLM > > Dear Mr Moedjiono, > > As a MAG member form the Civil Society, I would like to first > thank you and all Indonesian colleagues for the hard work to host > the next IGF in Bali despite financial and other constraints we > all share. > > Now, I would like to clarify one thing. In your statement to the > MAG, we got an impression that the participants from the Civil > Society to the High Level Leaders Meeting will be nominated by > ICC, the private sector focal point to IGF. However, we received a > message that ICC has no intention to select other stakeholders for > this matter, sent by Ms. Ayesha Hassan of ICC. I believe you are > open to the suggestions from the civil society members at large. > > We like to ask you to make an open call for suggestions and > contact a number of civil society groups active in the IGF related > activities to submit their recommendations for the participants to > the HLM. If I may, I like ID-Config, the Indonesian Civil Society > group, to be the focal point on this matter, as we have high > respect to them. Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, with > two co-coordinators, is also a good candidate for such work. I am > also a member of this group, IGC, and if you so think I can liaise > to them. > > I am sure other MAG members from Civil Society also have good > ideas about this matter so that we can all help make the meeting a > real multi-stakeholder endeavor, without disenfranchising any. > > I appreciate your wise consideration in advance and look forward > to seeing you all in Bali soon for the successful IGF. > > Sincerely, > > 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 george.sadowsky at gmail.com Sat Aug 10 09:46:55 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 09:46:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91EDBFFE-1228-4ECA-AAFC-C448E873D8CF@gmail.com> Thank you Bertrand. I agree with the sentiment that you express below. . George On Aug 9, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Parminder, > > I have stopped posting on this list for a quite some time now for exactly the reasons that Avri has mentioned. And as one of the people who were at the origin of the creation of this very list and caucus to empower civil society, I am extremely saddened by the way it is currently evolving and indeed becoming irrelevant. > > I nonetheless feel compelled to react to the most recent exchange. You wrote: "Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist people's words in order to score political points"". > > I would like to differ. "You tend to twist people's words in order to score political points" is NOT an ad hominem attack (see Wikipedia) because it does not use your behavior to weaken a specific argument of yours. It is rather a judgement about your behavior, about whether you display (or not) the necessary fairness in representing somebody else's position. > > To illustrate the point: An ad hominem attack, would be for instance: "This person is usually lying, hence, when they (really) say A, this must not be true". However, if someone says A and another person says: "this person said B and therefore this person is wrong and should be condemned", this IS twisting people's words. In this case, you are basically saying: Anriette did not explicitly denounce something, therefore she supports it. This is putting words in somebody else's mouth. > > To be frank, I understand the tactic of discarding as an ad hominem attack a judgment about your behavior to avoid having to respond to it or ask yourself whether it is true. But it would be more credible if you did not yourself frequently attribute ulterior motives to other people's comments just because of their alleged political preferences, ties to certain types of actors (for instance business), geographical origin, lack of civil society purity, etc... > > This behavior is harming the civility of discourse on this list and actually weakening its influence in the global debate. > > I always respect your expressing positions, even when I disagree with them and engage in debates with you. But I resent your becoming one of the main sources of ad hominem attack on this list. There are moments when one must call a spade a spade. I wish the co-coordinators of this list had called your attitude to accountability earlier, for the sake of a sound debate. > > This is below you. You have more to contribute. > > Respectfully still. > > Bertrand > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:37 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 02 August 2013 02:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 31 Jul 2013, at 09:33, parminder wrote: > > ad hominem comment > (to misquote an old IETF adage - comments made wearing asbestos - > i tried to ignore this the first time hoping it would just go away and we could all get back to rational calm conversations) > > an ad hominem attack would be an attack that: because someone is a bully, their views are illegitimate/irrelevant. > It does not include the content of calling a bully a bully. > > I am not sure I have ever heard an ad hominem attack on this list. > > Then you are not quite right in your understanding of what is ad hominem. Literally, attack against man, it occurs when, in a discussion, someone attacks a person's character or personal traits, instead of, and with a view to undermine, her/ his argument. You are making a specious distinction above that does not hold. In middle of a discussion, personal attacks are almost always made - certainly in conditions like of this list, where people otherwise have little or no offline relationship and thus no particular reason for animosity - with a view to undermine that person's argument. > > On the other hand there is indeed some difference between just an allegation and an ad hominem attack. > > Saying something like , to stick to present case of Anriette's email to me, 'you are twisting my words' is an allegation. (Allegations themselves could become quite serious, like you are deceiving, lying, cheating etc, whereby they may be tending towards ad hominem.) > > , Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist people's words in order to score political points". That is attacking someone in terms of ones character and personal traits, and as in this case, obviously to distract from the argument made - which in this case what that Anriette seemed to see nothing wrong or new with the Indonesian document, which I said was problematic to me for a CS rep on the MAG to say, which is just my view. Nothing personal here. > > > For example a comment one might hear: X is a terrible bully, but sometimes, if you can get past the bullying, X makes a lot of sense. > Another comment one might hear: I think I agree with what X is saying, but X is such a bully I am afraid that if I put my agreement in the wrong way I will get beat up for it. > > One could also say, I agree with a lot of what CX says, but X is just so mean. > > (I have versions of all of these about certain unnamed IGC participants) > > Those you accuse of ad hominem attacks against you, are among the greatest defenders off-list of some of the positions you represent. > Many of us disagree with you but would never dare say so on the list for fear of starting a flame war. > Many of the rest of us just try to hunker down and wait for the storm to pass. > > BTW, it is ad hominen whether the attack on one's character is made directly or rather more subtly. Your above statements themselves tends towards such an ad hominem attack, and you have very often said such things about me. And I claim you say it to undermine my arguments rather than anything else. However, I would give you an opportunity to disprove my claim. And I hope you will take this challenge. Please point out the precise language in the current exchange over the last few days that you find problematic in my emails, that is something other than a critique of someone's views, that I have a right to make, and rather of the nature of a personal attack. Please just give even one example. You may even go back further to earlier emails, becuase from the above it appears you are a very good record keeping and retrieval methods. Ok, I promise, I will not argue with the example/ instance you provide, I wont even respond, I just want it to out for everyone to see, rather that your be subject to your insinuations. > > > Someone/everyone, please stop the venom. > It has rendered the IGC nearly irrelevant. > > I have a different theory of what has rendered IGC irrelevant, which I am ready to enter a discussion about. > > When the IGC is discussed, pretty much the main content is the outrageousness of a few individuals. > > Certainly, I do often express strong feelings on some views - not people, never - that I feel strongly about. (And the fact is that there enough degree of difference in views on this list that at times one side and at other times the other side will feel strongly about things.) But, never against any person as such, unlike what I am almost regularly subjected to. Again, I am open to be given an instance to prove my statement wrong. As for personal attacks on me, apart from Anriette's email, even your reference above of not responding to me with the fear of starting a flame war is such an attack, although a somewhat lighter one, given the normal standards. > > (Another thing - yes, I have a structural critique of the role and positions of a good part of civil society involved in IG space - often dominant in its expression - and its support for certain power structures, which I do often voice, which I understand may not go well with some people. But I always voice it in a collective structural manner and never directed at an individual, or even a set f them. This is the view I have - and I consider it very important in the current global circumstances - and I cannot desist from offering when the occasion so demands.) > > > The words of a few serving to delegitimize the efforts of many. > > Well, that, who are 'few' and who 'many' itself needs to examined.... That is always the million dollar democratic question! > > parminder > > > please stop > > Note to coordinators. I would never quit IGC, but sometimes I beleive being kicked of the list would bring great relief. > I have heard others say similar things. > > And now back to hunkering down hoping the storm will pass. > > 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 > > > > > -- > ____________________ > 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") > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Aug 10 10:24:51 2013 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 10:24:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <38A32B6D-C013-425A-955F-EB1F74529B6F@post.harvard.edu> There is a saying from the Christian Bible, in its Old Testament: "Don't worry about the mote in my eye, until you have dealt with the timber in yours." [direction of the original reversed and then rendered in current argot, but with some King James version vocabulary ...] First of all: I too am aghast at the relative decline / demise, of the IGC list. What a waste, and a great shame. I lend my voice, most pointedly, to see a turnaround. But. To imagine that the problem is with one person (the mote), is to ignore massively the the timber also there. Oh my goodness. To be clear: Just what is 'ad hominem'? In my too-extended, if personal and individual, travels and travails with 'discussion spaces': Ad hominem is entirely straightforward, not requiring detailed enumeration. Ad hominem - the prohibition against it - can be put most simply: _Never_ discuss the persons discussing; never inject those persons into the argumentation. Always, and only, discuss ideas, their logic, and supporting or dissenting evidence. Ad hominem is the introduction of talk _about the people talking_. That is proscribed. Period. ... and your mileage may vary. (Yes, sometimes it is necessary to talk about bad behavior. Indeed, as we are doing here. That is a 'reserved case.' Then space is set aside specifically for the purpose. Ideas are not the subject, rather the behavior being questioned is the subject.) To imagine that the problem, of introducing discussion of those discussing, is the province of one person, of Parminder - to imagine that is utterly not supported by the record. Found hereon, in the archives. Massively, and most sadly. Quite regularly, there is innuendo and outright slander. Then. Some / a few / one, find it necessary to respond to very many of the list posts - seemingly to virtually all the threads. (Though probably that is an overstatement, borne of weariness, on seeing it ...) The brew, of personal nastiness together with overflowing intervention on the airwaves, creates - predictably - a toxic discussion space. Useful only to those spewing. And damning the IGC name. Not to mention the ability to get anything done. A 'new day' is required, to see any prospect or future. But '_all sides_' have to adopt that new day, with faithful adherence to the proscription against discussing the people discussing. That is the only prospect for a resurrection. To imagine that Parminder is somehow the root of this is risible. (And disrespectful of the rest of us, who have eyes and can see.) Only if all the folks responsible are noted and join a new day is there any prospect. Even then, it would take some time for a new culture to be trusted. To move from the proscribed, to the prescribed - to the positive, over the negative: So, what is the main thrust of a quality, productive discussion space? It is even-handedness, in a word. A certain 'neutrality' with respect to judgment. So that all sides, regardless of position, may be heard and taken account. What is the point, in my text here? Evenhandedness, in assessment of the facts, of the history. Only if there is honest and complete description of the problem - and those who have been part of it - is there even the beginning of prospect for a better day. David On Aug 9, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Parminder, > > I have stopped posting on this list for a quite some time now for > exactly the reasons that Avri has mentioned. And as one of the > people who were at the origin of the creation of this very list and > caucus to empower civil society, I am extremely saddened by the way > it is currently evolving and indeed becoming irrelevant. > > I nonetheless feel compelled to react to the most recent exchange. > You wrote: "Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to > twist people's words in order to score political points"". > > I would like to differ. "You tend to twist people's words in order > to score political points" is NOT an ad hominem attack (see > Wikipedia) because it does not use your behavior to weaken a > specific argument of yours. It is rather a judgement about your > behavior, about whether you display (or not) the necessary fairness > in representing somebody else's position. > > To illustrate the point: An ad hominem attack, would be for > instance: "This person is usually lying, hence, when they (really) > say A, this must not be true". However, if someone says A and > another person says: "this person said B and therefore this person > is wrong and should be condemned", this IS twisting people's words. > In this case, you are basically saying: Anriette did not explicitly > denounce something, therefore she supports it. This is putting words > in somebody else's mouth. > > To be frank, I understand the tactic of discarding as an ad hominem > attack a judgment about your behavior to avoid having to respond to > it or ask yourself whether it is true. But it would be more credible > if you did not yourself frequently attribute ulterior motives to > other people's comments just because of their alleged political > preferences, ties to certain types of actors (for instance > business), geographical origin, lack of civil society purity, etc... > > This behavior is harming the civility of discourse on this list and > actually weakening its influence in the global debate. > > I always respect your expressing positions, even when I disagree > with them and engage in debates with you. But I resent your becoming > one of the main sources of ad hominem attack on this list. There are > moments when one must call a spade a spade. I wish the co- > coordinators of this list had called your attitude to accountability > earlier, for the sake of a sound debate. > > This is below you. You have more to contribute. > > Respectfully still. > > Bertrand > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:37 AM, parminder > wrote: > > On Friday 02 August 2013 02:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 31 Jul 2013, at 09:33, parminder wrote: > > ad hominem comment > (to misquote an old IETF adage - comments made wearing asbestos - > i tried to ignore this the first time hoping it would just go away > and we could all get back to rational calm conversations) > > an ad hominem attack would be an attack that: because someone is a > bully, their views are illegitimate/irrelevant. > It does not include the content of calling a bully a bully. > > I am not sure I have ever heard an ad hominem attack on this list. > > Then you are not quite right in your understanding of what is ad > hominem. Literally, attack against man, it occurs when, in a > discussion, someone attacks a person's character or personal traits, > instead of, and with a view to undermine, her/ his argument. You > are making a specious distinction above that does not hold. In > middle of a discussion, personal attacks are almost always made - > certainly in conditions like of this list, where people otherwise > have little or no offline relationship and thus no particular reason > for animosity - with a view to undermine that person's argument. > > On the other hand there is indeed some difference between just an > allegation and an ad hominem attack. > > Saying something like , to stick to present case of Anriette's > email to me, 'you are twisting my words' is an allegation. > (Allegations themselves could become quite serious, like you are > deceiving, lying, cheating etc, whereby they may be tending towards > ad hominem.) > > , Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist > people's words in order to score political points". That is > attacking someone in terms of ones character and personal traits, > and as in this case, obviously to distract from the argument made - > which in this case what that Anriette seemed to see nothing wrong or > new with the Indonesian document, which I said was problematic to me > for a CS rep on the MAG to say, which is just my view. Nothing > personal here. > > > For example a comment one might hear: X is a terrible bully, but > sometimes, if you can get past the bullying, X makes a lot of sense. > Another comment one might hear: I think I agree with what X is > saying, but X is such a bully I am afraid that if I put my agreement > in the wrong way I will get beat up for it. > > One could also say, I agree with a lot of what CX says, but X is > just so mean. > > (I have versions of all of these about certain unnamed IGC > participants) > > Those you accuse of ad hominem attacks against you, are among the > greatest defenders off-list of some of the positions you represent. > Many of us disagree with you but would never dare say so on the list > for fear of starting a flame war. > Many of the rest of us just try to hunker down and wait for the > storm to pass. > > BTW, it is ad hominen whether the attack on one's character is made > directly or rather more subtly. Your above statements themselves > tends towards such an ad hominem attack, and you have very often > said such things about me. And I claim you say it to undermine my > arguments rather than anything else. However, I would give you an > opportunity to disprove my claim. And I hope you will take this > challenge. Please point out the precise language in the current > exchange over the last few days that you find problematic in my > emails, that is something other than a critique of someone's views, > that I have a right to make, and rather of the nature of a personal > attack. Please just give even one example. You may even go back > further to earlier emails, becuase from the above it appears you are > a very good record keeping and retrieval methods. Ok, I promise, I > will not argue with the example/ instance you provide, I wont even > respond, I just want it to out for everyone to see, rather that > your be subject to your insinuations. > > > Someone/everyone, please stop the venom. > It has rendered the IGC nearly irrelevant. > > I have a different theory of what has rendered IGC irrelevant, which > I am ready to enter a discussion about. > > When the IGC is discussed, pretty much the main content is the > outrageousness of a few individuals. > > Certainly, I do often express strong feelings on some views - not > people, never - that I feel strongly about. (And the fact is that > there enough degree of difference in views on this list that at > times one side and at other times the other side will feel strongly > about things.) But, never against any person as such, unlike what I > am almost regularly subjected to. Again, I am open to be given an > instance to prove my statement wrong. As for personal attacks on me, > apart from Anriette's email, even your reference above of not > responding to me with the fear of starting a flame war is such an > attack, although a somewhat lighter one, given the normal standards. > > (Another thing - yes, I have a structural critique of the role and > positions of a good part of civil society involved in IG space - > often dominant in its expression - and its support for certain power > structures, which I do often voice, which I understand may not go > well with some people. But I always voice it in a collective > structural manner and never directed at an individual, or even a set > f them. This is the view I have - and I consider it very important > in the current global circumstances - and I cannot desist from > offering when the occasion so demands.) > > > The words of a few serving to delegitimize the efforts of many. > > Well, that, who are 'few' and who 'many' itself needs to > examined.... That is always the million dollar democratic question! > > parminder > > > please stop > > Note to coordinators. I would never quit IGC, but sometimes I > beleive being kicked of the list would bring great relief. > I have heard others say similar things. > > And now back to hunkering down hoping the storm will pass. > > 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 > > > > > -- > ____________________ > 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") > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Aug 10 11:10:31 2013 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 11:10:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: <91EDBFFE-1228-4ECA-AAFC-C448E873D8CF@gmail.com> References: <91EDBFFE-1228-4ECA-AAFC-C448E873D8CF@gmail.com> Message-ID: For the sake of balancing the growing counter of +1 on Bertand's mail and preventing a group to find unanimously the perfect guilty for the turmoil on the communication flow during the last months in this forum, I would like to express a -1 on Bertand's mail. First of all, the process of slow deterioration of the good spirit is NOT the product of one person expression but the result of an interaction with other person’s expression and I do not think I have to offer names, if your memory of the co-co's actions is neat. Second, and much more important, what is at stake behind this situation is NOT a mere question of people style; in the background, there is a profound issue of the role of civil society in Internet Governance. I consider myself that a good provision of "constructive provocation" is an intrinsic part of my civil society role and I have been worried for years in this forum to perceive a clear trend of anesthesia of the discourse of civil society, for the sake of allowing multistakeholderism to perform smoothly. I have been (and I am still) quite worried that this trend will not transform us (organized civil society) in the unwilling accomplices of many bad actions performed in our field. It is enough to see the sweetness of the IGF statements in situation like PRISM, compared to other groups, to assess this point. The main reason I am more a lurker than a contributor in this forum is to be found there (and not in the fact that some discussion get heated). The main reason why Funredes has resigned recently from APC membership (without loosing respect and good relationships) is also to be found here (my analysis is that the price to pay in silencing and smoothing our critics has gotten too high). Is it not a risky game to accept to be so polite that we loose our soul; shall we resist to such level of politeness? I tend to answer yes at the light of the evolution of the Internet. What is at stake here and the fractures which are underlying are not details of Internet history and too much naivety may turned to become a crime against virtual humanity; the role of ICANN, the need to see the historical grab of US in Internet governance evolve, the appropriate balance of security and privacy, the implication of the dominant economical model that –mainly- Google has imposed based uniquely in advertisements and the terrible consequences in our privacy and comfort which are hardly evocated here, the difficulty of the requirements on multilingualism to get accepted in spite of a more accommodating discourse... When in last IGF meeting, in Baku, I felt the role of civil society was starting to blur and I got quite worried to see ICANN implementing a totally artificial (and super expensive) economical model for domain names and the appearing passivity of my civil society colleagues. Our proactivity and capacity to resist seemed to have decline so much. As a mental reaction, I develop a cartoon in my mind that I resisted to share at that time (in order to keep polite and avoid embarrassing my civil society colleagues) but I will now as a reaction against the attempt to definitively shut up provocation. I will, not only for this episode of apparent consensus against one of the more provocative civil society voice of this forum, but also because I have been so disappointed that the opportunity of the moment when the Balis's meeting was jeopardized was not used to ask the real questions for this group but instead to demonstrate the typical homeostasis syndrome of groups who must keep existing the same way just because they have existed so far). The cartoon is based on the Arab proverb that is quite famous: the dogs bark and the caravan passes (the trigger may habe been a wonderful restaurant in the old town named Caravanseray :-)). Imagine a long road heading to a big tower of dollars, not so far away in the perspective. Imagine a caravan named ICANN. Imagine a bunch of dogs marked IGF which are barking between them and around the caravan. Imagine the caravan does not care at all and keep passing towards the big money... We can also use the image with US government in the caravan and PRISM at the end of the road. Sorry if my words will disturb many of you but it feels so good to be provocative again. :-) -- 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 ggithaiga at hotmail.com Sat Aug 10 11:13:54 2013 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 15:13:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: <38A32B6D-C013-425A-955F-EB1F74529B6F@post.harvard.edu> References: ,<38A32B6D-C013-425A-955F-EB1F74529B6F@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Good people, are we not loosing focus now when we go into trying to define terms/meanings of terms that are not IG related? And has this debate now not gone on for too long? I am concerned that there will be more mail coming to my inbox either with pluses for agreeing while others will be disagreeing? Is it possible that we go focus on the purpose of this list and pay attention to IG issues? RgdsGrace From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 10:24:51 -0400 Subject: Re: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" There is a saying from the Christian Bible, in its Old Testament: "Don't worry about the mote in my eye, until you have dealt with the timber in yours." [direction of the original reversed and then rendered in current argot, but with some King James version vocabulary ...] First of all: I too am aghast at the relative decline / demise, of the IGC list. What a waste, and a great shame. I lend my voice, most pointedly, to see a turnaround. But. To imagine that the problem is with one person (the mote), is to ignore massively the the timber also there. Oh my goodness. To be clear: Just what is 'ad hominem'? In my too-extended, if personal and individual, travels and travails with 'discussion spaces': Ad hominem is entirely straightforward, not requiring detailed enumeration. Ad hominem - the prohibition against it - can be put most simply: _Never_ discuss the persons discussing; never inject those persons into the argumentation. Always, and only, discuss ideas, their logic, and supporting or dissenting evidence. Ad hominem is the introduction of talk _about the people talking_. That is proscribed. Period. ... and your mileage may vary. (Yes, sometimes it is necessary to talk about bad behavior. Indeed, as we are doing here. That is a 'reserved case.' Then space is set aside specifically for the purpose. Ideas are not the subject, rather the behavior being questioned is the subject.) To imagine that the problem, of introducing discussion of those discussing, is the province of one person, of Parminder - to imagine that is utterly not supported by the record. Found hereon, in the archives. Massively, and most sadly. Quite regularly, there is innuendo and outright slander. Then. Some / a few / one, find it necessary to respond to very many of the list posts - seemingly to virtually all the threads. (Though probably that is an overstatement, borne of weariness, on seeing it ...) The brew, of personal nastiness together with overflowing intervention on the airwaves, creates - predictably - a toxic discussion space. Useful only to those spewing. And damning the IGC name. Not to mention the ability to get anything done. A 'new day' is required, to see any prospect or future. But '_all sides_' have to adopt that new day, with faithful adherence to the proscription against discussing the people discussing. That is the only prospect for a resurrection. To imagine that Parminder is somehow the root of this is risible. (And disrespectful of the rest of us, who have eyes and can see.) Only if all the folks responsible are noted and join a new day is there any prospect. Even then, it would take some time for a new culture to be trusted. To move from the proscribed, to the prescribed - to the positive, over the negative: So, what is the main thrust of a quality, productive discussion space? It is even-handedness, in a word. A certain 'neutrality' with respect to judgment. So that all sides, regardless of position, may be heard and taken account. What is the point, in my text here? Evenhandedness, in assessment of the facts, of the history. Only if there is honest and complete description of the problem - and those who have been part of it - is there even the beginning of prospect for a better day. David On Aug 9, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:Parminder, I have stopped posting on this list for a quite some time now for exactly the reasons that Avri has mentioned. And as one of the people who were at the origin of the creation of this very list and caucus to empower civil society, I am extremely saddened by the way it is currently evolving and indeed becoming irrelevant. I nonetheless feel compelled to react to the most recent exchange. You wrote: "Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist people's words in order to score political points"". I would like to differ. "You tend to twist people's words in order to score political points" is NOT an ad hominem attack (see Wikipedia) because it does not use your behavior to weaken a specific argument of yours. It is rather a judgement about your behavior, about whether you display (or not) the necessary fairness in representing somebody else's position. To illustrate the point: An ad hominem attack, would be for instance: "This person is usually lying, hence, when they (really) say A, this must not be true". However, if someone says A and another person says: "this person said B and therefore this person is wrong and should be condemned", this IS twisting people's words. In this case, you are basically saying: Anriette did not explicitly denounce something, therefore she supports it. This is putting words in somebody else's mouth. To be frank, I understand the tactic of discarding as an ad hominem attack a judgment about your behavior to avoid having to respond to it or ask yourself whether it is true. But it would be more credible if you did not yourself frequently attribute ulterior motives to other people's comments just because of their alleged political preferences, ties to certain types of actors (for instance business), geographical origin, lack of civil society purity, etc... This behavior is harming the civility of discourse on this list and actually weakening its influence in the global debate. I always respect your expressing positions, even when I disagree with them and engage in debates with you. But I resent your becoming one of the main sources of ad hominem attack on this list. There are moments when one must call a spade a spade. I wish the co-coordinators of this list had called your attitude to accountability earlier, for the sake of a sound debate. This is below you. You have more to contribute. Respectfully still. Bertrand On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:37 AM, parminder wrote: On Friday 02 August 2013 02:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: On 31 Jul 2013, at 09:33, parminder wrote: ad hominem comment (to misquote an old IETF adage - comments made wearing asbestos - i tried to ignore this the first time hoping it would just go away and we could all get back to rational calm conversations) an ad hominem attack would be an attack that: because someone is a bully, their views are illegitimate/irrelevant. It does not include the content of calling a bully a bully. I am not sure I have ever heard an ad hominem attack on this list. Then you are not quite right in your understanding of what is ad hominem. Literally, attack against man, it occurs when, in a discussion, someone attacks a person's character or personal traits, instead of, and with a view to undermine, her/ his argument. You are making a specious distinction above that does not hold. In middle of a discussion, personal attacks are almost always made - certainly in conditions like of this list, where people otherwise have little or no offline relationship and thus no particular reason for animosity - with a view to undermine that person's argument. On the other hand there is indeed some difference between just an allegation and an ad hominem attack. Saying something like , to stick to present case of Anriette's email to me, 'you are twisting my words' is an allegation. (Allegations themselves could become quite serious, like you are deceiving, lying, cheating etc, whereby they may be tending towards ad hominem.) , Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist people's words in order to score political points". That is attacking someone in terms of ones character and personal traits, and as in this case, obviously to distract from the argument made - which in this case what that Anriette seemed to see nothing wrong or new with the Indonesian document, which I said was problematic to me for a CS rep on the MAG to say, which is just my view. Nothing personal here. For example a comment one might hear: X is a terrible bully, but sometimes, if you can get past the bullying, X makes a lot of sense. Another comment one might hear: I think I agree with what X is saying, but X is such a bully I am afraid that if I put my agreement in the wrong way I will get beat up for it. One could also say, I agree with a lot of what CX says, but X is just so mean. (I have versions of all of these about certain unnamed IGC participants) Those you accuse of ad hominem attacks against you, are among the greatest defenders off-list of some of the positions you represent. Many of us disagree with you but would never dare say so on the list for fear of starting a flame war. Many of the rest of us just try to hunker down and wait for the storm to pass. BTW, it is ad hominen whether the attack on one's character is made directly or rather more subtly. Your above statements themselves tends towards such an ad hominem attack, and you have very often said such things about me. And I claim you say it to undermine my arguments rather than anything else. However, I would give you an opportunity to disprove my claim. And I hope you will take this challenge. Please point out the precise language in the current exchange over the last few days that you find problematic in my emails, that is something other than a critique of someone's views, that I have a right to make, and rather of the nature of a personal attack. Please just give even one example. You may even go back further to earlier emails, becuase from the above it appears you are a very good record keeping and retrieval methods. Ok, I promise, I will not argue with the example/ instance you provide, I wont even respond, I just want it to out for everyone to see, rather that your be subject to your insinuations. Someone/everyone, please stop the venom. It has rendered the IGC nearly irrelevant. I have a different theory of what has rendered IGC irrelevant, which I am ready to enter a discussion about. When the IGC is discussed, pretty much the main content is the outrageousness of a few individuals. Certainly, I do often express strong feelings on some views - not people, never - that I feel strongly about. (And the fact is that there enough degree of difference in views on this list that at times one side and at other times the other side will feel strongly about things.) But, never against any person as such, unlike what I am almost regularly subjected to. Again, I am open to be given an instance to prove my statement wrong. As for personal attacks on me, apart from Anriette's email, even your reference above of not responding to me with the fear of starting a flame war is such an attack, although a somewhat lighter one, given the normal standards. (Another thing - yes, I have a structural critique of the role and positions of a good part of civil society involved in IG space - often dominant in its expression - and its support for certain power structures, which I do often voice, which I understand may not go well with some people. But I always voice it in a collective structural manner and never directed at an individual, or even a set f them. This is the view I have - and I consider it very important in the current global circumstances - and I cannot desist from offering when the occasion so demands.) The words of a few serving to delegitimize the efforts of many. Well, that, who are 'few' and who 'many' itself needs to examined.... That is always the million dollar democratic question! parminder please stop Note to coordinators. I would never quit IGC, but sometimes I beleive being kicked of the list would bring great relief. I have heard others say similar things. And now back to hunkering down hoping the storm will pass. 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 -- ____________________ Bertrand de La ChapelleInternet & 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") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Sat Aug 10 11:15:22 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 16:15:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: <38A32B6D-C013-425A-955F-EB1F74529B6F@post.harvard.edu> References: <38A32B6D-C013-425A-955F-EB1F74529B6F@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Thank you David for this great inputs. Bless you. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Aug 10, 2013 3:26 PM, "David Allen" wrote: > There is a saying from the Christian Bible, in its Old Testament: > > "Don't worry about the mote in my eye, until you have dealt with the > timber in yours." > > [direction of the original reversed and then rendered in current argot, > but with some King James version vocabulary ...] > > > First of all: I too am aghast at the relative decline / demise, of the > IGC list. What a waste, and a great shame. > > I lend my voice, most pointedly, to see a turnaround. > > > But. > > To imagine that the problem is with one person (the mote), is to ignore > massively the the timber also there. > > Oh my goodness. > > To be clear: Just what is 'ad hominem'? In my too-extended, if personal > and individual, travels and travails with 'discussion spaces': Ad hominem > is entirely straightforward, not requiring detailed enumeration. > > Ad hominem - the prohibition against it - can be put most simply: _Never_ > discuss the persons discussing; never inject those persons into the > argumentation. Always, and only, discuss ideas, their logic, and > supporting or dissenting evidence. > > Ad hominem is the introduction of talk _about the people talking_. That > is proscribed. Period. ... and your mileage may vary. > > (Yes, sometimes it is necessary to talk about bad behavior. Indeed, as we > are doing here. That is a 'reserved case.' Then space is set aside > specifically for the purpose. Ideas are not the subject, rather the > behavior being questioned is the subject.) > > To imagine that the problem, of introducing discussion of those > discussing, is the province of one person, of Parminder - to imagine that > is utterly not supported by the record. Found hereon, in the archives. > Massively, and most sadly. > > Quite regularly, there is innuendo and outright slander. Then. Some / a > few / one, find it necessary to respond to very many of the list posts - > seemingly to virtually all the threads. (Though probably that is an > overstatement, borne of weariness, on seeing it ...) The brew, of personal > nastiness together with overflowing intervention on the airwaves, creates - > predictably - a toxic discussion space. Useful only to those spewing. And > damning the IGC name. Not to mention the ability to get anything done. > > > A 'new day' is required, to see any prospect or future. But '_all sides_' > have to adopt that new day, with faithful adherence to the proscription > against discussing the people discussing. That is the only prospect for a > resurrection. > > To imagine that Parminder is somehow the root of this is risible. (And > disrespectful of the rest of us, who have eyes and can see.) > > Only if all the folks responsible are noted and join a new day is there > any prospect. Even then, it would take some time for a new culture to be > trusted. > > > To move from the proscribed, to the prescribed - to the positive, over the > negative: So, what is the main thrust of a quality, productive discussion > space? It is even-handedness, in a word. A certain 'neutrality' with > respect to judgment. So that all sides, regardless of position, may be > heard and taken account. > > What is the point, in my text here? Evenhandedness, in assessment of the > facts, of the history. > > Only if there is honest and complete description of the problem - and > those who have been part of it - is there even the beginning of prospect > for a better day. > > > David > > > On Aug 9, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > Parminder, > > I have stopped posting on this list for a quite some time now for exactly > the reasons that Avri has mentioned. And as one of the people who were at > the origin of the creation of this very list and caucus to empower civil > society, I am extremely saddened by the way it is currently evolving and > indeed becoming irrelevant. > > I nonetheless feel compelled to react to the most recent exchange. You > wrote: "*Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist > people's words in order to score political points*"". > > I would like to differ. "*You tend to twist people's words in order to > score political points*" is NOT an ad hominem attack (see Wikipedia) > because it does not use your behavior to weaken a specific argument of > yours. It is rather a judgement about your behavior, about whether you > display (or not) the necessary fairness in representing somebody else's > position. > > To illustrate the point: An ad hominem attack, would be for instance: > "This person is usually lying, hence, when they (really) say A, this must > not be true". However, if someone says A and another person says: "this > person said B and therefore this person is wrong and should be condemned", > this IS twisting people's words. In this case, you are basically saying: > Anriette did not explicitly denounce something, therefore she supports it. > This is putting words in somebody else's mouth. > > To be frank, I understand the tactic of discarding as an ad hominem attack > a judgment about your behavior to avoid having to respond to it or ask > yourself whether it is true. But it would be more credible if you did not > yourself frequently attribute ulterior motives to other people's comments > just because of their alleged political preferences, ties to certain types > of actors (for instance business), geographical origin, lack of civil > society purity, etc... > > This behavior is harming the civility of discourse on this list and > actually weakening its influence in the global debate. > > I always respect your expressing positions, even when I disagree with them > and engage in debates with you. But I resent your becoming one of the > main sources of ad hominem attack on this list. There are moments when > one must call a spade a spade. I wish the co-coordinators of this list had > called your attitude to accountability earlier, for the sake of a sound > debate. > > This is below you. You have more to contribute. > > Respectfully still. > > Bertrand > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:37 AM, parminder wrote: > >> >> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> On 31 Jul 2013, at 09:33, parminder wrote: >>> >>> ad hominem comment >>>> >>> (to misquote an old IETF adage - comments made wearing asbestos - >>> i tried to ignore this the first time hoping it would just go away and >>> we could all get back to rational calm conversations) >>> >>> an ad hominem attack would be an attack that: because someone is a >>> bully, their views are illegitimate/irrelevant. >>> It does not include the content of calling a bully a bully. >>> >>> I am not sure I have ever heard an ad hominem attack on this list. >>> >> >> Then you are not quite right in your understanding of what is ad hominem. >> Literally, attack against man, it occurs when, in a discussion, someone >> attacks a person's character or personal traits, instead of, and with a >> view to undermine, her/ his argument. You are making a specious >> distinction above that does not hold. In middle of a discussion, personal >> attacks are almost always made - certainly in conditions like of this list, >> where people otherwise have little or no offline relationship and thus no >> particular reason for animosity - with a view to undermine that person's >> argument. >> >> On the other hand there is indeed some difference between just an >> allegation and an ad hominem attack. >> >> Saying something like , to stick to present case of Anriette's email to >> me, 'you are twisting my words' is an allegation. (Allegations themselves >> could become quite serious, like you are deceiving, lying, cheating etc, >> whereby they may be tending towards ad hominem.) >> >> , Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist people's >> words in order to score political points". That is attacking someone in >> terms of ones character and personal traits, and as in this case, obviously >> to distract from the argument made - which in this case what that Anriette >> seemed to see nothing wrong or new with the Indonesian document, which I >> said was problematic to me for a CS rep on the MAG to say, which is just my >> view. Nothing personal here. >> >> >> For example a comment one might hear: X is a terrible bully, but >>> sometimes, if you can get past the bullying, X makes a lot of sense. >>> Another comment one might hear: I think I agree with what X is saying, >>> but X is such a bully I am afraid that if I put my agreement in the wrong >>> way I will get beat up for it. >>> >>> One could also say, I agree with a lot of what CX says, but X is just so >>> mean. >>> >>> (I have versions of all of these about certain unnamed IGC participants) >>> >>> Those you accuse of ad hominem attacks against you, are among the >>> greatest defenders off-list of some of the positions you represent. >>> Many of us disagree with you but would never dare say so on the list for >>> fear of starting a flame war. >>> Many of the rest of us just try to hunker down and wait for the storm to >>> pass. >>> >> >> BTW, it is ad hominen whether the attack on one's character is made >> directly or rather more subtly. Your above statements themselves tends >> towards such an ad hominem attack, and you have very often said such things >> about me. And I claim you say it to undermine my arguments rather than >> anything else. However, I would give you an opportunity to disprove my >> claim. And I hope you will take this challenge. Please point out the >> precise language in the current exchange over the last few days that you >> find problematic in my emails, that is something other than a critique of >> someone's views, that I have a right to make, and rather of the nature of a >> personal attack. Please just give even one example. You may even go back >> further to earlier emails, becuase from the above it appears you are a very >> good record keeping and retrieval methods. Ok, I promise, I will not argue >> with the example/ instance you provide, I wont even respond, I just want >> it to out for everyone to see, rather that your be subject to your >> insinuations. >> >> >> Someone/everyone, please stop the venom. >>> It has rendered the IGC nearly irrelevant. >>> >> >> I have a different theory of what has rendered IGC irrelevant, which I am >> ready to enter a discussion about. >> >> When the IGC is discussed, pretty much the main content is the >>> outrageousness of a few individuals. >>> >> >> Certainly, I do often express strong feelings on some views - not people, >> never - that I feel strongly about. (And the fact is that there enough >> degree of difference in views on this list that at times one side and at >> other times the other side will feel strongly about things.) But, never >> against any person as such, unlike what I am almost regularly subjected to. >> Again, I am open to be given an instance to prove my statement wrong. As >> for personal attacks on me, apart from Anriette's email, even your >> reference above of not responding to me with the fear of starting a flame >> war is such an attack, although a somewhat lighter one, given the normal >> standards. >> >> (Another thing - yes, I have a structural critique of the role and >> positions of a good part of civil society involved in IG space - often >> dominant in its expression - and its support for certain power structures, >> which I do often voice, which I understand may not go well with some >> people. But I always voice it in a collective structural manner and never >> directed at an individual, or even a set f them. This is the view I have - >> and I consider it very important in the current global circumstances - and >> I cannot desist from offering when the occasion so demands.) >> >> >> The words of a few serving to delegitimize the efforts of many. >>> >> >> Well, that, who are 'few' and who 'many' itself needs to examined.... >> That is always the million dollar democratic question! >> >> parminder >> >> >> please stop >>> >>> Note to coordinators. I would never quit IGC, but sometimes I beleive >>> being kicked of the list would bring great relief. >>> I have heard others say similar things. >>> >>> And now back to hunkering down hoping the storm will pass. >>> >>> 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 >> >> > > > -- > ____________________ > 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") > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Aug 10 12:35:33 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 18:35:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: <38A32B6D-C013-425A-955F-EB1F74529B6F@post.harvard.edu> References: <38A32B6D-C013-425A-955F-EB1F74529B6F@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Sat Aug 10 13:18:31 2013 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 13:18:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Let's focus on the task at hand - we have an IGF in 2 months... Message-ID: Colleagues, Let's not lose track of a key task at hand - preparing for the 2013 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that will be taking place in ... about 2 months time in Bali, Indonesia. There's a lot of co-ordination and collaboration that is needed for the meeting to be a success. Either try to work together in a collaborative and strategic fashion or realize that this list's purpose has come to an end and realize that. regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Aug 10 14:47:05 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 20:47:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Let's focus on the task at hand - we have an IGF in 2 months... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 19:18 10/08/2013, Robert Guerra wrote: >Let's not lose track of a key task at hand - preparing for the 2013 >Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that will be taking place in ... >about 2 months time in Bali, Indonesia. There's a lot of >co-ordination and collaboration that is needed for the meeting to be >a success. > >Either try to work together in a collaborative and strategic fashion >or realize that this list's purpose has come to an end and realize that. IMHO the list's purpose has NOT come to an end, but to a flexion. This purpose translates in a doctrine. Without a doctrine one cannot build a strategy. The point is that we are not the masters of that flexion which is mainly led by the private sector reassessing their relation with the sovereign domain. The international organizations are also triggered by the sovereign domain as Norbert documented it, on a matter (the cloud) coliding with the US private sector strategy due to the Snowden's wistle. In that situation we have obtained/are opposed the HLLM. Probably in order to consider how to oppose our concerns and the concerns of the non-US industries/interests (it will probably be continuation of the Global Telecom Treaty meeting last winter). Up to us now to consider how we want to handle this, if it is an opportunity toward our architectonic requirements (we can phrase quickly for the time being as network neutrality to nations, traffic, services and technologies) or not. My 2 cents. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Sat Aug 10 15:04:28 2013 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 15:04:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] Let's focus on the task at hand - we have an IGF in 2 months... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <98390C21-22D1-4BB3-AE6F-87EEF4FFAA77@privaterra.org> Thanks for your reply. I beg to differ.. To be honest, I want to engage on specific coordination issues related to the IGF meeting in 2 months time. That and focused information sharing is what I have time for. it's what the list excelled at when it was first created during the WSIS process. Now it's signal to noise ratio is well, not optimal. To be honest, if the list can't do that - then others, including myself will take our discussions elsewhere. regards Robert On 2013-08-10, at 2:47 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: > At 19:18 10/08/2013, Robert Guerra wrote: >> Let's not lose track of a key task at hand - preparing for the 2013 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that will be taking place in ... about 2 months time in Bali, Indonesia. There's a lot of co-ordination and collaboration that is needed for the meeting to be a success. >> >> Either try to work together in a collaborative and strategic fashion or realize that this list's purpose has come to an end and realize that. > > IMHO the list's purpose has NOT come to an end, but to a flexion. This purpose translates in a doctrine. Without a doctrine one cannot build a strategy. The point is that we are not the masters of that flexion which is mainly led by the private sector reassessing their relation with the sovereign domain. The international organizations are also triggered by the sovereign domain as Norbert documented it, on a matter (the cloud) coliding with the US private sector strategy due to the Snowden's wistle. > > In that situation we have obtained/are opposed the HLLM. Probably in order to consider how to oppose our concerns and the concerns of the non-US industries/interests (it will probably be continuation of the Global Telecom Treaty meeting last winter). Up to us now to consider how we want to handle this, if it is an opportunity toward our architectonic requirements (we can phrase quickly for the time being as network neutrality to nations, traffic, services and technologies) or not. > > My 2 cents. > jfc > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 pimienta at funredes.org Sat Aug 10 16:35:15 2013 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 16:35:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] Let's focus on the task at hand - we have an IGF in 2 months... In-Reply-To: <98390C21-22D1-4BB3-AE6F-87EEF4FFAA77@privaterra.org> References: <98390C21-22D1-4BB3-AE6F-87EEF4FFAA77@privaterra.org> Message-ID: >To be honest, I want to engage on specific coordination issues >related to the IGF meeting in 2 months time. That and focused >information sharing is what I have time for. it's what the list >excelled at when it was first created during the WSIS process. Now >it's signal to noise ratio is well, not optimal. > >To be honest, if the list can't do that - then others, including >myself will take our discussions elsewhere. To be honest, this is the typical mail which triggers very strong pulsions to react ad-hominem. To be honest, I will resist the pulsions. But I do wonder if it is not ostrich policy (or homeostasy) to ask so abruptly to focus back on IGF meeting when some debates about the big picture are opened as a consequence of "ad-hominem" matters being thrown into the list. -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Sat Aug 10 19:07:57 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 04:37:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Let's focus on the task at hand - we have an IGF in 2 months... Message-ID: George has a point though, that we are losing sight of an important goal with a fast approaching and non negotiable timeline. And the discussion and civil society coordination around the Bali agenda and events has to happen somewhere. However it is doubtful whether a community riven by ideological differences that periodically escalate into personality focused arguments will be able to achieve the degree of trust and coordination required. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Daniel Pimienta" To: Subject: [governance] Let's focus on the task at hand - we have an IGF in 2 months... Date: Sun, Aug 11, 2013 2:05 AM >To be honest, I want to engage on specific coordination issues >related to the IGF meeting in 2 months time. That and focused >information sharing is what I have time for. it's what the list >excelled at when it was first created during the WSIS process. Now >it's signal to noise ratio is well, not optimal. > >To be honest, if the list can't do that - then others, including >myself will take our discussions elsewhere. To be honest, this is the typical mail which triggers very strong pulsions to react ad-hominem. To be honest, I will resist the pulsions. But I do wonder if it is not ostrich policy (or homeostasy) to ask so abruptly to focus back on IGF meeting when some debates about the big picture are opened as a consequence of "ad-hominem" matters being thrown into the list. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Aug 10 19:11:55 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 04:41:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Let's focus on the task at hand - we have an IGF in 2 months... Message-ID: Apologies. Robert Guerra, not 'George' --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" To: "Daniel Pimienta" , "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Subject: [governance] Let's focus on the task at hand - we have an IGF in 2 months... Date: Sun, Aug 11, 2013 4:37 AM George has a point though, that we are losing sight of an important goal with a fast approaching and non negotiable timeline. And the discussion and civil society coordination around the Bali agenda and events has to happen somewhere. However it is doubtful whether a community riven by ideological differences that periodically escalate into personality focused arguments will be able to achieve the degree of trust and coordination required. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Daniel Pimienta" To: Subject: [governance] Let's focus on the task at hand - we have an IGF in 2 months... Date: Sun, Aug 11, 2013 2:05 AM >To be honest, I want to engage on specific coordination issues >related to the IGF meeting in 2 months time. That and focused >information sharing is what I have time for. it's what the list >excelled at when it was first created during the WSIS process. Now >it's signal to noise ratio is well, not optimal. > >To be honest, if the list can't do that - then others, including >myself will take our discussions elsewhere. To be honest, this is the typical mail which triggers very strong pulsions to react ad-hominem. To be honest, I will resist the pulsions. But I do wonder if it is not ostrich policy (or homeostasy) to ask so abruptly to focus back on IGF meeting when some debates about the big picture are opened as a consequence of "ad-hominem" matters being thrown into the list. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 10 20:50:18 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 02:50:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: References: <91EDBFFE-1228-4ECA-AAFC-C448E873D8CF@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130811025018.017d19ff@quill> +1 to Daniel Pimienta's points. Greetings, Norbert Am Sat, 10 Aug 2013 11:10:31 -0400 schrieb Daniel Pimienta : > For the sake of balancing the growing counter of > +1 on Bertand's mail and preventing a group to > find unanimously the perfect guilty for the > turmoil on the communication flow during the last > months in this forum, I would like to express a -1 on Bertand's mail. > > First of all, the process of slow deterioration > of the good spirit is NOT the product of one > person expression but the result of an > interaction with other person’s expression and I > do not think I have to offer names, if your > memory of the co-co's actions is neat. > > Second, and much more important, what is at stake > behind this situation is NOT a mere question of > people style; in the background, there is a > profound issue of the role of civil society in Internet Governance. > > I consider myself that a good provision of > "constructive provocation" is an intrinsic part > of my civil society role and I have been worried > for years in this forum to perceive a clear trend > of anesthesia of the discourse of civil society, > for the sake of allowing multistakeholderism to > perform smoothly. I have been (and I am still) > quite worried that this trend will not transform > us (organized civil society) in the unwilling > accomplices of many bad actions performed in our field. > > It is enough to see the sweetness of the IGF > statements in situation like PRISM, compared to > other groups, to assess this point. > > The main reason I am more a lurker than a > contributor in this forum is to be found there > (and not in the fact that some discussion get > heated). The main reason why Funredes has > resigned recently from APC membership (without > loosing respect and good relationships) is also > to be found here (my analysis is that the price > to pay in silencing and smoothing our critics has gotten too high). > > Is it not a risky game to accept to be so polite > that we loose our soul; shall we resist to such > level of politeness? I tend to answer yes at the > light of the evolution of the Internet. > > What is at stake here and the fractures which are > underlying are not details of Internet history > and too much naivety may turned to become a crime > against virtual humanity; the role of ICANN, the > need to see the historical grab of US in Internet > governance evolve, the appropriate balance of > security and privacy, the implication of the > dominant economical model that –mainly- Google > has imposed based uniquely in advertisements and > the terrible consequences in our privacy and > comfort which are hardly evocated here, the > difficulty of the requirements on multilingualism > to get accepted in spite of a more accommodating discourse... > > When in last IGF meeting, in Baku, I felt the > role of civil society was starting to blur and I > got quite worried to see ICANN implementing a > totally artificial (and super expensive) > economical model for domain names and the > appearing passivity of my civil society > colleagues. Our proactivity and capacity to > resist seemed to have decline so much. > > As a mental reaction, I develop a cartoon in my > mind that I resisted to share at that time (in > order to keep polite and avoid embarrassing my > civil society colleagues) but I will now as a > reaction against the attempt to definitively shut up provocation. > > I will, not only for this episode of apparent > consensus against one of the more provocative > civil society voice of this forum, but also > because I have been so disappointed that the > opportunity of the moment when the Balis's > meeting was jeopardized was not used to ask the > real questions for this group but instead to > demonstrate the typical homeostasis syndrome of > groups who must keep existing the same way just > because they have existed so far). > > The cartoon is based on the Arab proverb that is > quite famous: the dogs bark and the caravan > passes (the trigger may habe been a wonderful > restaurant in the old town named Caravanseray :-)). > > Imagine a long road heading to a big tower of > dollars, not so far away in the perspective. > Imagine a caravan named ICANN. Imagine a bunch of > dogs marked IGF which are barking between them > and around the caravan. Imagine the caravan does > not care at all and keep passing towards the big money... > We can also use the image with US government in > the caravan and PRISM at the end of the road. > > Sorry if my words will disturb many of you but it > feels so good to be provocative again. :-) > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 10 21:00:11 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 03:00:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] Aug 15 deadline to check IGF schedule Message-ID: <20130811030011.07ce1803@quill> Everyone who has a formal role (panelist, moderator, etc.) in more than one workshop should probably check the preliminary schedule on the IGF website to make sure you're not expected to be in two different places at the same time. A deadline of Aug 15 has been posted on the IGF website for comments about such scheduling conflicts. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Aug 10 22:28:34 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 10:28:34 +0800 Subject: [governance] Save the dates - Best Bits 2013 on 19-20 October 2013 in Bali Message-ID: <4CEA8132-92C5-4B4A-A5D1-DF17DD688BFC@ciroap.org> This is just a save-the-date notice for the second annual Best Bits convening on 19-20 October 2013 in Bali. Best Bits is a civil society network on Internet governance and Internet rights that brings together a diverse group of activists and experts from global North and South who are working on Internet policy advocacy from different perspectives. Our annual meeting focuses on current pressing issues at the institutional level as well as specific time-critical interventions. It is used to coordinate our strategy on these issues and interventions, to share perspectives and approaches, and to collaborate on shared outputs to be used in advocacy. Although the agenda is still being discussed, you can expect it to include Enhanced Cooperation, NSA+ surveillance, the ITU and Best Bits itself. The programme and website are being finalised now and the registration form will open soon, but meanwhile if you are booking travel to Bali and are interested in attending, please make sure to arrive by 19 October. More news soon! -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Aug 11 13:52:17 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 19:52:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] Let's focus on the task at hand - we have an IGF in 2 months... In-Reply-To: <98390C21-22D1-4BB3-AE6F-87EEF4FFAA77@privaterra.org> References: <98390C21-22D1-4BB3-AE6F-87EEF4FFAA77@privaterra.org> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joy at apc.org Mon Aug 12 00:11:08 2013 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:11:08 +1200 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance Message-ID: <5208605C.8080101@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all - as noted last week, the deadline for submission of responses to the WGEC questionnaire is 31 August. The questionnaire itself can be found here: http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx I may have missed the discussion, but wondering: is the caucus considering posting a response? Kind regards Joy Liddicoat www.apc.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSCGBcAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq4RsH/i6dlrQhamy98QXY0nXTrtva 5A/y5Yicd5ZGGQUxrH6pI2hHx61Kt9sdfaiWrhMNrQqVYLEZEkH+/jBnH2ZSb9Sb UdrUHgiVm2uGKAbtX7NeqYUDdzNoCPA2HK85vuIEqbjF9iIGlWZAilmKxu8SVAzM TVtSD27QCYoxuHBYUy6JHGTtLX0WwTiEAlMznINEzguDPvon3eoc6P8ucNN4HV9q uASjpJCKwWvuvewa0AtWQN9yUsHvzUoYSQBZmjnvSJlS3AylkM3u9EVQS+CPSKw+ N5lXRpaitjzNTbnDtgB9GHYAq/5OODbxXfi982YvGclo9YEBcCvDvDdqWg71DIw= =Kdoh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Aug 12 02:49:29 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 12:19:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52088579.8020605@itforchange.net> Bertrand, Pl see inline. On Friday 09 August 2013 06:46 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Parminder, > > I have stopped posting on this list for a quite some time now for > exactly the reasons that Avri has mentioned. And as one of the people > who were at the origin of the creation of this very list and caucus to > empower civil society, I am extremely saddened by the way it is > currently evolving and indeed becoming irrelevant. > > I nonetheless feel compelled to react to the most recent exchange. You > wrote: "/Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist > people's words in order to score political points/"". > > I would like to differ. "/You tend to twist people's words in order to > score political points/" is NOT an ad hominem attack (see Wikipedia) > because it does not use your behavior to weaken a specific argument of > yours. It is rather a judgement about your behavior, about whether you > display (or not) the necessary fairness in representing somebody > else's position. > > To illustrate the point: An ad hominem attack, would be for instance: > "This person is usually lying, hence, when they (really) say A, this > must not be true". However, if someone says A and another person says: > "this person said B and therefore this person is wrong and should be > condemned", this IS twisting people's words. In this case, you are > basically saying: Anriette did not explicitly denounce something, > therefore she supports it. This is putting words in somebody else's > mouth. > > To be frank, I understand the tactic of discarding as an ad hominem > attack a judgment about your behavior to avoid having to respond to it > or ask yourself whether it is true. But it would be more credible if > you did not yourself frequently attribute ulterior motives to other > people's comments just because of their alleged political preferences, > ties to certain types of actors (for instance business), geographical > origin, lack of civil society purity, etc... > > This behavior is harming the civility of discourse on this list and > actually weakening its influence in the global debate. > > I always respect your expressing positions, even when I disagree with > them and engage in debates with you. But I resent your becoming one of > the main sources of ad hominem attack on this list. I have many things to say about your email, but for the present, would you be so good as to provide instances to substantiate your above sweeping statement(s). You have made some serious allegations against a civil society colleague with whom you have worked for around 8 years now. I sincerely hope you would not shrink from standing your ground on this, and not slip away. > There are moments when one must call a spade a spade. Quite true. In fact I am considering availing some such moments presently. Although this current 'controversy' really arose from an incident of calling a spade a spade, however mildly - a spade that laid in full view of the list members, in the text of emails exchanged on the list. regards parminder > I wish the co-coordinators of this list had called your attitude to > accountability earlier, for the sake of a sound debate. > > This is below you. You have more to contribute. > > Respectfully still.Bertrand > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:37 AM, parminder > wrote: > > > On Friday 02 August 2013 02:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 31 Jul 2013, at 09:33, parminder wrote: > > ad hominem comment > > (to misquote an old IETF adage - comments made wearing asbestos - > i tried to ignore this the first time hoping it would just go > away and we could all get back to rational calm conversations) > > an ad hominem attack would be an attack that: because someone > is a bully, their views are illegitimate/irrelevant. > It does not include the content of calling a bully a bully. > > I am not sure I have ever heard an ad hominem attack on this list. > > > Then you are not quite right in your understanding of what is ad > hominem. Literally, attack against man, it occurs when, in a > discussion, someone attacks a person's character or personal > traits, instead of, and with a view to undermine, her/ his > argument. You are making a specious distinction above that does > not hold. In middle of a discussion, personal attacks are almost > always made - certainly in conditions like of this list, where > people otherwise have little or no offline relationship and thus > no particular reason for animosity - with a view to undermine that > person's argument. > > On the other hand there is indeed some difference between just an > allegation and an ad hominem attack. > > Saying something like , to stick to present case of Anriette's > email to me, 'you are twisting my words' is an allegation. > (Allegations themselves could become quite serious, like you are > deceiving, lying, cheating etc, whereby they may be tending > towards ad hominem.) > > , Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist > people's words in order to score political points". That is > attacking someone in terms of ones character and personal traits, > and as in this case, obviously to distract from the argument made > - which in this case what that Anriette seemed to see nothing > wrong or new with the Indonesian document, which I said was > problematic to me for a CS rep on the MAG to say, which is just my > view. Nothing personal here. > > > For example a comment one might hear: X is a terrible bully, > but sometimes, if you can get past the bullying, X makes a lot > of sense. > Another comment one might hear: I think I agree with what X is > saying, but X is such a bully I am afraid that if I put my > agreement in the wrong way I will get beat up for it. > > One could also say, I agree with a lot of what CX says, but X > is just so mean. > > (I have versions of all of these about certain unnamed IGC > participants) > > Those you accuse of ad hominem attacks against you, are among > the greatest defenders off-list of some of the positions you > represent. > Many of us disagree with you but would never dare say so on > the list for fear of starting a flame war. > Many of the rest of us just try to hunker down and wait for > the storm to pass. > > > BTW, it is ad hominen whether the attack on one's character is > made directly or rather more subtly. Your above statements > themselves tends towards such an ad hominem attack, and you have > very often said such things about me. And I claim you say it to > undermine my arguments rather than anything else. However, I would > give you an opportunity to disprove my claim. And I hope you will > take this challenge. Please point out the precise language in the > current exchange over the last few days that you find problematic > in my emails, that is something other than a critique of someone's > views, that I have a right to make, and rather of the nature of a > personal attack. Please just give even one example. You may even > go back further to earlier emails, becuase from the above it > appears you are a very good record keeping and retrieval methods. > Ok, I promise, I will not argue with the example/ instance you > provide, I wont even respond, I just want it to out for everyone > to see, rather that your be subject to your insinuations. > > > Someone/everyone, please stop the venom. > It has rendered the IGC nearly irrelevant. > > > I have a different theory of what has rendered IGC irrelevant, > which I am ready to enter a discussion about. > > When the IGC is discussed, pretty much the main content is the > outrageousness of a few individuals. > > > Certainly, I do often express strong feelings on some views - not > people, never - that I feel strongly about. (And the fact is that > there enough degree of difference in views on this list that at > times one side and at other times the other side will feel > strongly about things.) But, never against any person as such, > unlike what I am almost regularly subjected to. Again, I am open > to be given an instance to prove my statement wrong. As for > personal attacks on me, apart from Anriette's email, even your > reference above of not responding to me with the fear of starting > a flame war is such an attack, although a somewhat lighter one, > given the normal standards. > > (Another thing - yes, I have a structural critique of the role and > positions of a good part of civil society involved in IG space - > often dominant in its expression - and its support for certain > power structures, which I do often voice, which I understand may > not go well with some people. But I always voice it in a > collective structural manner and never directed at an individual, > or even a set f them. This is the view I have - and I consider it > very important in the current global circumstances - and I cannot > desist from offering when the occasion so demands.) > > > The words of a few serving to delegitimize the efforts of many. > > > Well, that, who are 'few' and who 'many' itself needs to > examined.... That is always the million dollar democratic question! > > parminder > > > please stop > > Note to coordinators. I would never quit IGC, but sometimes I > beleive being kicked of the list would bring great relief. > I have heard others say similar things. > > And now back to hunkering down hoping the storm will pass. > > 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 > > > > > -- > ____________________ > 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 nb at bollow.ch Mon Aug 12 03:20:07 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 09:20:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: <5208605C.8080101@apc.org> References: <5208605C.8080101@apc.org> Message-ID: <20130812092007.56f2ed2c@quill> Joy wrote: > Hi all - as noted last week, the deadline for submission of responses > to the WGEC questionnaire is 31 August. The questionnaire itself can > be found here: http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx > I may have missed the discussion, but wondering: is the caucus > considering posting a response? While I'm sure that many members of the caucus are planning to submit a response, either in their personal capacity or to express the perspective of some advocacy organization they engage in, I don't think that it would make sense to spend a lot of time on wordsmithing the relative generalities that civil society as a whole will be in agreement on. I think that it is the variety of responses that is going to make this questionnaire exercise valuable; what would be the benefit of civil society trying to agree on a single set of answers? Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Aug 12 03:27:47 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 19:27:47 +1200 Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC Message-ID: Dear All, Firstly warm greetings from a wintry Auckland! I trust that you are all well and in excellent health. This is just a brief message to the IGC on some housekeeping matters. *1) Welcome to all the new subscribers on the list.* We are excited that you are joining us because you will bring your rich and diverse experiences, view points and perspective to the world of Internet Governance. Please feel free to initiate discussions and post threads to stimulate dialogue and discussion. * * *2) Brief Message * This brief note is in response to some of tone that the discussions have been taking lately. It is a polite reminder and call to be aware of our environment. The internet as we know is a multifaceted combination of networks and includes all kinds of people to make it what it is today, whether they are internet service providers, network operators, Number Registries, Domain name Registries and Registrars, standards bodies, internet users (companies, communities, organisations, individuals). It is quite difficult to fit people or organisations into boxes such as civil society, public sector and private sector in the world as we live in a world far more fluid than boxes can ever attempt to hold us. Attempts to categorise people and communities can be self defeating when discussing critical internet governance issues. For instance, there are key telecommunications and ICT infrastructure that are facilitated by the private sector in some jurisdictions, by governments in other jurisdictions and civil society in other jurisdictions. To this end, each context is different and as much as possible it is good to keep an open mind when communicating with other stakeholders. Each context differs (for countries. regions etc) and as we gather globally, there must be some level of appreciation for the global diversity. There have been certain threads and discussions where it has become apparent that we could perhaps improve in how we view each other and diverse stakeholders on the internet for the purposes of discussing issues amicably. Advocacy as we know transcends lists and forums such as the IGC. There are many on this list who whilst being part of civil society are also heavily engaged in policy debates and discussions within organisations such as ICANN, IETF, ISOC and others in organisations such as the ICC-Basis or National Chambers of Commerce. There are others in civil society who also have the "ear" of their governments and regional government organisations that provide expertise on ICT issues and matters of Internet Governance. As such diplomacy is needed to engage in discussing issues affecting us all. Diplomacy does not necessarily mean the absence of forthright discussions - it just means being aware of the environment and knowing how to navigate. The spirit and culture of the IGC is a cumulative and consolidated reflection of how we engage with each other as we dialogue and interact. I would ask that as we continue our dialogue and engagement that we do so with the understanding that there will be people who hold views contrary to our own but that we can discuss, seek out their points of view and that whilst we can agree on some things, we can also disagree on other things. When disagreeing, please do so in a manner that encourages dialogue and that does not threaten people or discourage others from posting for fear of being subjected to bullying. Bullying, goading will not be tolerated on this list. Unwarranted and unnecessary attacks on persons are also discouraged and polite offlist warnings will be sent to parties. * * *3) Questionnaire of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation* The IGC will be filling in a response and we will be setting up a collaborative response and we will be inviting you to help us put together our response before we submit the same as an IGC response. We can open this for comment and consolidate feedback. We will be doing this in a separate thread. We will be weaving your comments and feedback together to put forward our collective response. Thank you Joy for alerting the list. *4) Development of Key Initiatives or Tangible Outcomes for the 2013 IGF* We would like to invite you to give your feedback on what you think the IGC should be pushing or advocating at the IGC 2013. Feel free to send in your thoughts, suggestions and ideas. *5) Profiling Civil Society work in different countries* It will be interesting to discover and find out what the different civil society representatives have been engaged in, in terms of advocacy in their respective countries, including those in regional and global forums and organisations. This might assist in informing us of the level of activities that are being undertaken. We would also like to know what the key issues concerning Internet Governance have been in your countries. This is still at seed stage (thought - only). We are considering a survey to gather this information. * * *6)NomCom* The NomCom is still deliberating and will provide an update as they progress. If there are any other issues, that you feel that the coordinators need to consider, please feel free to send us an email on . Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala (co-coordinator) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 12 03:44:22 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 19:44:22 +1200 Subject: [governance] WGEC - Questionnaire Message-ID: Dear All, The Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation in its recent questionnaire has invited public input. Individuals are free to provide your input directly on the link that Joy kindly provided, see: http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx There is something to be gained in filling it corporately as an IGC as it will enable us to see how others view and appreciate diverse perspectives although this has been subjected to rigorous debate in the past. I believe though that we can collaborate and coordinate a response as an IGC. To this end here are some extracts of the questions, and we invite your response. In submitting your response, please do so by putting your name eg. Q. What is the tallest building? [Sala T] The tallest building is....... (This will help us consolidate the feedback. We can leave this open for 7 days to allow us to develop a draft response which will be put to the list for further comment.) 2. What do you think is the significance, purpose and scope of enhanced cooperation as per the Tunis Agenda? a) Significance b) Purpose c) Scope * * * * * * * 3. To what extent has or has not enhanced cooperation been implemented? Please use the space below to explain and to provide examples to support your answer. * * * 4. What are the relevant international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet? * * * * * 5. What are the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders, including governments, in implementation of the various aspects of enhanced cooperation? * * * * * 7. How can enhanced cooperation enable other stakeholders to carry out their roles and responsibilities? * 8. What are the most appropriate mechanisms to fully implement enhanced cooperation as recognized in the Tunis Agenda, including on international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and public policy issues associated with coordination and management of critical Internet resources? * 9. What is the possible relationship between enhanced cooperation and the IGF? * 10. How can the role of developing countries be made more effective in global Internet governance? * 11. What barriers remain for all stakeholders to fully participate in their respective roles in global Internet governance? How can these barriers best be overcome? * 12. What actions are needed to promote effective participation of all marginalised people in the global information society? * 13. How can enhanced cooperation address key issues toward global, social and economic development? * 14. What is the role of various stakeholders in promoting the development of local language content? * 15. What are the international internet-related public policy issues that are of special relevance to developing countries? * 16. What are the key issues to be addressed to promote the affordability of the Internet, in particular in developing countries and least developed countries? * 17. What are the national capacities to be developed and modalities to be considered for national governments to develop Internet-related public policy with participation of all stakeholders? * 18. Are there other comments, or areas of concern, on enhanced cooperation you would like to submit? * -- 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 dl at panamo.eu Mon Aug 12 03:51:52 2013 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 09:51:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: <52088579.8020605@itforchange.net> References: <52088579.8020605@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52089418.6030303@panamo.eu> Le 12/08/13 08:49, parminder a écrit : >> There are moments when one must call a spade a spade. > Quite true. In fact I am considering availing some such moments > presently. Although this current 'controversy' really arose from an > incident of calling a spade a spade, Yes, it's the moment to ad break [attached] @+, Dom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GooDooSchro.png Type: image/png Size: 235468 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Aug 12 04:17:57 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 10:17:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Aug 15 deadline to check IGF schedule In-Reply-To: <20130811030011.07ce1803@quill> References: <20130811030011.07ce1803@quill> Message-ID: <20130812101757.03b903f2@quill> Norbert Bollow wrote: > Everyone who has a formal role (panelist, moderator, etc.) in more > than one workshop should probably check the preliminary schedule on > the IGF website to make sure you're not expected to be in two > different places at the same time. > > A deadline of Aug 15 has been posted on the IGF website for comments > about such scheduling conflicts. I have received, by private email, a request to share the link. That was a good reminder to remember to always include the relevant links instead of relying on assumptions like that everyone here would know how to go to the IGF website. So here goes... IGF website: http://intgovforum.org/ Draft schedule, linked from the above: http://intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/IGF2013Schedule.pdf Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive 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 Mon Aug 12 04:37:23 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:37:23 +0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [IRPCoalition] Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: <52085D2B.3010400@apc.org> References: <52085D2B.3010400@apc.org> Message-ID: <01dc01ce9737$3274e480$975ead80$@gmail.com> I'm noticing the proliferation of q'aires in this space as in others (Survey Monkey et al have a lot to answer for... I'm personally very reluctant to put a lot of time/energy into replying without knowing in advance how/who will be dealing with the responses. My fear/expectation is that a lot of these q'aires are simply easy ways of checking off/managing the need for broad (public) input without any real likelihood that the result will be anything much more (in the best instance) than a highly selected set of quotations presented as "evidence" in a final report whose conclusions/recommendations are determined elsewhere. I think that these q'aires are most frequently unfortunate substitutes for real formalized/organized processes of providing/obtaining systematic and considered input from relevant interested parties. And in this I'm also and specifically including the q'aire re: Enhanced Cooperation where I have not seen (I could have missed it) any statement of what exactly will be done with the q'aires that people seem to be putting so much effort towards. M -----Original Message----- From: irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org [mailto:irp-bounces at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org] On Behalf Of joy Sent: Monday, August 12, 2013 10:58 AM To: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org Subject: [IRPCoalition] Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi - following up on the note that the deadline for responses has been extended until 31 August. You can answer some or all of the questions. The questionnaire is available here: http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx Just out of curiosity - are any members of this list thinking about a response? regards Joy Liddicoat -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSCF0rAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqhoIH/0nmNZDXOY3Ur7PoLyVgwRFN Gig6Jdv9gnmgk1S6whZObvpqHGiNOi+abuD0EwL4yaoZ0C6OtMXXoh6+gajiFkXW tlW+H3EO3fsCsagSxZyTvrBt8wdqrr8iLWErLOWBH1gRhRwgjCjYYtOFnzE9J/xF DtrCvjr5sVX323QjFmNQEf/oCThFsgG7zGZh/sidmd5PYcW8S15nTPrpB2knUX7k q+HWtZiqkS0BkPxSZUmcdgw3+nD0orX2b7/HoKO5QcukyP+93MTvgQyweYMXQrcY ubnLDW7Pgb+MMiuXYeHAJ6iiskd1kcjh1cMl8C+Ogt1ITthql9n3R8qjHyqYMxU= =ptjC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 12 05:14:10 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:14:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Identity_and_accountability_as_=E2=80=9Cci?= =?UTF-8?Q?vil_society=E2=80=9D_=28was_Re=3A_Message_to_the_IGC=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130812111410.49b32223@quill> Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > It is quite difficult to fit people or organisations into boxes such > as civil society, public sector and private sector in the world as we > live in a world far more fluid than boxes can ever attempt to hold > us. Attempts to categorise people and communities can be self > defeating Yes... still it is for many reasons important to have clarity of identity, one of them being accountability. I personally doubt the appropriateness of having a civil society caucus that is not based on a clear definition of what is civil society and corresponding assertions of those who participate as members (in the sense of participating in the decision making processes of the caucus), together with the willingness of those who make these assertions to be held accountable to the implied commitments. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive 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 kabani.asif at gmail.com Mon Aug 12 07:48:34 2013 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 16:48:34 +0500 Subject: [governance] Aug 15 deadline to check IGF schedule In-Reply-To: <20130812101757.03b903f2@quill> References: <20130811030011.07ce1803@quill> <20130812101757.03b903f2@quill> Message-ID: Hi Norbert, Many thanks, submit here are some inputs based on my direct experience developing the igf schedule in past for igf as follows. 1. Mapping of workshop is overlapping on 23rd and 24th oct same themes. 2. shifting some overlaing on Day 22 oct and 25 oct afternoon that are mostly free Then if excel,sheet is provide, the schudele can be enhanced and emproved for effective results Sincerely On Monday, August 12, 2013, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Norbert Bollow > wrote: > > > Everyone who has a formal role (panelist, moderator, etc.) in more > > than one workshop should probably check the preliminary schedule on > > the IGF website to make sure you're not expected to be in two > > different places at the same time. > > > > A deadline of Aug 15 has been posted on the IGF website for comments > > about such scheduling conflicts. > > I have received, by private email, a request to share the link. That > was a good reminder to remember to always include the relevant links > instead of relying on assumptions like that everyone here would know > how to go to the IGF website. > > So here goes... > > IGF website: > http://intgovforum.org/ > > Draft schedule, linked from the above: > http://intgovforum.org/cms/wks2013/IGF2013Schedule.pdf > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive 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 > > -- Sent from iPad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Aug 12 08:21:45 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:21:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] Identity and accountability as “ci vil society” (was Re: Message to the IGC) In-Reply-To: <20130812111410.49b32223@quill> References: <20130812111410.49b32223@quill> Message-ID: Dear Salanieta and Norbert, As often a picture is worth a thousand words I have tried to address your both concerns in a WSIS stakeholders map where everyone can position him/herself. http://iucg.org/wiki/WSIS_stakeholders_map_-_Carte_des_parties_prenantes_du_SMSI jfc At 11:14 12/08/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote: >Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >wrote: > > > It is quite difficult to fit people or organisations into boxes such > > as civil society, public sector and private sector in the world as we > > live in a world far more fluid than boxes can ever attempt to hold > > us. Attempts to categorise people and communities can be self > > defeating > >Yes... still it is for many reasons important to have clarity of >identity, one of them being accountability. > >I personally doubt the appropriateness of having a civil society caucus >that is not based on a clear definition of what is civil society and >corresponding assertions of those who participate as members (in the >sense of participating in the decision making processes of the caucus), >together with the willingness of those who make these assertions to be >held accountable to the implied commitments. > >Greetings, >Norbert > >-- >Recommendations for effective and constructive 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 > > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt" > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your 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 Mon Aug 12 08:38:54 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 08:38:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] WGEC - Questionnaire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sala, Why are we submitting a reply as a group? Norbert said just a few hours ago that we should not. I quote his mail: "I think that it is the variety of responses that is going to make this questionnaire exercise valuable; what would be the benefit of civil society trying to agree on a single set of answers?" I think I agree with him on this one. -- 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, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > The Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation in its recent questionnaire has > invited public input. Individuals are free to provide your input directly on > the link that Joy kindly provided, see: http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx > There is something to be gained in filling it corporately as an IGC as it > will enable us to see how others view and appreciate diverse perspectives > although this has been subjected to rigorous debate in the past. I believe > though that we can collaborate and coordinate a response as an IGC. To this > end here are some extracts of the questions, and we invite your response. > > In submitting your response, please do so by putting your name eg. > > Q. What is the tallest building? > > [Sala T] The tallest building is....... > > (This will help us consolidate the feedback. We can leave this open for 7 > days to allow us to develop a draft response which will be put to the list > for further comment.) > > 2. What do you think is the significance, purpose and scope of enhanced > cooperation as per the Tunis Agenda? a) Significance b) Purpose c) Scope * > > > > 3. To what extent has or has not enhanced cooperation been implemented? > Please use the space below to explain and to provide examples to support > your answer. * > > > > 4. What are the relevant international public policy issues pertaining to > the Internet? * > > > 5. What are the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders, > including governments, in implementation of the various aspects of enhanced > cooperation? * > > > 7. How can enhanced cooperation enable other stakeholders to carry out their > roles and responsibilities? * > > 8. What are the most appropriate mechanisms to fully implement enhanced > cooperation as recognized in the Tunis Agenda, including on international > public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and public policy issues > associated with coordination and management of critical Internet resources? > * > > > 9. What is the possible relationship between enhanced cooperation and the > IGF? * > > > 10. How can the role of developing countries be made more effective in > global Internet governance? * > > > 11. What barriers remain for all stakeholders to fully participate in their > respective roles in global Internet governance? How can these barriers best > be overcome? * > > > 12. What actions are needed to promote effective participation of all > marginalised people in the global information society? * > > > 13. How can enhanced cooperation address key issues toward global, social > and economic development? * > > > 14. What is the role of various stakeholders in promoting the development of > local language content? * > > 15. What are the international internet-related public policy issues that > are of special relevance to developing countries? * > > 16. What are the key issues to be addressed to promote the affordability of > the Internet, in particular in developing countries and least developed > countries? * > > 17. What are the national capacities to be developed and modalities to be > considered for national governments to develop Internet-related public > policy with participation of all stakeholders? * > > 18. Are there other comments, or areas of concern, on enhanced cooperation > you would like to submit? * > > -- > 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr Mon Aug 12 09:00:31 2013 From: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr (International Ivission) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:00:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND THE INTERNET In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1376312431.69716.YahooMailNeo@web171302.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND THE INTERNET The notion of crime against humanity is more or less associated with the shed of human blood, but when I deeply evaluated the consequences that Internet blockages can provoke, I was convinced it’s time to redefine the notion of CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. The Internet is not just a tool to send and receive mails. It transcends all the social sectors from; Health, Banking, Import/Export, Education, Judiciary, defense etc.  So any one government, individual or group of individuals that chooses to block the Internet from its citizens will be causing an irreparable damage to his own people. Blocking the Internet in this age means stopping citizens from doing business, from communicating, from getting good education and health services, from traveling, from defending their basic rights etc. I want to believe that blocking the Internet should be considered as crime against humanity.     ___________________________________ Asama Abel Excel President and CEO I-VISSION INTERNATIONAL 3rd Floor immeuble Centre Médical de Bessengué  Box 13040 Blvd de la rep., Feu Rouge Bessengué Douala Cameroon E: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr / excelasama at yahoo.fr : info at ivission.net T (bur): +237 33 76 55 76  (Mob): 99 44 43 91 / 76 14 26 23Skype (office): i-vission (personal): excelasama Web: www.ivission.net  Web album: www.flickr.com/ivission Facebook: ivission.internationl Twitter: www.twitter.com/ivission  NWK: www.meetup.com/ivission ________________________________ De : McTim À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Envoyé le : Lundi 12 août 2013 14h38 Objet : Re: [governance] WGEC - Questionnaire Sala, Why are we submitting a reply as a group? Norbert said just a few hours ago that we should not.  I quote his mail: "I think that it is the variety of responses that is going to make this questionnaire exercise valuable; what would be the benefit of civil society trying to agree on a single set of answers?" I think I agree with him on this one. -- 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, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > The Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation in its recent questionnaire has > invited public input. Individuals are free to provide your input directly on > the link that Joy kindly provided, see: http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx > There is something to be gained in filling it corporately as an IGC as it > will enable us to see how others view and appreciate diverse perspectives > although this has been subjected to rigorous debate in the past. I believe > though that we can collaborate and coordinate a response as an IGC. To this > end here are some extracts of the questions, and we invite your response. > > In submitting your response, please do so by putting your name eg. > > Q. What is the tallest building? > > [Sala T] The tallest building is....... > > (This will help us consolidate the feedback. We can leave this open for 7 > days to allow us to develop a draft response which will be put to the list > for further comment.) > > 2. What do you think is the significance, purpose and scope of enhanced > cooperation as per the Tunis Agenda? a) Significance b) Purpose c) Scope * > > > > 3. To what extent has or has not enhanced cooperation been implemented? > Please use the space below to explain and to provide examples to support > your answer. * > > > > 4. What are the relevant international public policy issues pertaining to > the Internet? * > > > 5. What are the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders, > including governments, in implementation of the various aspects of enhanced > cooperation? * > > > 7. How can enhanced cooperation enable other stakeholders to carry out their > roles and responsibilities? * > > 8. What are the most appropriate mechanisms to fully implement enhanced > cooperation as recognized in the Tunis Agenda, including on international > public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and public policy issues > associated with coordination and management of critical Internet resources? > * > > > 9. What is the possible relationship between enhanced cooperation and the > IGF? * > > > 10. How can the role of developing countries be made more effective in > global Internet governance? * > > > 11. What barriers remain for all stakeholders to fully participate in their > respective roles in global Internet governance? How can these barriers best > be overcome? * > > > 12. What actions are needed to promote effective participation of all > marginalised people in the global information society? * > > > 13. How can enhanced cooperation address key issues toward global, social > and economic development? * > > > 14. What is the role of various stakeholders in promoting the development of > local language content? * > > 15. What are the international internet-related public policy issues that > are of special relevance to developing countries? * > > 16. What are the key issues to be addressed to promote the affordability of > the Internet, in particular in developing countries and least developed > countries? * > > 17. What are the national capacities to be developed and modalities to be > considered for national governments to develop Internet-related public > policy with participation of all stakeholders? * > > 18. Are there other comments, or areas of concern, on enhanced cooperation > you would like to submit? * > > -- > 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 12 09:12:11 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 01:12:11 +1200 Subject: [governance] WGEC - Questionnaire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <622FC176-57A4-4DB7-B708-912A89C2868D@gmail.com> Your views are noted McTim, thanks. There is merit in submitting a corporate response and whilst people are free to send their views individually, it is also our mandate as the IGC to participate in th discussions particularly when it is the CSTD Working Group soliciting responses. I am happy to consolidate the responses and suspect that Norbert may have been concerned about the bandwidth issues. Sent from my iPad On Aug 13, 2013, at 12:38 AM, McTim wrote: > Sala, > > Why are we submitting a reply as a group? > > Norbert said just a few hours ago that we should not. I quote his mail: > > "I think that it is the variety of responses that is > going to make this questionnaire exercise valuable; what would be the > benefit of civil society trying to agree on a single set of answers?" > > I think I agree with him on this one. > > -- > 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, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> The Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation in its recent questionnaire has >> invited public input. Individuals are free to provide your input directly on >> the link that Joy kindly provided, see: http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx >> There is something to be gained in filling it corporately as an IGC as it >> will enable us to see how others view and appreciate diverse perspectives >> although this has been subjected to rigorous debate in the past. I believe >> though that we can collaborate and coordinate a response as an IGC. To this >> end here are some extracts of the questions, and we invite your response. >> >> In submitting your response, please do so by putting your name eg. >> >> Q. What is the tallest building? >> >> [Sala T] The tallest building is....... >> >> (This will help us consolidate the feedback. We can leave this open for 7 >> days to allow us to develop a draft response which will be put to the list >> for further comment.) >> >> 2. What do you think is the significance, purpose and scope of enhanced >> cooperation as per the Tunis Agenda? a) Significance b) Purpose c) Scope * >> >> >> >> 3. To what extent has or has not enhanced cooperation been implemented? >> Please use the space below to explain and to provide examples to support >> your answer. * >> >> >> >> 4. What are the relevant international public policy issues pertaining to >> the Internet? * >> >> >> 5. What are the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders, >> including governments, in implementation of the various aspects of enhanced >> cooperation? * >> >> >> 7. How can enhanced cooperation enable other stakeholders to carry out their >> roles and responsibilities? * >> >> 8. What are the most appropriate mechanisms to fully implement enhanced >> cooperation as recognized in the Tunis Agenda, including on international >> public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and public policy issues >> associated with coordination and management of critical Internet resources? >> * >> >> >> 9. What is the possible relationship between enhanced cooperation and the >> IGF? * >> >> >> 10. How can the role of developing countries be made more effective in >> global Internet governance? * >> >> >> 11. What barriers remain for all stakeholders to fully participate in their >> respective roles in global Internet governance? How can these barriers best >> be overcome? * >> >> >> 12. What actions are needed to promote effective participation of all >> marginalised people in the global information society? * >> >> >> 13. How can enhanced cooperation address key issues toward global, social >> and economic development? * >> >> >> 14. What is the role of various stakeholders in promoting the development of >> local language content? * >> >> 15. What are the international internet-related public policy issues that >> are of special relevance to developing countries? * >> >> 16. What are the key issues to be addressed to promote the affordability of >> the Internet, in particular in developing countries and least developed >> countries? * >> >> 17. What are the national capacities to be developed and modalities to be >> considered for national governments to develop Internet-related public >> policy with participation of all stakeholders? * >> >> 18. Are there other comments, or areas of concern, on enhanced cooperation >> you would like to submit? * >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 Aug 12 09:18:26 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 18:48:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND THE INTERNET Message-ID: It is a more nuanced position than that. Block temporarily in case a machine is hacked and emitting ddos traffic? Block a spammer who sets up servers in a datacenter? I would hesitate to sign on to any statement that conflated all types of blocking and human rights violations. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "International Ivission" To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" , "McTim" Subject: [governance] CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND THE INTERNET Date: Mon, Aug 12, 2013 6:30 PM CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND THE INTERNET The notion of crime against humanity is more or less associated with the shed of human blood, but when I deeply evaluated the consequences that Internet blockages can provoke, I was convinced it’s time to redefine the notion of CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. The Internet is not just a tool to send and receive mails. It transcends all the social sectors from; Health, Banking, Import/Export, Education, Judiciary, defense etc.  So any one government, individual or group of individuals that chooses to block the Internet from its citizens will be causing an irreparable damage to his own people. Blocking the Internet in this age means stopping citizens from doing business, from communicating, from getting good education and health services, from traveling, from defending their basic rights etc. I want to believe that blocking the Internet should be considered as crime against humanity.     ___________________________________ Asama Abel Excel President and CEO I-VISSION INTERNATIONAL 3rd Floor immeuble Centre Médical de Bessengué  Box 13040 Blvd de la rep., Feu Rouge Bessengué Douala Cameroon E: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr / excelasama at yahoo.fr : info at ivission.net T (bur): +237 33 76 55 76  (Mob): 99 44 43 91 / 76 14 26 23Skype (office): i-vission (personal): excelasama Web: www.ivission.net  Web album: www.flickr.com/ivission Facebook: ivission.internationl Twitter: www.twitter.com/ivission  NWK: www.meetup.com/ivission ________________________________ De : McTim À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Envoyé le : Lundi 12 août 2013 14h38 Objet : Re: [governance] WGEC - Questionnaire Sala, Why are we submitting a reply as a group? Norbert said just a few hours ago that we should not.  I quote his mail: "I think that it is the variety of responses that is going to make this questionnaire exercise valuable; what would be the benefit of civil society trying to agree on a single set of answers?" I think I agree with him on this one. -- 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, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > The Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation in its recent questionnaire has > invited public input. Individuals are free to provide your input directly on > the link that Joy kindly provided, see: http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx > There is something to be gained in filling it corporately as an IGC as it > will enable us to see how others view and appreciate diverse perspectives > although this has been subjected to rigorous debate in the past. I believe > though that we can collaborate and coordinate a response as an IGC. To this > end here are some extracts of the questions, and we invite your response. > > In submitting your response, please do so by putting your name eg. > > Q. What is the tallest building? > > [Sala T] The tallest building is....... > > (This will help us consolidate the feedback. We can leave this open for 7 > days to allow us to develop a draft response which will be put to the list > for further comment.) > > 2. What do you think is the significance, purpose and scope of enhanced > cooperation as per the Tunis Agenda? a) Significance b) Purpose c) Scope * > > > > 3. To what extent has or has not enhanced cooperation been implemented? > Please use the space below to explain and to provide examples to support > your answer. * > > > > 4. What are the relevant international public policy issues pertaining to > the Internet? * > > > 5. What are the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders, > including governments, in implementation of the various aspects of enhanced > cooperation? * > > > 7. How can enhanced cooperation enable other stakeholders to carry out their > roles and responsibilities? * > > 8. What are the most appropriate mechanisms to fully implement enhanced > cooperation as recognized in the Tunis Agenda, including on international > public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and public policy issues > associated with coordination and management of critical Internet resources? > * > > > 9. What is the possible relationship between enhanced cooperation and the > IGF? * > > > 10. How can the role of developing countries be made more effective in > global Internet governance? * > > > 11. What barriers remain for all stakeholders to fully participate in their > respective roles in global Internet governance? How can these barriers best > be overcome? * > > > 12. What actions are needed to promote effective participation of all > marginalised people in the global information society? * > > > 13. How can enhanced cooperation address key issues toward global, social > and economic development? * > > > 14. What is the role of various stakeholders in promoting the development of > local language content? * > > 15. What are the international internet-related public policy issues that > are of special relevance to developing countries? * > > 16. What are the key issues to be addressed to promote the affordability of > the Internet, in particular in developing countries and least developed > countries? * > > 17. What are the national capacities to be developed and modalities to be > considered for national governments to develop Internet-related public > policy with participation of all stakeholders? * > > 18. Are there other comments, or areas of concern, on enhanced cooperation > you would like to submit? * > > -- > 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 12 09:48:16 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Canabarro) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 09:48:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND THE INTERNET In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <128EAEB6-66C9-4B8A-9439-3C317B0525BA@gmail.com> Also, is that the only means to acquire one of such goods or values? Doesnt seem so. Crimes against humanity are heinous actions. Trying to stretch that concept to encompass things which are not necessarily more than ordinary inconvenience can either generate unnecessary spirals of violence or put in dangerous the legitimacy of international law. It doesnt mean though that we should not discuss the eventual (and mere) wrongfulness of blocking in specific cases. Enviado via iPhone Em Aug 12, 2013, às 9:18 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" escreveu: > It is a more nuanced position than that. > > Block temporarily in case a machine is hacked and emitting ddos traffic? > > Block a spammer who sets up servers in a datacenter? > > I would hesitate to sign on to any statement that conflated all types of blocking and human rights violations. > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "International Ivission" > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" , "McTim" > Subject: [governance] CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND THE INTERNET > Date: Mon, Aug 12, 2013 6:30 PM > > > CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND THE INTERNET > > The notion of crime against humanity is more or less > associated with the shed of human blood, but when I deeply evaluated the > consequences that Internet blockages can provoke, I was convinced it’s time to > redefine the notion of CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. > > The Internet is not just a tool to send and receive mails. > It transcends all the social sectors from; Health, Banking, Import/Export, > Education, Judiciary, defense etc. So > any one government, individual or group of individuals that chooses to block > the Internet from its citizens will be causing an irreparable damage to his own > people. > > Blocking the Internet in this age means stopping > citizens from doing business, from communicating, from getting good education > and health services, from traveling, from defending their basic rights etc. > I want to believe that blocking > the Internet should be considered as crime against humanity. > > > ___________________________________ > Asama Abel Excel > President and CEO > I-VISSION INTERNATIONAL > 3rd Floor immeuble Centre Médical de Bessengué > Box 13040 Blvd de la rep., Feu Rouge Bessengué > Douala Cameroon > E: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr / excelasama at yahoo.fr : info at ivission.net > T (bur): +237 33 76 55 76 (Mob): 99 44 43 91 / 76 14 26 23Skype (office): i-vission (personal): excelasama Web: www.ivission.net > Web album: www.flickr.com/ivission > Facebook: ivission.internationl > Twitter: www.twitter.com/ivission > NWK: www.meetup.com/ivission > > > ________________________________ > De : McTim > À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > Envoyé le : Lundi 12 août 2013 14h38 > Objet : Re: [governance] WGEC - Questionnaire > > > Sala, > > Why are we submitting a reply as a group? > > Norbert said just a few hours ago that we should not. I quote his mail: > > "I think that it is the variety of responses that is > going to make this questionnaire exercise valuable; what would be the > benefit of civil society trying to agree on a single set of answers?" > > I think I agree with him on this one. > > -- > 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, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > The Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation in its recent questionnaire has > > invited public input. Individuals are free to provide your input directly on > > the link that Joy kindly provided, see: http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx > > There is something to be gained in filling it corporately as an IGC as it > > will enable us to see how others view and appreciate diverse perspectives > > although this has been subjected to rigorous debate in the past. I believe > > though that we can collaborate and coordinate a response as an IGC. To this > > end here are some extracts of the questions, and we invite your response. > > > > In submitting your response, please do so by putting your name eg. > > > > Q. What is the tallest building? > > > > [Sala T] The tallest building is....... > > > > (This will help us consolidate the feedback. We can leave this open for 7 > > days to allow us to develop a draft response which will be put to the list > > for further comment.) > > > > 2. What do you think is the significance, purpose and scope of enhanced > > cooperation as per the Tunis Agenda? a) Significance b) Purpose c) Scope * > > > > > > > > 3. To what extent has or has not enhanced cooperation been implemented? > > Please use the space below to explain and to provide examples to support > > your answer. * > > > > > > > > 4. What are the relevant international public policy issues pertaining to > > the Internet? * > > > > > > 5. What are the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders, > > including governments, in implementation of the various aspects of enhanced > > cooperation? * > > > > > > 7. How can enhanced cooperation enable other stakeholders to carry out their > > roles and responsibilities? * > > > > 8. What are the most appropriate mechanisms to fully implement enhanced > > cooperation as recognized in the Tunis Agenda, including on international > > public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and public policy issues > > associated with coordination and management of critical Internet resources? > > * > > > > > > 9. What is the possible relationship between enhanced cooperation and the > > IGF? * > > > > > > 10. How can the role of developing countries be made more effective in > > global Internet governance? * > > > > > > 11. What barriers remain for all stakeholders to fully participate in their > > respective roles in global Internet governance? How can these barriers best > > be overcome? * > > > > > > 12. What actions are needed to promote effective participation of all > > marginalised people in the global information society? * > > > > > > 13. How can enhanced cooperation address key issues toward global, social > > and economic development? * > > > > > > 14. What is the role of various stakeholders in promoting the development of > > local language content? * > > > > 15. What are the international internet-related public policy issues that > > are of special relevance to developing countries? * > > > > 16. What are the key issues to be addressed to promote the affordability of > > the Internet, in particular in developing countries and least developed > > countries? * > > > > 17. What are the national capacities to be developed and modalities to be > > considered for national governments to develop Internet-related public > > policy with participation of all stakeholders? * > > > > 18. Are there other comments, or areas of concern, on enhanced cooperation > > you would like to submit? * > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 12 10:54:55 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 11:54:55 -0300 Subject: [governance] WGEC - Questionnaire In-Reply-To: <622FC176-57A4-4DB7-B708-912A89C2868D@gmail.com> References: <622FC176-57A4-4DB7-B708-912A89C2868D@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5208F73F.80403@cafonso.ca> Given the current "tense" state of the IGC, I do not think that in three weeks, after several "dead and wounded" are left in the field, we can arrive at a relevant consensus for such an extensive and complex questionnaire. I agree with Norbert and McT. fraternal regards --c.a. On 08/12/2013 10:12 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Your views are noted McTim, thanks. There is merit in submitting a corporate response and whilst people are free to send their views individually, it is also our mandate as the IGC to participate in th discussions particularly when it is the CSTD Working Group soliciting responses. > > I am happy to consolidate the responses and suspect that Norbert may have been concerned about the bandwidth issues. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Aug 13, 2013, at 12:38 AM, McTim wrote: > >> Sala, >> >> Why are we submitting a reply as a group? >> >> Norbert said just a few hours ago that we should not. I quote his mail: >> >> "I think that it is the variety of responses that is >> going to make this questionnaire exercise valuable; what would be the >> benefit of civil society trying to agree on a single set of answers?" >> >> I think I agree with him on this one. >> >> -- >> 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, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >>> Dear All, >>> >>> The Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation in its recent questionnaire has >>> invited public input. Individuals are free to provide your input directly on >>> the link that Joy kindly provided, see: http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx >>> There is something to be gained in filling it corporately as an IGC as it >>> will enable us to see how others view and appreciate diverse perspectives >>> although this has been subjected to rigorous debate in the past. I believe >>> though that we can collaborate and coordinate a response as an IGC. To this >>> end here are some extracts of the questions, and we invite your response. >>> >>> In submitting your response, please do so by putting your name eg. >>> >>> Q. What is the tallest building? >>> >>> [Sala T] The tallest building is....... >>> >>> (This will help us consolidate the feedback. We can leave this open for 7 >>> days to allow us to develop a draft response which will be put to the list >>> for further comment.) >>> >>> 2. What do you think is the significance, purpose and scope of enhanced >>> cooperation as per the Tunis Agenda? a) Significance b) Purpose c) Scope * >>> >>> >>> >>> 3. To what extent has or has not enhanced cooperation been implemented? >>> Please use the space below to explain and to provide examples to support >>> your answer. * >>> >>> >>> >>> 4. What are the relevant international public policy issues pertaining to >>> the Internet? * >>> >>> >>> 5. What are the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders, >>> including governments, in implementation of the various aspects of enhanced >>> cooperation? * >>> >>> >>> 7. How can enhanced cooperation enable other stakeholders to carry out their >>> roles and responsibilities? * >>> >>> 8. What are the most appropriate mechanisms to fully implement enhanced >>> cooperation as recognized in the Tunis Agenda, including on international >>> public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and public policy issues >>> associated with coordination and management of critical Internet resources? >>> * >>> >>> >>> 9. What is the possible relationship between enhanced cooperation and the >>> IGF? * >>> >>> >>> 10. How can the role of developing countries be made more effective in >>> global Internet governance? * >>> >>> >>> 11. What barriers remain for all stakeholders to fully participate in their >>> respective roles in global Internet governance? How can these barriers best >>> be overcome? * >>> >>> >>> 12. What actions are needed to promote effective participation of all >>> marginalised people in the global information society? * >>> >>> >>> 13. How can enhanced cooperation address key issues toward global, social >>> and economic development? * >>> >>> >>> 14. What is the role of various stakeholders in promoting the development of >>> local language content? * >>> >>> 15. What are the international internet-related public policy issues that >>> are of special relevance to developing countries? * >>> >>> 16. What are the key issues to be addressed to promote the affordability of >>> the Internet, in particular in developing countries and least developed >>> countries? * >>> >>> 17. What are the national capacities to be developed and modalities to be >>> considered for national governments to develop Internet-related public >>> policy with participation of all stakeholders? * >>> >>> 18. Are there other comments, or areas of concern, on enhanced cooperation >>> you would like to submit? * >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Aug 12 11:21:59 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 12:21:59 -0300 Subject: [governance] WGEC - Questionnaire In-Reply-To: <5208F73F.80403@cafonso.ca> References: <622FC176-57A4-4DB7-B708-912A89C2868D@gmail.com> <5208F73F.80403@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5208FD97.3050502@cafonso.ca> Just in case people decide to go and do a joint effort, I attach a simple text version of the questionnaire to serve as an easy basis for editing before copying and pasting into the online one. fraternal regards --c.a. On 08/12/2013 11:54 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Given the current "tense" state of the IGC, I do not think that in three > weeks, after several "dead and wounded" are left in the field, we can > arrive at a relevant consensus for such an extensive and complex > questionnaire. > > I agree with Norbert and McT. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 08/12/2013 10:12 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> Your views are noted McTim, thanks. There is merit in submitting a corporate response and whilst people are free to send their views individually, it is also our mandate as the IGC to participate in th discussions particularly when it is the CSTD Working Group soliciting responses. >> >> I am happy to consolidate the responses and suspect that Norbert may have been concerned about the bandwidth issues. >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Aug 13, 2013, at 12:38 AM, McTim wrote: >> >>> Sala, >>> >>> Why are we submitting a reply as a group? >>> >>> Norbert said just a few hours ago that we should not. I quote his mail: >>> >>> "I think that it is the variety of responses that is >>> going to make this questionnaire exercise valuable; what would be the >>> benefit of civil society trying to agree on a single set of answers?" >>> >>> I think I agree with him on this one. >>> >>> -- >>> 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, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> wrote: >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> The Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation in its recent questionnaire has >>>> invited public input. Individuals are free to provide your input directly on >>>> the link that Joy kindly provided, see: http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx >>>> There is something to be gained in filling it corporately as an IGC as it >>>> will enable us to see how others view and appreciate diverse perspectives >>>> although this has been subjected to rigorous debate in the past. I believe >>>> though that we can collaborate and coordinate a response as an IGC. To this >>>> end here are some extracts of the questions, and we invite your response. >>>> >>>> In submitting your response, please do so by putting your name eg. >>>> >>>> Q. What is the tallest building? >>>> >>>> [Sala T] The tallest building is....... >>>> >>>> (This will help us consolidate the feedback. We can leave this open for 7 >>>> days to allow us to develop a draft response which will be put to the list >>>> for further comment.) >>>> >>>> 2. What do you think is the significance, purpose and scope of enhanced >>>> cooperation as per the Tunis Agenda? a) Significance b) Purpose c) Scope * >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 3. To what extent has or has not enhanced cooperation been implemented? >>>> Please use the space below to explain and to provide examples to support >>>> your answer. * >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 4. What are the relevant international public policy issues pertaining to >>>> the Internet? * >>>> >>>> >>>> 5. What are the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders, >>>> including governments, in implementation of the various aspects of enhanced >>>> cooperation? * >>>> >>>> >>>> 7. How can enhanced cooperation enable other stakeholders to carry out their >>>> roles and responsibilities? * >>>> >>>> 8. What are the most appropriate mechanisms to fully implement enhanced >>>> cooperation as recognized in the Tunis Agenda, including on international >>>> public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and public policy issues >>>> associated with coordination and management of critical Internet resources? >>>> * >>>> >>>> >>>> 9. What is the possible relationship between enhanced cooperation and the >>>> IGF? * >>>> >>>> >>>> 10. How can the role of developing countries be made more effective in >>>> global Internet governance? * >>>> >>>> >>>> 11. What barriers remain for all stakeholders to fully participate in their >>>> respective roles in global Internet governance? How can these barriers best >>>> be overcome? * >>>> >>>> >>>> 12. What actions are needed to promote effective participation of all >>>> marginalised people in the global information society? * >>>> >>>> >>>> 13. How can enhanced cooperation address key issues toward global, social >>>> and economic development? * >>>> >>>> >>>> 14. What is the role of various stakeholders in promoting the development of >>>> local language content? * >>>> >>>> 15. What are the international internet-related public policy issues that >>>> are of special relevance to developing countries? * >>>> >>>> 16. What are the key issues to be addressed to promote the affordability of >>>> the Internet, in particular in developing countries and least developed >>>> countries? * >>>> >>>> 17. What are the national capacities to be developed and modalities to be >>>> considered for national governments to develop Internet-related public >>>> policy with participation of all stakeholders? * >>>> >>>> 18. Are there other comments, or areas of concern, on enhanced cooperation >>>> you would like to submit? * >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR DEVELOPMENT (CSTD) Questionnaire of the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation Pursuant to and in order to fulfill the mandate given by the United Nations General Assembly in its Resolution 67/195 (2012) on information and communications technologies for development, the UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation elaborated the following questionnaire. The questions below need to be responded in the context of the Tunis Agenda of the World Summit on Information Society, 2005. All Member States of the United Nations, Permanent Observers, United Nations system agencies, non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, Sector members of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and entities accredited to the World Summit on the Information Society not otherwise included in one of those groups are invited to fill out this questionnaire. Other relevant entities involved in Internet related public policy issues are welcome to provide their input by filling out the questionnaire. The information solicited through this questionnaire will only be used in aggregate form, unless otherwise authorised by the respondent. Do you authorise us to cite/share your views individually? Yes No Country: Organization: Address: E-mail: 1. Which stakeholder category do you belong to? (A) Government (B) Intergovernmental and international organizations (C) Non-Government (D) If non-government, please indicate: a) Business community b) Civil society c) Technical and academic community (E) If non-government, please indicate if you are: i) WSIS accredited ii) ECOSOC accredited iii) Participating in the work of the CSTD [1] iv) ITU accredited v) Other (Please specify): 2. What do you think is the significance, purpose and scope of enhanced cooperation as per the Tunis Agenda? (Please try not to exceed 200 words) (a) Significance: (b) Purpose: (c) Scope: 3. To what extent has or has not enhanced cooperation been implemented? Please use the space below to explain and to provide examples to support your answer. (Please try not to exceed 200 words) 4. What are the relevant international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet? (Please try not to exceed 200 words and list in order of priority, if possible) 5. What are the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders, including governments, in implementation of the various aspects of enhanced cooperation? (Please try not to exceed 200 words) 6. How should enhanced cooperation be implemented to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet? (Please try not to exceed 200 words) 7. How can enhanced cooperation enable other stakeholders to carry out their roles and responsibilities? (Please try not to exceed 200 words) 8. What are the most appropriate mechanisms to fully implement enhanced cooperation as recognized in the Tunis Agenda, including on international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and public policy issues associated with coordination and management of critical Internet resources? (Please try not to exceed 200 words) 9. What is the possible relationship between enhanced cooperation and the IGF? (Please try not to exceed 200 words) 10. How can the role of developing countries be made more effective in global Internet governance? (Please try not to exceed 200 words) 11. What barriers remain for all stakeholders to fully participate in their respective roles in global Internet governance? How can these barriers best be overcome? (Please try not to exceed 200 words) 12. What actions are needed to promote effective participation of all marginalised people in the global information society? (Please try not to exceed 200 words) 13. How can enhanced cooperation address key issues toward global, social and economic development? (Please try not to exceed 200 words) 14. What is the role of various stakeholders in promoting the development of local language content? (Please try not to exceed 200 words) 15. What are the international internet-related public policy issues that are of special relevance to developing countries? (Please try not to exceed 200 words) 16. What are the key issues to be addressed to promote the affordability of the Internet, in particular in developing countries and least developed countries? (Please try not to exceed 200 words) 17. What are the national capacities to be developed and modalities to be considered for national governments to develop Internet-related public policy with participation of all stakeholders? (Please try not to exceed 200 words) 18. Are there other comments, or areas of concern, on enhanced cooperation you would like to submit? (Please try not to exceed 200 words) ------------------- [1] Pursuant to ECOSOC Decisions 2011/237, 2011/238 or 2011/239. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr Mon Aug 12 12:53:12 2013 From: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr (International Ivission) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 17:53:12 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND THE INTERNET In-Reply-To: <128EAEB6-66C9-4B8A-9439-3C317B0525BA@gmail.com> References: <128EAEB6-66C9-4B8A-9439-3C317B0525BA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1376326392.63675.YahooMailNeo@web171304.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Hi Enviado, In the past we have seen cases where dictators shut down the entire network in their country during sensitive periods like elections! This is a voluntary and malicious act that can be proven and the source detected. Be it DDoS or a total black out, the damage is beyond repairs and someone should pay for it. This does not exclude the fact that for some extreme cases, the Internet could be frozen in a given time, but this again should be given a legal backing either by ICANN, ITU etc. depending on who is who in the Internet governance. Imagine that the city of Tehran or Kinshassa or New York or Hong Kong is denied access to water just for a week simply because one man or a group of malicious individuals want it to be so? The number of incidents and casualties will not be different from genocide. Today we eat, drink and respire the Internet, and most of all, THE INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE   The question of the day should be?   -          What should we do to empower the infrastructures and institutions in place to humanize the Internet and attribute a living and healthy environment to it -          How can the concept of net neutrality and the freedom of the Internet be protected? -          In the same way world leaders are struggling to combat climate change by humanizing the Internet, we should be pondering on how to render the Internet sustainable for the next generation of users.         ___________________________________ Asama Abel Excel President and CEO I-VISSION INTERNATIONAL 3rd Floor immeuble Centre Médical de Bessengué  Box 13040 Blvd de la rep., Feu Rouge Bessengué Douala Cameroon E: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr / excelasama at yahoo.fr : info at ivission.net T (bur): +237 33 76 55 76  (Mob): 99 44 43 91 / 76 14 26 23Skype (office): i-vission (personal): excelasama Web: www.ivission.net  Web album: www.flickr.com/ivission Facebook: ivission.internationl Twitter: www.twitter.com/ivission  NWK: www.meetup.com/ivission ________________________________ De : Diego Canabarro À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc : International Ivission ; "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro ; Tim McGinnis Envoyé le : Lundi 12 août 2013 15h48 Objet : Re: [governance] CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND THE INTERNET Also, is that the only means to acquire one of such goods or values? Doesnt seem so. Crimes against humanity are heinous actions. Trying to stretch that concept to encompass things which are not necessarily more than ordinary inconvenience can either generate unnecessary spirals of violence or put in dangerous the legitimacy of international law. It doesnt mean though that we should not discuss the eventual (and mere) wrongfulness of blocking in specific cases. Enviado via iPhone Em Aug 12, 2013, às 9:18 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" escreveu: It is a more nuanced position than that. > >Block temporarily in case a machine is hacked and emitting ddos traffic? > >Block a spammer who sets up servers in a datacenter? > >I would hesitate to sign on to any statement that conflated all types of blocking and human rights violations. > >--srs (htc one x) > > >----- Reply message ----- >From: "International Ivission" >To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" , "McTim" >Subject: [governance] CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND THE INTERNET >Date: Mon, Aug 12, 2013 6:30 PM > > >CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND THE INTERNET > >The notion of crime against humanity is more or less >associated with the shed of human blood, but when I deeply evaluated the >consequences that Internet blockages can provoke, I was convinced it’s time to >redefine the notion of CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. > >The Internet is not just a tool to send and receive mails. >It transcends all the social sectors from; Health, Banking, Import/Export, >Education, Judiciary, defense etc.  So >any one government, individual or group of individuals that chooses to block >the Internet from its citizens will be causing an irreparable damage to his own >people. > >Blocking the Internet in this age means stopping >citizens from doing business, from communicating, from getting good education >and health services, from traveling, from defending their basic rights etc. >I want to believe that blocking >the Internet should be considered as crime against humanity. >  >  >___________________________________ >Asama Abel Excel >President and CEO >I-VISSION INTERNATIONAL >3rd Floor immeuble Centre Médical de Bessengué > Box 13040 Blvd de la rep., Feu Rouge Bessengué >Douala Cameroon >E: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr / excelasama at yahoo.fr : info at ivission.net >T (bur): +237 33 76 55 76  (Mob): 99 44 43 91 / 76 14 26 23Skype (office): i-vission (personal): excelasama Web: www.ivission.net  >Web album: www.flickr.com/ivission >Facebook: ivission.internationl >Twitter: www.twitter.com/ivission  >NWK: www.meetup.com/ivission > > >________________________________ >De : McTim >À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >Envoyé le : Lundi 12 août 2013 14h38 >Objet : Re: [governance] WGEC - Questionnaire > > >Sala, > >Why are we submitting a reply as a group? > >Norbert said just a few hours ago that we should not.  I quote his mail: > >"I think that it is the variety of responses that is >going to make this questionnaire exercise valuable; what would be the >benefit of civil society trying to agree on a single set of answers?" > >I think I agree with him on this one. > >-- >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, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> The Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation in its recent questionnaire has >> invited public input. Individuals are free to provide your input directly on >> the link that Joy kindly provided, see: http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx >> There is something to be gained in filling it corporately as an IGC as it >> will enable us to see how others view and appreciate diverse perspectives >> although this has been subjected to rigorous debate in the past. I believe >> though that we can collaborate and coordinate a response as an IGC. To this >> end here are some extracts of the questions, and we invite your response. >> >> In submitting your response, please do so by putting your name eg. >> >> Q. What is the tallest building? >> >> [Sala T] The tallest building is....... >> >> (This will help us consolidate the feedback. We can leave this open for 7 >> days to allow us to develop a draft response which will be put to the list >> for further comment.) >> >> 2. What do you think is the significance, purpose and scope of enhanced >> cooperation as per the Tunis Agenda? a) Significance b) Purpose c) Scope * >> >> >> >> 3. To what extent has or has not enhanced cooperation been implemented? >> Please use the space below to explain and to provide examples to support >> your answer. * >> >> >> >> 4. What are the relevant international public policy issues pertaining to >> the Internet? * >> >> >> 5. What are the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders, >> including governments, in implementation of the various aspects of enhanced >> cooperation? * >> >> >> 7. How can enhanced cooperation enable other stakeholders to carry out their >> roles and responsibilities? * >> >> 8. What are the most appropriate mechanisms to fully implement enhanced >> cooperation as recognized in the Tunis Agenda, including on international >> public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and public policy issues >> associated with coordination and management of critical Internet resources? >> * >> >> >> 9. What is the possible relationship between enhanced cooperation and the >> IGF? * >> >> >> 10. How can the role of developing countries be made more effective in >> global Internet governance? * >> >> >> 11. What barriers remain for all stakeholders to fully participate in their >> respective roles in global Internet governance? How can these barriers best >> be overcome? * >> >> >> 12. What actions are needed to promote effective participation of all >> marginalised people in the global information society? * >> >> >> 13. How can enhanced cooperation address key issues toward global, social >> and economic development? * >> >> >> 14. What is the role of various stakeholders in promoting the development of >> local language content? * >> >> 15. What are the international internet-related public policy issues that >> are of special relevance to developing countries? * >> >> 16. What are the key issues to be addressed to promote the affordability of >> the Internet, in particular in developing countries and least developed >> countries? * >> >> 17. What are the national capacities to be developed and modalities to be >> considered for national governments to develop Internet-related public >> policy with participation of all stakeholders? * >> >> 18. Are there other comments, or areas of concern, on enhanced cooperation >> you would like to submit? * >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>      http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 12 12:58:45 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 12:58:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND THE INTERNET In-Reply-To: <1376326392.63675.YahooMailNeo@web171304.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <128EAEB6-66C9-4B8A-9439-3C317B0525BA@gmail.com> <1376326392.63675.YahooMailNeo@web171304.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: "denied access to water just for a week simply because one man or a group of malicious individuals want it to be so"? Are you sure that this is the best example to be contrasted to Internet shortage? "Today we eat, drink and respire the Internet" We? As far as I am concerned, roughly 35% of the World have access to the Internet. 11% of the World does not have access to quality water (and WB is still working with some very ridiculous concepts that compute people who have access to a tap within a range of hundreds of yards or so from their homes). We could talk about food that we really eat. Or the quality of air that we really breathe in great part of the World. So I really think we should get things straight before overestimate the Internet that much. On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 12:53 PM, International Ivission < ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr> wrote: > Hi Enviado, > > In the past we have seen cases where dictators shut down the entire > network in their country during sensitive periods like elections!**** > This is a voluntary and malicious act that can be proven and the source > detected.**** > Be it DDoS or a total black out, the damage is beyond repairs and someone > should pay for it.**** > This does not exclude the fact that for some extreme cases, the Internet > could be frozen in a given time, but this again should be given a legal > backing either by ICANN, ITU etc. depending on who is who in the Internet > governance.**** > > > **** > Imagine that the city of Tehran or Kinshassa or New York or Hong Kong is > denied access to water just for a week simply because one man or a group of > malicious individuals want it to be so?**** > The number of incidents and casualties will not be different from genocide. > **** > Today we eat, drink and respire the Internet, and most of all, THE > INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE**** > ** ** > The question of the day should be?**** > ** ** > - What should we do to empower the infrastructures and > institutions in place to humanize the Internet and attribute a living and > healthy environment to it**** > - How can the concept of net neutrality and the freedom of the > Internet be protected?**** > - In the same way world leaders are struggling to combat climate > change by humanizing the Internet, we should be pondering on how to render > the Internet sustainable for the next generation of users. **** > ** ** > ** ** > > > *___________________________________ > **Asama Abel Excel > **President and CEO > *I-VISSION INTERNATIONAL > 3rd Floor immeuble Centre Médical de Bessengué > Box 13040 Blvd de la rep., Feu Rouge Bessengué > Douala Cameroon > E: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr / excelasama at yahoo.fr : > info at ivission.net > T (bur): +237 33 76 55 76 (Mob): 99 44 43 91 / 76 14 26 23 > Skype (office): i-vission (personal): excelasama > Web: www.ivission.net > Web album: www.flickr.com/ivission > Facebook: ivission.internationl > Twitter: www.twitter.com/ivission > NWK: www.meetup.com/ivission > > ------------------------------ > *De :* Diego Canabarro > *À :* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; > Suresh Ramasubramanian > *Cc :* International Ivission ; " > governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Salanieta > T. Tamanikaiwaimaro ; Tim McGinnis < > dogwallah at gmail.com> > *Envoyé le :* Lundi 12 août 2013 15h48 > *Objet :* Re: [governance] CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND THE INTERNET > > Also, is that the only means to acquire one of such goods or values? > Doesnt seem so. Crimes against humanity are heinous actions. Trying to > stretch that concept to encompass things which are not necessarily more > than ordinary inconvenience can either generate unnecessary spirals of > violence or put in dangerous the legitimacy of international law. > > It doesnt mean though that we should not discuss the eventual (and mere) > wrongfulness of blocking in specific cases. > > Enviado via iPhone > > Em Aug 12, 2013, às 9:18 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > escreveu: > > It is a more nuanced position than that. > > Block temporarily in case a machine is hacked and emitting ddos traffic? > > Block a spammer who sets up servers in a datacenter? > > I would hesitate to sign on to any statement that conflated all types of > blocking and human rights violations. > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "International Ivission" > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" , > "McTim" > Subject: [governance] CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND THE INTERNET > Date: Mon, Aug 12, 2013 6:30 PM > > > CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND THE INTERNET > > The notion of crime against humanity is more or less > associated with the shed of human blood, but when I deeply evaluated the > consequences that Internet blockages can provoke, I was convinced it’s > time to > redefine the notion of CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. > > The Internet is not just a tool to send and receive mails. > It transcends all the social sectors from; Health, Banking, Import/Export, > Education, Judiciary, defense etc. So > any one government, individual or group of individuals that chooses to > block > the Internet from its citizens will be causing an irreparable damage to > his own > people. > > Blocking the Internet in this age means stopping > citizens from doing business, from communicating, from getting good > education > and health services, from traveling, from defending their basic rights etc. > I want to believe that blocking > the Internet should be considered as crime against humanity. > > > ___________________________________ > Asama Abel Excel > President and CEO > I-VISSION INTERNATIONAL > 3rd Floor immeuble Centre Médical de Bessengué > Box 13040 Blvd de la rep., Feu Rouge Bessengué > Douala Cameroon > E: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr / excelasama at yahoo.fr : > info at ivission.net > T (bur): +237 33 76 55 76 (Mob): 99 44 43 91 / 76 14 26 23Skype > (office): i-vission (personal): excelasama Web: www.ivission.net > Web album: www.flickr.com/ivission > Facebook: ivission.internationl > Twitter: www.twitter.com/ivission > NWK: www.meetup.com/ivission > > > ________________________________ > De : McTim > À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > Envoyé le : Lundi 12 août 2013 14h38 > Objet : Re: [governance] WGEC - Questionnaire > > > Sala, > > Why are we submitting a reply as a group? > > Norbert said just a few hours ago that we should not. I quote his mail: > > "I think that it is the variety of responses that is > going to make this questionnaire exercise valuable; what would be the > benefit of civil society trying to agree on a single set of answers?" > > I think I agree with him on this one. > > -- > 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, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > The Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation in its recent questionnaire has > > invited public input. Individuals are free to provide your input > directly on > > the link that Joy kindly provided, see: > http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx > > There is something to be gained in filling it corporately as an IGC as it > > will enable us to see how others view and appreciate diverse perspectives > > although this has been subjected to rigorous debate in the past. I > believe > > though that we can collaborate and coordinate a response as an IGC. To > this > > end here are some extracts of the questions, and we invite your response. > > > > In submitting your response, please do so by putting your name eg. > > > > Q. What is the tallest building? > > > > [Sala T] The tallest building is....... > > > > (This will help us consolidate the feedback. We can leave this open for 7 > > days to allow us to develop a draft response which will be put to the > list > > for further comment.) > > > > 2. What do you think is the significance, purpose and scope of enhanced > > cooperation as per the Tunis Agenda? a) Significance b) Purpose c) Scope > * > > > > > > > > 3. To what extent has or has not enhanced cooperation been implemented? > > Please use the space below to explain and to provide examples to support > > your answer. * > > > > > > > > 4. What are the relevant international public policy issues pertaining to > > the Internet? * > > > > > > 5. What are the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders, > > including governments, in implementation of the various aspects of > enhanced > > cooperation? * > > > > > > 7. How can enhanced cooperation enable other stakeholders to carry out > their > > roles and responsibilities? * > > > > 8. What are the most appropriate mechanisms to fully implement enhanced > > cooperation as recognized in the Tunis Agenda, including on international > > public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and public policy issues > > associated with coordination and management of critical Internet > resources? > > * > > > > > > 9. What is the possible relationship between enhanced cooperation and the > > IGF? * > > > > > > 10. How can the role of developing countries be made more effective in > > global Internet governance? * > > > > > > 11. What barriers remain for all stakeholders to fully participate in > their > > respective roles in global Internet governance? How can these barriers > best > > be overcome? * > > > > > > 12. What actions are needed to promote effective participation of all > > marginalised people in the global information society? * > > > > > > 13. How can enhanced cooperation address key issues toward global, social > > and economic development? * > > > > > > 14. What is the role of various stakeholders in promoting the > development of > > local language content? * > > > > 15. What are the international internet-related public policy issues that > > are of special relevance to developing countries? * > > > > 16. What are the key issues to be addressed to promote the affordability > of > > the Internet, in particular in developing countries and least developed > > countries? * > > > > 17. What are the national capacities to be developed and modalities to be > > considered for national governments to develop Internet-related public > > policy with participation of all stakeholders? * > > > > 18. Are there other comments, or areas of concern, on enhanced > cooperation > > you would like to submit? * > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 suresh at hserus.net Mon Aug 12 13:39:36 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 23:09:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND THE INTERNET In-Reply-To: References: <128EAEB6-66C9-4B8A-9439-3C317B0525BA@gmail.com> <1376326392.63675.YahooMailNeo@web171304.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <567D508E-5D5F-4574-AC86-9ABD63EE7348@hserus.net> I think we can certainly make a strong enough argument against blocking the internet or specific websites solely for political / other censorship [distinct from security and antispam related filtering] without having to use an extreme analogy like human rights violations. And I agree with Diego that the Internet is not a basic and non negotiable need like food clothing and shelter, clean air etc. --srs (iPad) On 12-Aug-2013, at 22:28, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > "denied access to water just for a week simply because one man or a group of malicious individuals want it to be so"? > > Are you sure that this is the best example to be contrasted to Internet shortage? > > "Today we eat, drink and respire the Internet" > > We? > As far as I am concerned, roughly 35% of the World have access to the Internet. > > 11% of the World does not have access to quality water (and WB is still working with some very ridiculous concepts that compute people who have access to a tap within a range of hundreds of yards or so from their homes). We could talk about food that we really eat. Or the quality of air that we really breathe in great part of the World. So I really think we should get things straight before overestimate the Internet that much. > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 12:53 PM, International Ivission wrote: >> Hi Enviado, >> >> In the past we have seen cases where dictators shut down the entire network in their country during sensitive periods like elections! >> This is a voluntary and malicious act that can be proven and the source detected. >> Be it DDoS or a total black out, the damage is beyond repairs and someone should pay for it. >> This does not exclude the fact that for some extreme cases, the Internet could be frozen in a given time, but this again should be given a legal backing either by ICANN, ITU etc. depending on who is who in the Internet governance. >> >> >> Imagine that the city of Tehran or Kinshassa or New York or Hong Kong is denied access to water just for a week simply because one man or a group of malicious individuals want it to be so? >> The number of incidents and casualties will not be different from genocide. >> Today we eat, drink and respire the Internet, and most of all, THE INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE >> >> The question of the day should be? >> >> - What should we do to empower the infrastructures and institutions in place to humanize the Internet and attribute a living and healthy environment to it >> - How can the concept of net neutrality and the freedom of the Internet be protected? >> - In the same way world leaders are struggling to combat climate change by humanizing the Internet, we should be pondering on how to render the Internet sustainable for the next generation of users. >> >> >> >> >> ___________________________________ >> Asama Abel Excel >> President and CEO >> I-VISSION INTERNATIONAL >> 3rd Floor immeuble Centre Médical de Bessengué >> Box 13040 Blvd de la rep., Feu Rouge Bessengué >> Douala Cameroon >> E: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr / excelasama at yahoo.fr : info at ivission.net >> T (bur): +237 33 76 55 76 (Mob): 99 44 43 91 / 76 14 26 23 >> Skype (office): i-vission (personal): excelasama >> Web: www.ivission.net >> Web album: www.flickr.com/ivission >> Facebook: ivission.internationl >> Twitter: www.twitter.com/ivission >> NWK: www.meetup.com/ivission >> >> De : Diego Canabarro >> À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Suresh Ramasubramanian >> Cc : International Ivission ; "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro ; Tim McGinnis >> Envoyé le : Lundi 12 août 2013 15h48 >> Objet : Re: [governance] CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND THE INTERNET >> >> Also, is that the only means to acquire one of such goods or values? >> Doesnt seem so. Crimes against humanity are heinous actions. Trying to stretch that concept to encompass things which are not necessarily more than ordinary inconvenience can either generate unnecessary spirals of violence or put in dangerous the legitimacy of international law. >> >> It doesnt mean though that we should not discuss the eventual (and mere) wrongfulness of blocking in specific cases. >> >> Enviado via iPhone >> >> Em Aug 12, 2013, às 9:18 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" escreveu: >> >>> It is a more nuanced position than that. >>> >>> Block temporarily in case a machine is hacked and emitting ddos traffic? >>> >>> Block a spammer who sets up servers in a datacenter? >>> >>> I would hesitate to sign on to any statement that conflated all types of blocking and human rights violations. >>> >>> --srs (htc one x) >>> >>> >>> ----- Reply message ----- >>> From: "International Ivission" >>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" , "McTim" >>> Subject: [governance] CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND THE INTERNET >>> Date: Mon, Aug 12, 2013 6:30 PM >>> >>> >>> CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND THE INTERNET >>> >>> The notion of crime against humanity is more or less >>> associated with the shed of human blood, but when I deeply evaluated the >>> consequences that Internet blockages can provoke, I was convinced it’s time to >>> redefine the notion of CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. >>> >>> The Internet is not just a tool to send and receive mails. >>> It transcends all the social sectors from; Health, Banking, Import/Export, >>> Education, Judiciary, defense etc. So >>> any one government, individual or group of individuals that chooses to block >>> the Internet from its citizens will be causing an irreparable damage to his own >>> people. >>> >>> Blocking the Internet in this age means stopping >>> citizens from doing business, from communicating, from getting good education >>> and health services, from traveling, from defending their basic rights etc. >>> I want to believe that blocking >>> the Internet should be considered as crime against humanity. >>> >>> >>> ___________________________________ >>> Asama Abel Excel >>> President and CEO >>> I-VISSION INTERNATIONAL >>> 3rd Floor immeuble Centre Médical de Bessengué >>> Box 13040 Blvd de la rep., Feu Rouge Bessengué >>> Douala Cameroon >>> E: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr / excelasama at yahoo.fr : info at ivission.net >>> T (bur): +237 33 76 55 76 (Mob): 99 44 43 91 / 76 14 26 23Skype (office): i-vission (personal): excelasama Web: www.ivission.net >>> Web album: www.flickr.com/ivission >>> Facebook: ivission.internationl >>> Twitter: www.twitter.com/ivission >>> NWK: www.meetup.com/ivission >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> De : McTim >>> À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Envoyé le : Lundi 12 août 2013 14h38 >>> Objet : Re: [governance] WGEC - Questionnaire >>> >>> >>> Sala, >>> >>> Why are we submitting a reply as a group? >>> >>> Norbert said just a few hours ago that we should not. I quote his mail: >>> >>> "I think that it is the variety of responses that is >>> going to make this questionnaire exercise valuable; what would be the >>> benefit of civil society trying to agree on a single set of answers?" >>> >>> I think I agree with him on this one. >>> >>> -- >>> 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, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> wrote: >>> > Dear All, >>> > >>> > The Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation in its recent questionnaire has >>> > invited public input. Individuals are free to provide your input directly on >>> > the link that Joy kindly provided, see: http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx >>> > There is something to be gained in filling it corporately as an IGC as it >>> > will enable us to see how others view and appreciate diverse perspectives >>> > although this has been subjected to rigorous debate in the past. I believe >>> > though that we can collaborate and coordinate a response as an IGC. To this >>> > end here are some extracts of the questions, and we invite your response. >>> > >>> > In submitting your response, please do so by putting your name eg. >>> > >>> > Q. What is the tallest building? >>> > >>> > [Sala T] The tallest building is....... >>> > >>> > (This will help us consolidate the feedback. We can leave this open for 7 >>> > days to allow us to develop a draft response which will be put to the list >>> > for further comment.) >>> > >>> > 2. What do you think is the significance, purpose and scope of enhanced >>> > cooperation as per the Tunis Agenda? a) Significance b) Purpose c) Scope * >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 3. To what extent has or has not enhanced cooperation been implemented? >>> > Please use the space below to explain and to provide examples to support >>> > your answer. * >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 4. What are the relevant international public policy issues pertaining to >>> > the Internet? * >>> > >>> > >>> > 5. What are the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders, >>> > including governments, in implementation of the various aspects of enhanced >>> > cooperation? * >>> > >>> > >>> > 7. How can enhanced cooperation enable other stakeholders to carry out their >>> > roles and responsibilities? * >>> > >>> > 8. What are the most appropriate mechanisms to fully implement enhanced >>> > cooperation as recognized in the Tunis Agenda, including on international >>> > public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and public policy issues >>> > associated with coordination and management of critical Internet resources? >>> > * >>> > >>> > >>> > 9. What is the possible relationship between enhanced cooperation and the >>> > IGF? * >>> > >>> > >>> > 10. How can the role of developing countries be made more effective in >>> > global Internet governance? * >>> > >>> > >>> > 11. What barriers remain for all stakeholders to fully participate in their >>> > respective roles in global Internet governance? How can these barriers best >>> > be overcome? * >>> > >>> > >>> > 12. What actions are needed to promote effective participation of all >>> > marginalised people in the global information society? * >>> > >>> > >>> > 13. How can enhanced cooperation address key issues toward global, social >>> > and economic development? * >>> > >>> > >>> > 14. What is the role of various stakeholders in promoting the development of >>> > local language content? * >>> > >>> > 15. What are the international internet-related public policy issues that >>> > are of special relevance to developing countries? * >>> > >>> > 16. What are the key issues to be addressed to promote the affordability of >>> > the Internet, in particular in developing countries and least developed >>> > countries? * >>> > >>> > 17. What are the national capacities to be developed and modalities to be >>> > considered for national governments to develop Internet-related public >>> > policy with participation of all stakeholders? * >>> > >>> > 18. Are there other comments, or areas of concern, on enhanced cooperation >>> > you would like to submit? * >>> > >>> > -- >>> > 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 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> > >>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> > >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 nb at bollow.ch Mon Aug 12 14:15:50 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 20:15:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND THE INTERNET In-Reply-To: <567D508E-5D5F-4574-AC86-9ABD63EE7348@hserus.net> References: <128EAEB6-66C9-4B8A-9439-3C317B0525BA@gmail.com> <1376326392.63675.YahooMailNeo@web171304.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <567D508E-5D5F-4574-AC86-9ABD63EE7348@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130812201550.4f9822c9@quill> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I think we can certainly make a strong enough argument against > blocking the internet or specific websites solely for political / > other censorship [distinct from security and antispam related > filtering] without having to use an extreme analogy like human rights > violations. Arbitrarily interrupting communications (I am not talking about disconnecting a spam-spewing server or machines that have become part of a botnet, but about intentionally disrupting the ability of people to communicate with each other) *is* a human rights violation in its own right. I do agree though that some of the analogies that have been suggested are so extreme to be inappropriate. Let's not forget that there are people in the world today who suffer from actual crimes against humanity and other most severe forms of human rights violations compared to which any Internet-related issues that do not lead to actual physical violence are mere annoyances. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Mon Aug 12 14:20:16 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 14:20:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] WGEC - Questionnaire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Sala, The deadline for this questionnaire 15th August - unless they changed it and I didn't notice. I think the ISOC one is the end of the month. I agree with Norbert and McTim - I'm against the idea of submitting a "corporate" response - although being able to see a profile/overview within the list of the range of IGC members' replies might be helpful. I'm wondering how much our attempts to see ourselves as a "corporate entity" rather than simply as a useful discussion space is contributing to our current troubles? Deirdre On 12 August 2013 03:44, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > The Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation in its recent questionnaire has > invited public input. Individuals are free to provide your input directly > on the link that Joy kindly provided, see: > http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx > There is something to be gained in filling it corporately as an IGC as it > will enable us to see how others view and appreciate diverse perspectives > although this has been subjected to rigorous debate in the past. I believe > though that we can collaborate and coordinate a response as an IGC. To this > end here are some extracts of the questions, and we invite your response. > > In submitting your response, please do so by putting your name eg. > > Q. What is the tallest building? > > [Sala T] The tallest building is....... > > (This will help us consolidate the feedback. We can leave this open for 7 > days to allow us to develop a draft response which will be put to the list > for further comment.) > > 2. What do you think is the significance, purpose and scope of enhanced > cooperation as per the Tunis Agenda? a) Significance b) Purpose c) Scope * > * > * > * > * > * > * > 3. To what extent has or has not enhanced cooperation been implemented? > Please use the space below to explain and to provide examples to support > your answer. * > > > * > * > 4. What are the relevant international public policy issues pertaining to > the Internet? * > * > * > * > * > 5. What are the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders, > including governments, in implementation of the various aspects of enhanced > cooperation? * > * > * > * > * > 7. How can enhanced cooperation enable other stakeholders to carry out > their roles and responsibilities? * > > 8. What are the most appropriate mechanisms to fully implement enhanced > cooperation as recognized in the Tunis Agenda, including on international > public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and public policy issues > associated with coordination and management of critical Internet resources? > * > > > 9. What is the possible relationship between enhanced cooperation and the > IGF? * > > > 10. How can the role of developing countries be made more effective in > global Internet governance? * > > > 11. What barriers remain for all stakeholders to fully participate in > their respective roles in global Internet governance? How can these > barriers best be overcome? * > > > 12. What actions are needed to promote effective participation of all > marginalised people in the global information society? * > > > 13. How can enhanced cooperation address key issues toward global, > social and economic development? * > > > 14. What is the role of various stakeholders in promoting the > development of local language content? * > > 15. What are the international internet-related public policy issues > that are of special relevance to developing countries? * > > 16. What are the key issues to be addressed to promote the affordability > of the Internet, in particular in developing countries and least developed > countries? * > > 17. What are the national capacities to be developed and modalities to > be considered for national governments to develop Internet-related public > policy with participation of all stakeholders? * > > 18. Are there other comments, or areas of concern, on enhanced > cooperation you would like to submit? * > > -- > 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Aug 12 19:08:09 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 01:08:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND THE INTERNET In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Aug 12 19:46:20 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 11:46:20 +1200 Subject: [governance] WGEC - Questionnaire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8033B37B-618F-45EF-9F85-A4976FAE4A07@gmail.com> Sent from my iPad On Aug 13, 2013, at 6:20 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Hi Sala, > The deadline for this questionnaire 15th August - unless they changed it and I didn't notice. I think the ISOC one is the end of the month. The Deadline is on the 31 August, 2013. > I agree with Norbert and McTim - I'm against the idea of submitting a "corporate" response - although being able to see a profile/overview within the list of the range of IGC members' replies might be helpful. Your view is noted. An attempt still has to be made by us to solicit a corporate response, how that pans out is a corporate responsibility. We merely are there to assist in facilitating a joint response. > I'm wondering how much our attempts to see ourselves as a "corporate entity" rather than simply as a useful discussion space is contributing to our current troubles? Our boundaries of activities exude beyond the confines of a discussion space. > Deirdre > > > On 12 August 2013 03:44, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> The Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation in its recent questionnaire has invited public input. Individuals are free to provide your input directly on the link that Joy kindly provided, see: http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx >> There is something to be gained in filling it corporately as an IGC as it will enable us to see how others view and appreciate diverse perspectives although this has been subjected to rigorous debate in the past. I believe though that we can collaborate and coordinate a response as an IGC. To this end here are some extracts of the questions, and we invite your response. >> >> In submitting your response, please do so by putting your name eg. >> >> Q. What is the tallest building? >> >> [Sala T] The tallest building is....... >> >> (This will help us consolidate the feedback. We can leave this open for 7 days to allow us to develop a draft response which will be put to the list for further comment.) >> >> 2. What do you think is the significance, purpose and scope of enhanced cooperation as per the Tunis Agenda? a) Significance b) Purpose c) Scope * >> >> >> >> 3. To what extent has or has not enhanced cooperation been implemented? Please use the space below to explain and to provide examples to support your answer. * >> >> >> >> 4. What are the relevant international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet? * >> >> >> 5. What are the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders, including governments, in implementation of the various aspects of enhanced cooperation? * >> >> >> 7. How can enhanced cooperation enable other stakeholders to carry out their roles and responsibilities? * >> >> 8. What are the most appropriate mechanisms to fully implement enhanced cooperation as recognized in the Tunis Agenda, including on international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and public policy issues associated with coordination and management of critical Internet resources? * >> >> >> 9. What is the possible relationship between enhanced cooperation and the IGF? * >> >> >> 10. How can the role of developing countries be made more effective in global Internet governance? * >> >> >> 11. What barriers remain for all stakeholders to fully participate in their respective roles in global Internet governance? How can these barriers best be overcome? * >> >> >> 12. What actions are needed to promote effective participation of all marginalised people in the global information society? * >> >> >> 13. How can enhanced cooperation address key issues toward global, social and economic development? * >> >> >> 14. What is the role of various stakeholders in promoting the development of local language content? * >> >> 15. What are the international internet-related public policy issues that are of special relevance to developing countries? * >> >> 16. What are the key issues to be addressed to promote the affordability of the Internet, in particular in developing countries and least developed countries? * >> >> 17. What are the national capacities to be developed and modalities to be considered for national governments to develop Internet-related public policy with participation of all stakeholders? * >> >> 18. Are there other comments, or areas of concern, on enhanced cooperation you would like to submit? * >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 avri at acm.org Mon Aug 12 20:05:37 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 20:05:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] WGEC - Questionnaire In-Reply-To: <8033B37B-618F-45EF-9F85-A4976FAE4A07@gmail.com> References: <8033B37B-618F-45EF-9F85-A4976FAE4A07@gmail.com> Message-ID: <124F0FED-C25C-4BE6-8EEC-055FB45149AD@acm.org> On 12 Aug 2013, at 19:46, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Your view is noted. An attempt still has to be made by us to solicit a corporate response, how that pans out is a corporate responsibility. We merely are there to assist in facilitating a joint response. As a member of the WGEC, I must say the more comments the WGEC receives, the better. I beleive that for the most part the WGEC will be guided by the comments we receive in our onward process. If the participants in the IGC could cooperate sufficiently to produce a consensus set of answers on enhanced cooperation, I would be thrilled. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Aug 12 20:10:27 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:10:27 +1200 Subject: [governance] WGEC - Questionnaire In-Reply-To: <124F0FED-C25C-4BE6-8EEC-055FB45149AD@acm.org> References: <8033B37B-618F-45EF-9F85-A4976FAE4A07@gmail.com> <124F0FED-C25C-4BE6-8EEC-055FB45149AD@acm.org> Message-ID: On Aug 13, 2013, at 12:05 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 12 Aug 2013, at 19:46, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> >> Your view is noted. An attempt still has to be made by us to solicit a corporate response, how that pans out is a corporate responsibility. We merely are there to assist in facilitating a joint response. > > > As a member of the WGEC, I must say the more comments the WGEC receives, the better. I beleive that for the most part the WGEC will be guided by the comments we receive in our onward process. > > If the participants in the IGC could cooperate sufficiently to produce a consensus set of answers on enhanced cooperation, I would be thrilled. > > avri > > I wholeheartedly agree with Avri and would encourage at least an attempt in attempting discussions and a consensus input on enhanced cooperation. Our diversity despite our differences is a strength and an opportunity rather than a threat. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Aug 12 20:19:13 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 08:19:13 +0800 Subject: [governance] WGEC - Questionnaire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <85C7FD7C-49AD-44F2-96D3-AC0312DE3296@ciroap.org> In case the IGC doesn't end up doing a corporate response but some members would like to, just to note that Best Bits has been working on one over the last couple of weeks so you could join that process instead (the drafting group is civil society only so contact me if you are interested to join). We have a draft already but discussion is ongoing. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. On 13 Aug, 2013, at 2:20 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Hi Sala, > The deadline for this questionnaire 15th August - unless they changed it and I didn't notice. I think the ISOC one is the end of the month. > I agree with Norbert and McTim - I'm against the idea of submitting a "corporate" response - although being able to see a profile/overview within the list of the range of IGC members' replies might be helpful. > I'm wondering how much our attempts to see ourselves as a "corporate entity" rather than simply as a useful discussion space is contributing to our current troubles? > Deirdre > > > On 12 August 2013 03:44, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> The Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation in its recent questionnaire has invited public input. Individuals are free to provide your input directly on the link that Joy kindly provided, see: http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx >> There is something to be gained in filling it corporately as an IGC as it will enable us to see how others view and appreciate diverse perspectives although this has been subjected to rigorous debate in the past. I believe though that we can collaborate and coordinate a response as an IGC. To this end here are some extracts of the questions, and we invite your response. >> >> In submitting your response, please do so by putting your name eg. >> >> Q. What is the tallest building? >> >> [Sala T] The tallest building is....... >> >> (This will help us consolidate the feedback. We can leave this open for 7 days to allow us to develop a draft response which will be put to the list for further comment.) >> >> 2. What do you think is the significance, purpose and scope of enhanced cooperation as per the Tunis Agenda? a) Significance b) Purpose c) Scope * >> >> >> >> 3. To what extent has or has not enhanced cooperation been implemented? Please use the space below to explain and to provide examples to support your answer. * >> >> >> >> 4. What are the relevant international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet? * >> >> >> 5. What are the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders, including governments, in implementation of the various aspects of enhanced cooperation? * >> >> >> 7. How can enhanced cooperation enable other stakeholders to carry out their roles and responsibilities? * >> >> 8. What are the most appropriate mechanisms to fully implement enhanced cooperation as recognized in the Tunis Agenda, including on international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and public policy issues associated with coordination and management of critical Internet resources? * >> >> >> 9. What is the possible relationship between enhanced cooperation and the IGF? * >> >> >> 10. How can the role of developing countries be made more effective in global Internet governance? * >> >> >> 11. What barriers remain for all stakeholders to fully participate in their respective roles in global Internet governance? How can these barriers best be overcome? * >> >> >> 12. What actions are needed to promote effective participation of all marginalised people in the global information society? * >> >> >> 13. How can enhanced cooperation address key issues toward global, social and economic development? * >> >> >> 14. What is the role of various stakeholders in promoting the development of local language content? * >> >> 15. What are the international internet-related public policy issues that are of special relevance to developing countries? * >> >> 16. What are the key issues to be addressed to promote the affordability of the Internet, in particular in developing countries and least developed countries? * >> >> 17. What are the national capacities to be developed and modalities to be considered for national governments to develop Internet-related public policy with participation of all stakeholders? * >> >> 18. Are there other comments, or areas of concern, on enhanced cooperation you would like to submit? * >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 6139 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Aug 12 20:40:49 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 12:40:49 +1200 Subject: [governance] WGEC - Questionnaire In-Reply-To: <85C7FD7C-49AD-44F2-96D3-AC0312DE3296@ciroap.org> References: <85C7FD7C-49AD-44F2-96D3-AC0312DE3296@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On Aug 13, 2013, at 12:19 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > In case the IGC doesn't end up doing a corporate response but some members would like to, just to note that Best Bits has been working on one over the last couple of weeks so you could join that process instead (the drafting group is civil society only so contact me if you are interested to join). We have a draft already but discussion is ongoing. > Thanks Jeremy. > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek > host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > > On 13 Aug, 2013, at 2:20 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >> Hi Sala, >> The deadline for this questionnaire 15th August - unless they changed it and I didn't notice. I think the ISOC one is the end of the month. >> I agree with Norbert and McTim - I'm against the idea of submitting a "corporate" response - although being able to see a profile/overview within the list of the range of IGC members' replies might be helpful. >> I'm wondering how much our attempts to see ourselves as a "corporate entity" rather than simply as a useful discussion space is contributing to our current troubles? >> Deirdre >> >> >> On 12 August 2013 03:44, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> Dear All, >>> >>> The Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation in its recent questionnaire has invited public input. Individuals are free to provide your input directly on the link that Joy kindly provided, see: http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx >>> There is something to be gained in filling it corporately as an IGC as it will enable us to see how others view and appreciate diverse perspectives although this has been subjected to rigorous debate in the past. I believe though that we can collaborate and coordinate a response as an IGC. To this end here are some extracts of the questions, and we invite your response. >>> >>> In submitting your response, please do so by putting your name eg. >>> >>> Q. What is the tallest building? >>> >>> [Sala T] The tallest building is....... >>> >>> (This will help us consolidate the feedback. We can leave this open for 7 days to allow us to develop a draft response which will be put to the list for further comment.) >>> >>> 2. What do you think is the significance, purpose and scope of enhanced cooperation as per the Tunis Agenda? a) Significance b) Purpose c) Scope * >>> >>> >>> >>> 3. To what extent has or has not enhanced cooperation been implemented? Please use the space below to explain and to provide examples to support your answer. * >>> >>> >>> >>> 4. What are the relevant international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet? * >>> >>> >>> 5. What are the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders, including governments, in implementation of the various aspects of enhanced cooperation? * >>> >>> >>> 7. How can enhanced cooperation enable other stakeholders to carry out their roles and responsibilities? * >>> >>> 8. What are the most appropriate mechanisms to fully implement enhanced cooperation as recognized in the Tunis Agenda, including on international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and public policy issues associated with coordination and management of critical Internet resources? * >>> >>> >>> 9. What is the possible relationship between enhanced cooperation and the IGF? * >>> >>> >>> 10. How can the role of developing countries be made more effective in global Internet governance? * >>> >>> >>> 11. What barriers remain for all stakeholders to fully participate in their respective roles in global Internet governance? How can these barriers best be overcome? * >>> >>> >>> 12. What actions are needed to promote effective participation of all marginalised people in the global information society? * >>> >>> >>> 13. How can enhanced cooperation address key issues toward global, social and economic development? * >>> >>> >>> 14. What is the role of various stakeholders in promoting the development of local language content? * >>> >>> 15. What are the international internet-related public policy issues that are of special relevance to developing countries? * >>> >>> 16. What are the key issues to be addressed to promote the affordability of the Internet, in particular in developing countries and least developed countries? * >>> >>> 17. What are the national capacities to be developed and modalities to be considered for national governments to develop Internet-related public policy with participation of all stakeholders? * >>> >>> 18. Are there other comments, or areas of concern, on enhanced cooperation you would like to submit? * >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Tue Aug 13 22:31:11 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 04:31:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] WGEC - Questionnaire In-Reply-To: <8033B37B-618F-45EF-9F85-A4976FAE4A07@gmail.com> References: <8033B37B-618F-45EF-9F85-A4976FAE4A07@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 01:46 13/08/2013, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro said: >>I agree with Norbert and McTim - I'm against the idea of >>submitting a "corporate" response - although being able to see a >>profile/overview within the list of the range of IGC members' >>replies might be helpful. > >Your view is noted. An attempt still has to be made by us to solicit >a corporate response, how that pans out is a corporate >responsibility. We merely are there to assist in facilitating a joint response. I suggest that corporate responses would be an interesting contribution in a slightly different form. To describe and document what enhanced cooperation is from the civil society point of view, and document the current existing projects from this civil point of view. 1. When you consider what the "OpenStand" RFC 6852 actually is, this is the charter of a private sector led enhanced cooperation concerning the Internet architecture. My successive appeals to the IESG, IAB, and ISOC are – along with the rules of that enhanced cooperation – a way to make it answer how it intends to pragmatically cooperate with the other signatories, governments, other international organizations, and civil society. 2. While dealing with their chairs, my position is simple enough. It consists in considering that "OpenStand" (the paradigm for them to discuss and document standards) is to be completed by way of an OpenUse attitude (the way for us to discuss and document our user requirements). All of this is certainly NOT a supposed technical and academic concern (as in the questionnaire). It is a civil approach of the common human society from a simple digital thinking point of view (that may only initially be still more common among involved technical and academic people), where we need the enhanced help and cooperation of OpenStand, the ITU, and the UN. 3. Another example of enhanced cooperation is the management of the DNS CLASS "IN" ("ICANN/NTIA") by ICANN with the GAC the @LARGEs ALAC, and its membership in ISO/SG32 (for the maintenance of ISO 3166).. Regards jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Aug 14 00:09:06 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 09:39:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <520AF6D8.50709@ciroap.org> References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> <20130813183514.0d8c8b97@quill> <6ACCFAD3-3FB9-416B-99FB-4772DDB4E71F@ciroap.org> <20130813184448.5983a1be@quill> <520AF6D8.50709@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <520B02E2.6050205@itforchange.net> in addition to the below issues, we still do not know what the form of the high level meeting is. Is it a real round table kind of forum where people get an opportunity to wiegh in substantially or just a 'mix and make connections' thing which corporates types may still love to do but not many civil society kinds may to be too eager about. Also, is their any drafting process for the likely statement to come out of the HLM. That is crucial. And, the IGF or non IGF status of the meeting? I had asked for these clarifications on the IGC list from a civil society member of the MAG, and await them. My understanding is that initially is was a kind of a 'formal thing without real substance', which was to attract high level participation from governments, esp ministrial level. Kind of peoople who do not come over just to sit in the audience at the IGF. And when ministers come, their retinue of senior officials also come along, and that was supposed to fill in a (really) missing gap at the IG, especially in terms of governmental participation from developing countires. I will be cautious to see this meeting take a character and big role for itself, which could compromise the relatively participative nature of the IGF. Especially of concern is the declaration that comes from this meeting, which at present is the only real 'consumable' doc coming out the IGF environment. So, maybe civil socity may want to think around these issues as well. parminder On Wednesday 14 August 2013 08:47 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 14/08/13 00:44, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> How about setting up a joint NomCom by inviting members of all the >>>> various civil society organizations and networks to volunteer for >>>> the NomCom... >>> It is a very good plan for the future, but not something that could >>> be accomplished easily in two weeks. >> Where does that “two weeks” timeline come from? > > Actually you're quite right, I'm mixing up the deadline for the CSTD > enhanced cooperation questionnaire (which is in two weeks) with the > (yet unspecified, but Izumi is finding out) deadline for nominating > panelists to the High Level Meeting. So maybe we have longer, but > surely not much longer. > > Establishing (or re-establishing - we had one in WSIS) a high-level > mechanism for civil society groups to jointly nominate candidates for > positions is very important, I couldn't agree with you more. But it's > also ambitious. > > Noting that thanks to your leadership the IGC has a workshop relevant > to this topic planned for Bali ("MS selection processes: > accountability and transparency"), it would be better, I feel, to come > up with a proposal and present it at that workshop. I wouldn't want > to rush it on account of what is probably a minimally important > pre-event in Bali. > > However, if you disagree then by all means put your idea to the IGC > then I can put it to the Best Bits interim steering group and we can > reach out to the other relevant groups and networks too. If it were me > though, I would rather wait. > > -- > > *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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge > hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Wed Aug 14 01:35:15 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 07:35:15 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <520B02E2.6050205@itforchange.net> References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> <20130813183514.0d8c8b97@quill> <6ACCFAD3-3FB9-416B-99FB-4772DDB4E71F@ciroap.org> <20130813184448.5983a1be@quill> <520AF6D8.50709@ciroap.org> <520B02E2.6050205@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1210491507.507.1376458515395.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e10> +1for Parminder's comments and questions Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 14/08/13 06:10 > De : "parminder" > A : bestbits at lists.bestbits.net, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" > > > in addition to the below issues, we still do not know what the form of the high level meeting is. Is it a real round table kind of forum where people get an opportunity to wiegh in substantially or just a 'mix and make connections' thing which corporates types may still love to do but not many civil society kinds may to be too eager about. > > Also, is their any drafting process for the likely statement to come out of the HLM. That is crucial. > > And, the IGF or non IGF status of the meeting? > > I had asked for these clarifications on the IGC list from a civil society member of the MAG, and await them. > > My understanding is that initially is was a kind of a 'formal thing without real substance', which was to attract high level participation from governments, esp ministrial level. Kind of peoople who do not come over just to sit in the audience at the IGF. And when ministers come, their retinue of senior officials also come along, and that was supposed to fill in a (really) missing gap at the IG, especially in terms of governmental participation from developing countires. I will be cautious to see this meeting take a character and big role for itself, which could compromise the relatively participative nature of the IGF. Especially of concern is the declaration that comes from this meeting, which at present is the only real 'consumable' doc coming out the IGF environment. So, maybe civil socity may want to think around these issues as well. > > parminder > > > On Wednesday 14 August 2013 08:47 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >On 14/08/13 00:44, Norbert Bollow wrote: >Jeremy Malcolm wrote: How about setting up a joint NomCom by inviting members of all the various civil society organizations and networks to volunteer for the NomCom... It is a very good plan for the future, but not something that could be accomplished easily in two weeks. Where does that “two weeks” timeline come from? > Actually you're quite right, I'm mixing up the deadline for the CSTD enhanced cooperation questionnaire (which is in two weeks) with the (yet unspecified, but Izumi is finding out) deadline for nominating panelists to the High Level Meeting. So maybe we have longer, but surely not much longer. > > Establishing (or re-establishing - we had one in WSIS) a high-level mechanism for civil society groups to jointly nominate candidates for positions is very important, I couldn't agree with you more. But it's also ambitious. > > Noting that thanks to your leadership the IGC has a workshop relevant to this topic planned for Bali ("MS selection processes: accountability and transparency"), it would be better, I feel, to come up with a proposal and present it at that workshop. I wouldn't want to rush it on account of what is probably a minimally important pre-event in Bali. > > However, if you disagree then by all means put your idea to the IGC then I can put it to the Best Bits interim steering group and we can reach out to the other relevant groups and networks too. If it were me though, I would rather wait. > > -- > 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 1599Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone at Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternationalRead our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Aug 14 05:49:05 2013 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:49:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: <52088579.8020605@itforchange.net> References: <52088579.8020605@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, You will excuse me, but I do not intend to engage in a long exchange on this. I have said what I felt. I think it is time to move forward and not waste people's time that could be devoted to something more useful. One can survive with egos bruised. It's a proof of moral strength and willingness to work for the common good. Your response below however seems to imply you have little desire to help calm things down, let alone recognize when your attitude may hurt others. If you are looking for a confrontation, I regret it but will not be the sparring partner you are looking for. Flame wars are not my cup of tea. Besides, I am now on well deserved holidays and intend to enjoy them. We will have other opportunities to address this in person in the coming months, if the grudge persists after a few weeks. For now, I wish you and the list a very happy month of August and a good preparation of what awaits us in September. Best as always Bertrand On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:49 AM, parminder wrote: > Bertrand, > > Pl see inline. > > On Friday 09 August 2013 06:46 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > Parminder, > > I have stopped posting on this list for a quite some time now for > exactly the reasons that Avri has mentioned. And as one of the people who > were at the origin of the creation of this very list and caucus to empower > civil society, I am extremely saddened by the way it is currently evolving > and indeed becoming irrelevant. > > I nonetheless feel compelled to react to the most recent exchange. You > wrote: "*Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist > people's words in order to score political points*"". > > I would like to differ. "*You tend to twist people's words in order to > score political points*" is NOT an ad hominem attack (see Wikipedia) > because it does not use your behavior to weaken a specific argument of > yours. It is rather a judgement about your behavior, about whether you > display (or not) the necessary fairness in representing somebody else's > position. > > To illustrate the point: An ad hominem attack, would be for instance: > "This person is usually lying, hence, when they (really) say A, this must > not be true". However, if someone says A and another person says: "this > person said B and therefore this person is wrong and should be condemned", > this IS twisting people's words. In this case, you are basically saying: > Anriette did not explicitly denounce something, therefore she supports it. > This is putting words in somebody else's mouth. > > To be frank, I understand the tactic of discarding as an ad hominem > attack a judgment about your behavior to avoid having to respond to it or > ask yourself whether it is true. But it would be more credible if you did > not yourself frequently attribute ulterior motives to other people's > comments just because of their alleged political preferences, ties to > certain types of actors (for instance business), geographical origin, lack > of civil society purity, etc... > > This behavior is harming the civility of discourse on this list and > actually weakening its influence in the global debate. > > I always respect your expressing positions, even when I disagree with > them and engage in debates with you. But I resent your becoming one of > the main sources of ad hominem attack on this list. > > > > I have many things to say about your email, but for the present, would you > be so good as to provide instances to substantiate your above sweeping > statement(s). You have made some serious allegations against a civil > society colleague with whom you have worked for around 8 years now. I > sincerely hope you would not shrink from standing your ground on this, and > not slip away. > > > > There are moments when one must call a spade a spade. > > > Quite true. In fact I am considering availing some such moments presently. > Although this current 'controversy' really arose from an incident of > calling a spade a spade, however mildly - a spade that laid in full view of > the list members, in the text of emails exchanged on the list. > > regards > > parminder > > > > I wish the co-coordinators of this list had called your attitude to > accountability earlier, for the sake of a sound debate. > > This is below you. You have more to contribute. > > Respectfully still. Bertrand > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:37 AM, parminder wrote: > >> >> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> On 31 Jul 2013, at 09:33, parminder wrote: >>> >>> ad hominem comment >>>> >>> (to misquote an old IETF adage - comments made wearing asbestos - >>> i tried to ignore this the first time hoping it would just go away and >>> we could all get back to rational calm conversations) >>> >>> an ad hominem attack would be an attack that: because someone is a >>> bully, their views are illegitimate/irrelevant. >>> It does not include the content of calling a bully a bully. >>> >>> I am not sure I have ever heard an ad hominem attack on this list. >>> >> >> Then you are not quite right in your understanding of what is ad >> hominem. Literally, attack against man, it occurs when, in a discussion, >> someone attacks a person's character or personal traits, instead of, and >> with a view to undermine, her/ his argument. You are making a specious >> distinction above that does not hold. In middle of a discussion, personal >> attacks are almost always made - certainly in conditions like of this list, >> where people otherwise have little or no offline relationship and thus no >> particular reason for animosity - with a view to undermine that person's >> argument. >> >> On the other hand there is indeed some difference between just an >> allegation and an ad hominem attack. >> >> Saying something like , to stick to present case of Anriette's email to >> me, 'you are twisting my words' is an allegation. (Allegations themselves >> could become quite serious, like you are deceiving, lying, cheating etc, >> whereby they may be tending towards ad hominem.) >> >> , Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to twist people's >> words in order to score political points". That is attacking someone in >> terms of ones character and personal traits, and as in this case, obviously >> to distract from the argument made - which in this case what that Anriette >> seemed to see nothing wrong or new with the Indonesian document, which I >> said was problematic to me for a CS rep on the MAG to say, which is just my >> view. Nothing personal here. >> >> >> For example a comment one might hear: X is a terrible bully, but >>> sometimes, if you can get past the bullying, X makes a lot of sense. >>> Another comment one might hear: I think I agree with what X is saying, >>> but X is such a bully I am afraid that if I put my agreement in the wrong >>> way I will get beat up for it. >>> >>> One could also say, I agree with a lot of what CX says, but X is just so >>> mean. >>> >>> (I have versions of all of these about certain unnamed IGC participants) >>> >>> Those you accuse of ad hominem attacks against you, are among the >>> greatest defenders off-list of some of the positions you represent. >>> Many of us disagree with you but would never dare say so on the list for >>> fear of starting a flame war. >>> Many of the rest of us just try to hunker down and wait for the storm to >>> pass. >>> >> >> BTW, it is ad hominen whether the attack on one's character is made >> directly or rather more subtly. Your above statements themselves tends >> towards such an ad hominem attack, and you have very often said such things >> about me. And I claim you say it to undermine my arguments rather than >> anything else. However, I would give you an opportunity to disprove my >> claim. And I hope you will take this challenge. Please point out the >> precise language in the current exchange over the last few days that you >> find problematic in my emails, that is something other than a critique of >> someone's views, that I have a right to make, and rather of the nature of a >> personal attack. Please just give even one example. You may even go back >> further to earlier emails, becuase from the above it appears you are a very >> good record keeping and retrieval methods. Ok, I promise, I will not argue >> with the example/ instance you provide, I wont even respond, I just want >> it to out for everyone to see, rather that your be subject to your >> insinuations. >> >> >> Someone/everyone, please stop the venom. >>> It has rendered the IGC nearly irrelevant. >>> >> >> I have a different theory of what has rendered IGC irrelevant, which I >> am ready to enter a discussion about. >> >> When the IGC is discussed, pretty much the main content is the >>> outrageousness of a few individuals. >>> >> >> Certainly, I do often express strong feelings on some views - not >> people, never - that I feel strongly about. (And the fact is that there >> enough degree of difference in views on this list that at times one side >> and at other times the other side will feel strongly about things.) But, >> never against any person as such, unlike what I am almost regularly >> subjected to. Again, I am open to be given an instance to prove my >> statement wrong. As for personal attacks on me, apart from Anriette's >> email, even your reference above of not responding to me with the fear of >> starting a flame war is such an attack, although a somewhat lighter one, >> given the normal standards. >> >> (Another thing - yes, I have a structural critique of the role and >> positions of a good part of civil society involved in IG space - often >> dominant in its expression - and its support for certain power structures, >> which I do often voice, which I understand may not go well with some >> people. But I always voice it in a collective structural manner and never >> directed at an individual, or even a set f them. This is the view I have - >> and I consider it very important in the current global circumstances - and >> I cannot desist from offering when the occasion so demands.) >> >> >> The words of a few serving to delegitimize the efforts of many. >>> >> >> Well, that, who are 'few' and who 'many' itself needs to examined.... >> That is always the million dollar democratic question! >> >> parminder >> >> >> please stop >>> >>> Note to coordinators. I would never quit IGC, but sometimes I beleive >>> being kicked of the list would bring great relief. >>> I have heard others say similar things. >>> >>> And now back to hunkering down hoping the storm will pass. >>> >>> 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 >> >> > > > -- > ____________________ > 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") > > > -- ____________________ 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Wed Aug 14 06:31:35 2013 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 12:31:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: References: <91EDBFFE-1228-4ECA-AAFC-C448E873D8CF@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Daniel, Glad to see a post of yours. Long time no see. Comments inline on your useful and argumented post: On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Daniel Pimienta wrote: > > First of all, the process of slow deterioration of the good spirit is NOT > the product of one person expression but the result of an interaction with > other person’s expression and I do not think I have to offer names, if your > memory of the co-co's actions is neat. > Agreed. The blame is shared. I never put it on one person, just reacted in one specific instance. > > Second, and much more important, what is at stake behind this situation is > NOT a mere question of people style; in the background, there is a profound > issue of the role of civil society in Internet Governance. > Agreed too and well put. This is a useful reframing to move forward in this discussion. See below. > > I consider myself that a good provision of "constructive provocation" is > an intrinsic part of my civil society role You use yourself the expression "constructive provocation" and I am completely in agreement with you in that regard. Because the expression covers our respective concerns: your fear of anesthesia (the need for provocation) and my mourning of respectful engagement. Boy, do I like a good controversy: it is the only way to have all sides of an issue, to think deeply, to be forced to reevaluate your own assumptions and prejudices, to potentially reframe a debate (as we are doing here) and move towards a solution. This is what Parliaments were established for: light through debate. But how controversy unfolds and how people behave is what makes the provocation "constructive" - or not. Judging arguments by their own merit and not in relation to who emits them; fighting courageously for what one thinks is right and true until one convinces others - but also accepting to be convinced in return by better arguments; not being afraid to stand up when in the minority but accepting ultimate consensus even against oneself; feeling free to criticize the actions of others but on the basis of fact and not allegations; this is the core of the participatory democratic spirit. It is in my view indissociable from the multi-stakeholder approach the way I see it. > and I have been worried for years in this forum to perceive a clear trend > of anesthesia of the discourse of civil society, for the sake of allowing > multistakeholderism to perform smoothly. I have been (and I am still) > quite worried that this trend will not transform us (organized civil > society) in the unwilling accomplices of many bad actions performed in our > field. > I understand your feeling but it actually connects with the role of this list as opposed to more advocacy ones. The IGC Charter says: *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.* The value of this list has always resided in the diversity of its members. This means that by definition, positions are different and statements are more nuanced than those that can be developed by very focused and like-minded smaller groups. The IGC is a place to expose people to ideas that they would not hear otherwise, a place for debate on substance, even without conclusion. It is not only where statements are drafted, but also a great place to share statements drafted elsewhere, to invite people to subscribe to them. "*Coordination of advocacy*" does not mean that all civil society advocacy should come from the IGC. There is no such thing as THE position of civil society. We are diverse - and should remain so. If statements seems too neutral, it is not because of timidity or the desire to placate the powers that be, but because the group is large and diverse. And to be frank, a lot of people on the list have probably accepted IGC public positions that are stronger than their personal views. > It is enough to see the sweetness of the IGF statements in situation like > PRISM, compared to other groups, to assess this point. > > The main reason I am more a lurker than a contributor in this forum is to > be found there (and not in the fact that some discussion get heated). The > main reason why Funredes has resigned recently from APC membership (without > loosing respect and good relationships) is also to be found here (my > analysis is that the price to pay in silencing and smoothing our critics > has gotten too high). > > Is it not a risky game to accept to be so polite that we loose our soul; > shall we resist to such level of politeness? I tend to answer yes at the > light of the evolution of the Internet. > > What is at stake here and the fractures which are underlying are not > details of Internet history and too much naivety may turned to become a > crime against virtual humanity; the role of ICANN, the need to see the > historical grab of US in Internet governance evolve, the appropriate > balance of security and privacy, the implication of the dominant economical > model that –mainly- Google has imposed based uniquely in advertisements and > the terrible consequences in our privacy and comfort which are hardly > evocated here, the difficulty of the requirements on multilingualism to get > accepted in spite of a more accommodating discourse... > > When in last IGF meeting, in Baku, I felt the role of civil society was > starting to blur and I got quite worried to see ICANN implementing a > totally artificial (and super expensive) economical model for domain names > and the appearing passivity of my civil society colleagues. Our proactivity > and capacity to resist seemed to have decline so much. > > As a mental reaction, I develop a cartoon in my mind that I resisted to > share at that time (in order to keep polite and avoid embarrassing my civil > society colleagues) but I will now as a reaction against the attempt to > definitively shut up provocation. > > I will, not only for this episode of apparent consensus against one of the > more provocative civil society voice of this forum, but also because I have > been so disappointed that the opportunity of the moment when the Balis's > meeting was jeopardized was not used to ask the real questions for this > group but instead to demonstrate the typical homeostasis syndrome of groups > who must keep existing the same way just because they have existed so far). > > The cartoon is based on the Arab proverb that is quite famous: the dogs > bark and the caravan passes (the trigger may habe been a wonderful > restaurant in the old town named Caravanseray :-)). > > Imagine a long road heading to a big tower of dollars, not so far away in > the perspective. Imagine a caravan named ICANN. Imagine a bunch of dogs > marked IGF which are barking between them and around the caravan. Imagine > the caravan does not care at all and keep passing towards the big money... > We can also use the image with US government in the caravan and PRISM at > the end of the road. > > Sorry if my words will disturb many of you but it feels so good to be > provocative again. :-) No problem with this "provocation". These are actually very valid - and substantive - questions, spotting potential dangers or evolutions that people may not agree with. In particular, ICANN is a complex machinery and still a laboratory of multi-stakteholder governance. Issues like risk of capture(s) by one constituency or another, the tension between a corporate vs a regulatory role, or how to ensure the defense of the global public interest, just to name a few, are necessary substantial debates. We need to have them. Actually, the launch of the new gTLD program will require a deep examination of its impact on the structures and processes of ICANN. Whether we call it ICANN 3.0 or not does not matter. What will be needed is engagement in the discussion that will necessarily take place in the coming years. I hope the IGC list will be a place where these topics are discussed, to provide input into the broader debate. But this requires organization of the discussion, framing of the questions in a way that is acceptable by all, and management of threads with respected neutral sheperds to keep them on track and allow mutually respectful exchanges. This is the responsibility of the co-coordinators and I'm sure they will see the potential for increasing the relevance of the list's contribution to the global debate. Thanks again for the constructive provocation. Not sure I appeased your concerns but I honestly tried :-) Best Bertrand > > > > -- > 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 > > -- ____________________ 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 anriette at apc.org Wed Aug 14 06:45:01 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 12:45:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <520B02E2.6050205@itforchange.net> References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> <20130813183514.0d8c8b97@quill> <6ACCFAD3-3FB9-416B-99FB-4772DDB4E71F@ciroap.org> <20130813184448.5983a1be@quill> <520AF6D8.50709@ciroap.org> <520B02E2.6050205@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <520B5FAD.9000704@apc.org> Dear all I missed the MAG meeting last week, but will ask for more information about the 'high-level meeting' at today's MAG meeting should Izumi for some reason not be able to make it. Another question I will ask which is relevant is how one can apply for 'flash sessions'. This was proposed as a way for workshop proposals that did not make the final selection to still organise some kind of sharing session during the IGF. What would be very useful at this point for those of us on the MAG would be comments from civil society on the latest programme paper and schedule. http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/Draft%20Programme%20Paper%20Bali%202013.pdf https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75646284/IGF2013Draft.Schedule.r1.pdf Anriette -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Aug 14 06:48:36 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:18:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: References: <91EDBFFE-1228-4ECA-AAFC-C448E873D8CF@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7BC55CE1-44A3-430F-9003-BDD0530ED6C8@hserus.net> If I might extend Daniel's dog and caravan analogy - if the barking dog actually belongs to the caravan, and if it barks at a genuine threat, it doesn't get ignored. Its master looks around to see what caused the barking - a thief rather than a stray cat? And dogs that bark "appropriately" get listened to, and their barkign valued, compared to those that bark at stray cats or at other dogs in the caravan. The same analogy applies - 1. Do we refuse to engage in a parallel multistakeholder process - which icann most definitely is - and criticize it from the outside? 2. Do we engage within the icann process and raise our voices for valid and legitimate concerns that the rest of the stakeholder community within icann recognizes and shares? (as in, a thief rather than a stray cat or caravan dog - both of which we might detest, but only one of which is genuinely significant to the caravan, something that the caravan's other members care about) 3. What is our bark rate, sorry, hit rate - how often do we raise our voices for infighting and to score political points over perceived rivals rather than partners, compared to making informed policy comments based on principled stands? --srs (iPad) On 14-Aug-2013, at 16:01, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Glad to see a post of yours. Long time no see. > > Comments inline on your useful and argumented post: > > > On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Daniel Pimienta wrote: >> >> First of all, the process of slow deterioration of the good spirit is NOT the product of one person expression but the result of an interaction with other person’s expression and I do not think I have to offer names, if your memory of the co-co's actions is neat. > > Agreed. The blame is shared. I never put it on one person, just reacted in one specific instance. >> >> Second, and much more important, what is at stake behind this situation is NOT a mere question of people style; in the background, there is a profound issue of the role of civil society in Internet Governance. > > Agreed too and well put. This is a useful reframing to move forward in this discussion. See below. >> >> I consider myself that a good provision of "constructive provocation" is an intrinsic part of my civil society role > > You use yourself the expression "constructive provocation" and I am completely in agreement with you in that regard. Because the expression covers our respective concerns: your fear of anesthesia (the need for provocation) and my mourning of respectful engagement. > > Boy, do I like a good controversy: it is the only way to have all sides of an issue, to think deeply, to be forced to reevaluate your own assumptions and prejudices, to potentially reframe a debate (as we are doing here) and move towards a solution. This is what Parliaments were established for: light through debate. > > But how controversy unfolds and how people behave is what makes the provocation "constructive" - or not. Judging arguments by their own merit and not in relation to who emits them; fighting courageously for what one thinks is right and true until one convinces others - but also accepting to be convinced in return by better arguments; not being afraid to stand up when in the minority but accepting ultimate consensus even against oneself; feeling free to criticize the actions of others but on the basis of fact and not allegations; this is the core of the participatory democratic spirit. It is in my view indissociable from the multi-stakeholder approach the way I see it. > >> and I have been worried for years in this forum to perceive a clear trend of anesthesia of the discourse of civil society, for the sake of allowing multistakeholderism to perform smoothly. I have been (and I am still) quite worried that this trend will not transform us (organized civil society) in the unwilling accomplices of many bad actions performed in our field. > > I understand your feeling but it actually connects with the role of this list as opposed to more advocacy ones. The IGC Charter says: > > 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. > > The value of this list has always resided in the diversity of its members. This means that by definition, positions are different and statements are more nuanced than those that can be developed by very focused and like-minded smaller groups. The IGC is a place to expose people to ideas that they would not hear otherwise, a place for debate on substance, even without conclusion. It is not only where statements are drafted, but also a great place to share statements drafted elsewhere, to invite people to subscribe to them. "Coordination of advocacy" does not mean that all civil society advocacy should come from the IGC. > > There is no such thing as THE position of civil society. We are diverse - and should remain so. If statements seems too neutral, it is not because of timidity or the desire to placate the powers that be, but because the group is large and diverse. And to be frank, a lot of people on the list have probably accepted IGC public positions that are stronger than their personal views. > >> >> It is enough to see the sweetness of the IGF statements in situation like PRISM, compared to other groups, to assess this point. >> >> The main reason I am more a lurker than a contributor in this forum is to be found there (and not in the fact that some discussion get heated). The main reason why Funredes has resigned recently from APC membership (without loosing respect and good relationships) is also to be found here (my analysis is that the price to pay in silencing and smoothing our critics has gotten too high). >> >> Is it not a risky game to accept to be so polite that we loose our soul; shall we resist to such level of politeness? I tend to answer yes at the light of the evolution of the Internet. >> >> What is at stake here and the fractures which are underlying are not details of Internet history and too much naivety may turned to become a crime against virtual humanity; the role of ICANN, the need to see the historical grab of US in Internet governance evolve, the appropriate balance of security and privacy, the implication of the dominant economical model that –mainly- Google has imposed based uniquely in advertisements and the terrible consequences in our privacy and comfort which are hardly evocated here, the difficulty of the requirements on multilingualism to get accepted in spite of a more accommodating discourse... >> >> When in last IGF meeting, in Baku, I felt the role of civil society was starting to blur and I got quite worried to see ICANN implementing a totally artificial (and super expensive) economical model for domain names and the appearing passivity of my civil society colleagues. Our proactivity and capacity to resist seemed to have decline so much. >> >> As a mental reaction, I develop a cartoon in my mind that I resisted to share at that time (in order to keep polite and avoid embarrassing my civil society colleagues) but I will now as a reaction against the attempt to definitively shut up provocation. >> >> I will, not only for this episode of apparent consensus against one of the more provocative civil society voice of this forum, but also because I have been so disappointed that the opportunity of the moment when the Balis's meeting was jeopardized was not used to ask the real questions for this group but instead to demonstrate the typical homeostasis syndrome of groups who must keep existing the same way just because they have existed so far). >> >> The cartoon is based on the Arab proverb that is quite famous: the dogs bark and the caravan passes (the trigger may habe been a wonderful restaurant in the old town named Caravanseray :-)). >> >> Imagine a long road heading to a big tower of dollars, not so far away in the perspective. Imagine a caravan named ICANN. Imagine a bunch of dogs marked IGF which are barking between them and around the caravan. Imagine the caravan does not care at all and keep passing towards the big money... >> We can also use the image with US government in the caravan and PRISM at the end of the road. >> >> Sorry if my words will disturb many of you but it feels so good to be provocative again. :-) > > No problem with this "provocation". These are actually very valid - and substantive - questions, spotting potential dangers or evolutions that people may not agree with. In particular, ICANN is a complex machinery and still a laboratory of multi-stakteholder governance. Issues like risk of capture(s) by one constituency or another, the tension between a corporate vs a regulatory role, or how to ensure the defense of the global public interest, just to name a few, are necessary substantial debates. We need to have them. > > Actually, the launch of the new gTLD program will require a deep examination of its impact on the structures and processes of ICANN. Whether we call it ICANN 3.0 or not does not matter. What will be needed is engagement in the discussion that will necessarily take place in the coming years. > > I hope the IGC list will be a place where these topics are discussed, to provide input into the broader debate. But this requires organization of the discussion, framing of the questions in a way that is acceptable by all, and management of threads with respected neutral sheperds to keep them on track and allow mutually respectful exchanges. This is the responsibility of the co-coordinators and I'm sure they will see the potential for increasing the relevance of the list's contribution to the global debate. > > Thanks again for the constructive provocation. Not sure I appeased your concerns but I honestly tried :-) > > Best > > Bertrand > > > >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> > > > > -- > ____________________ > 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") > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Aug 14 06:58:23 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 19:58:23 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <520B02E2.6050205@itforchange.net> References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> <20130813183514.0d8c8b97@quill> <6ACCFAD3-3FB9-416B-99FB-4772DDB4E71F@ciroap.org> <20130813184448.5983a1be@quill> <520AF6D8.50709@ciroap.org> <520B02E2.6050205@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, My understanding of the high-level meeting (I think labelled "ministerial" in Nairobi) is the same as yours: intended a session in a format more familiar to high-level government representatives, get them and their staff to attend and to hopefully stay on. And I understand it worked in Nairobi, it was an effective carrot for both African govt and others to attend the IGF. And I'm OK with that, a pre-meeting that is clearly separate from the IGF is fine whether it's bestbits, the host country's HLM or giganet (etc). But it is problematic when the Baku high-level meeting produces a declaration (however innocuous) that is then made available on the official IGF website in the same space as the Chairman's Summary, the document that's traditionally been to only official output of the IGF process . Also a problem that the UN flag raising ceremony was listed as part of the Baku HLM agenda. Need to be more thoughtful in how these meetings are presented. Anriette - another question for today's MAG call, could you ask why the Baku declaration is available on the IGF website, and why it's presented along side the Chairman's summary? If it were on the host website only, then much less of an issue. This should be fixed for Bali. Further complication this year is that sessions from the IGF proper will be held on day "zero" (regional IGF session, etc.) Pre-meetings begin to mix with sessions of the IGF. Would be good to make a very clear demarcation between what is IGF and what is not IGF (the HLM should not be.) Adam On Aug 14, 2013, at 1:09 PM, parminder wrote: > > in addition to the below issues, we still do not know what the form of the high level meeting is. Is it a real round table kind of forum where people get an opportunity to wiegh in substantially or just a 'mix and make connections' thing which corporates types may still love to do but not many civil society kinds may to be too eager about. > > Also, is their any drafting process for the likely statement to come out of the HLM. That is crucial. > > And, the IGF or non IGF status of the meeting? > > I had asked for these clarifications on the IGC list from a civil society member of the MAG, and await them. > > My understanding is that initially is was a kind of a 'formal thing without real substance', which was to attract high level participation from governments, esp ministrial level. Kind of peoople who do not come over just to sit in the audience at the IGF. And when ministers come, their retinue of senior officials also come along, and that was supposed to fill in a (really) missing gap at the IG, especially in terms of governmental participation from developing countires. I will be cautious to see this meeting take a character and big role for itself, which could compromise the relatively participative nature of the IGF. Especially of concern is the declaration that comes from this meeting, which at present is the only real 'consumable' doc coming out the IGF environment. So, maybe civil socity may want to think around these issues as well. > > parminder > > > On Wednesday 14 August 2013 08:47 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 14/08/13 00:44, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> Jeremy Malcolm >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> How about setting up a joint NomCom by inviting members of all the >>>>> various civil society organizations and networks to volunteer for >>>>> the NomCom... >>>>> >>>> It is a very good plan for the future, but not something that could >>>> be accomplished easily in two weeks. >>>> >>> Where does that “two weeks” timeline come from? >>> >> >> Actually you're quite right, I'm mixing up the deadline for the CSTD enhanced cooperation questionnaire (which is in two weeks) with the (yet unspecified, but Izumi is finding out) deadline for nominating panelists to the High Level Meeting. So maybe we have longer, but surely not much longer. >> >> Establishing (or re-establishing - we had one in WSIS) a high-level mechanism for civil society groups to jointly nominate candidates for positions is very important, I couldn't agree with you more. But it's also ambitious. >> >> Noting that thanks to your leadership the IGC has a workshop relevant to this topic planned for Bali ("MS selection processes: accountability and transparency"), it would be better, I feel, to come up with a proposal and present it at that workshop. I wouldn't want to rush it on account of what is probably a minimally important pre-event in Bali. >> >> However, if you disagree then by all means put your idea to the IGC then I can put it to the Best Bits interim steering group and we can reach out to the other relevant groups and networks too. If it were me though, I would rather wait. >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Wed Aug 14 07:10:16 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 20:10:16 +0900 Subject: [governance] High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <520B5FAD.9000704@apc.org> References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> <20130813183514.0d8c8b97@quill> <6ACCFAD3-3FB9-416B-99FB-4772DDB4E71F@ciroap.org> <20130813184448.5983a1be@quill> <520AF6D8.50709@ciroap.org> <520B02E2.6050205@itforchange.net> <520B5FAD.9000704@apc.org> Message-ID: <28A63291-C148-4E35-B0BD-1F8A1DB4ADA2@glocom.ac.jp> Hi Anriette, Comment of the program and schedule: do not give the ministerial (or is it high level meeting, whatever it's called) preferential place on the pre-meeting agenda. In the Programme Paper make clear that this host country meeting is not part of the official agenda. As the IGF is convened by the UN Secretary General only official meetings should be mentioned in the body of the paper and final schedule, put pre-meetings not organized by the MAG in an annex. Do not list the ministerial (HLM) meeting on the Draft Schedule; particularly as the schedule for day zero also lists the national/regional IGF and capacity building sessions, which are part of the MAG organized event (MAG, for the UN SG). Adam On Aug 14, 2013, at 7:45 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > I missed the MAG meeting last week, but will ask for more information > about the 'high-level meeting' at today's MAG meeting should Izumi for > some reason not be able to make it. > > Another question I will ask which is relevant is how one can apply for > 'flash sessions'. This was proposed as a way for workshop proposals that > did not make the final selection to still organise some kind of sharing > session during the IGF. > > What would be very useful at this point for those of us on the MAG would > be comments from civil society on the latest programme paper and schedule. > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/Draft%20Programme%20Paper%20Bali%202013.pdf > > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75646284/IGF2013Draft.Schedule.r1.pdf > > Anriette > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From angelacdaly at gmail.com Wed Aug 14 08:35:43 2013 From: angelacdaly at gmail.com (Angela Daly) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 22:35:43 +1000 Subject: [governance] High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <28A63291-C148-4E35-B0BD-1F8A1DB4ADA2@glocom.ac.jp> References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> <20130813183514.0d8c8b97@quill> <6ACCFAD3-3FB9-416B-99FB-4772DDB4E71F@ciroap.org> <20130813184448.5983a1be@quill> <520AF6D8.50709@ciroap.org> <520B02E2.6050205@itforchange.net> <520B5FAD.9000704@apc.org> <28A63291-C148-4E35-B0BD-1F8A1DB4ADA2@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Hello all, I am co-ordinating the meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Freedom of Expression and Free Media on the Internet this year. We have not been included in the original programme even though we did register (albeit sent the registration in a bit late, but then were not told in the first place that there was a deadline and when this was). Anyway we are currently trying to sort out a session to be included in the IGF programme. So far we have been offered a session on the pre-event day (21 Oct) but are keen not to clash with the Giganet symposium planned for that day and I also notice there are still 'unallocated' rooms for the final day of the IGF, which would suit us better. This Dynamic Coalition did not meet at last year's IGF and we are very keen to have a strong relaunch at this year's event. If anyone can help to find us a slot during the 'proper' programme (22-25 Oct) that would be greatly appreciated. Angela On 14 August 2013 21:10, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Anriette, > > Comment of the program and schedule: do not give the ministerial (or is it > high level meeting, whatever it's called) preferential place on the > pre-meeting agenda. In the Programme Paper make clear that this host > country meeting is not part of the official agenda. As the IGF is convened > by the UN Secretary General only official meetings should be mentioned in > the body of the paper and final schedule, put pre-meetings not organized by > the MAG in an annex. > > Do not list the ministerial (HLM) meeting on the Draft Schedule; > particularly as the schedule for day zero also lists the national/regional > IGF and capacity building sessions, which are part of the MAG organized > event (MAG, for the UN SG). > > Adam > > > > > > > On Aug 14, 2013, at 7:45 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > > Dear all > > > > I missed the MAG meeting last week, but will ask for more information > > about the 'high-level meeting' at today's MAG meeting should Izumi for > > some reason not be able to make it. > > > > Another question I will ask which is relevant is how one can apply for > > 'flash sessions'. This was proposed as a way for workshop proposals that > > did not make the final selection to still organise some kind of sharing > > session during the IGF. > > > > What would be very useful at this point for those of us on the MAG would > > be comments from civil society on the latest programme paper and > schedule. > > > > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/Draft%20Programme%20Paper%20Bali%202013.pdf > > > > > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75646284/IGF2013Draft.Schedule.r1.pdf > > > > Anriette > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pimienta at funredes.org Wed Aug 14 08:43:04 2013 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:43:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: References: <91EDBFFE-1228-4ECA-AAFC-C448E873D8CF@gmail.com> Message-ID: Cher Bertrand, I appreciate your effort to explain the singularity of IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum and the implications which make it, by design, a place where civil society advocacy is much more controlled and geared to neutral that other places more extreme, also by design. I cannot disagree, yet the question to organized civil society of how do we tune our thresholds of acceptance is very difficult to decide. After fast unloading months of silent disagreements with that mail I did think more calmly about this very reality, which is the gordian knot of organized civil society behavior in a multistakeholder context, and I reached a transitory conclusion: maybe the problem is not with civil society in IGF but with the fact that there is no more active forum for the post WSIS civil society to coordinate positions (within civil society) and have those difficult trade-offs discussed and consensuated (at least in some heavy situations). Maybe the turmoils which appear from time to time in IGF list could be then avoided by upstream discussions in a place which is not conditionned by multistakeholderism. May be we should consider either create a new forum inviting many players who are active in our field (and doing advocacy on their own) or simply revive the existing Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space which should have been the appropriate place for that purpose. In the multi-stakeholder game (nothing pejorative in that word, I use it in the mathematical sense of game theory) the other groups (governments and private sector) have their own mechanism of coordination outside where we are not present and this is perfectly fair. Civil society also needs to be better coordinated in the inner circle and at this time we lack such mechanism. In game theory the winner is the one which strategy is unknown to the other players: we have implicitely accepted to discuss publically our strategy here and this is not good for our chance of pushing our consensuated visions. In synthesis, most of the menbers of the civil society group have been moving away from the WSIS CS plenary group into the IGF forum and useful and sometimnes necessary (when the stakes are high) discussions we had in the past are not any more realized and obviously here is NOT the appropriate place for those discussions (including probably this one!). 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 nb at bollow.ch Wed Aug 14 09:22:26 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 15:22:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] Towards a Joint Civil Society NomCom mechanism Message-ID: <20130814152226.26c394b7@quill> While at WSIS, there was a high-level mechanism for civil society groups to jointly nominate candidates for positions etc, the methods used in recent years were more ad-hoc and less credibly representative of civil society as a whole. In my opinion, it is time to remedy this! As previously discussed, the IGC is organizing, jointly with with the “focal points” who selected representatives for the three non-governmental stakeholder groups for the CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, a workshop at the 2013 IGF on the topic “MS selection processes: accountability and transparency”. I am proposing to build on the discussions at that workshop and create a credible and accountable mechanism for selecting civil society representatives. I propose that we should aim to have such a mechanism in place well in time for the 2014 IGF. One possible mechanism that could be used would be similar to the mechanism that we use in the IGC for various selection tasks, see http://igcaucus.org/nomcom-process … this would be a joint NomCom of civl society as a whole: Members of all the various civil society organizations and networks would be invited to volunteer for the NomCom, and a reasonably sized group from among these volunteers would be randomly selected to form the NomCom. The NomCom would constitute itself (it particular the NomCom chair would be elected by the randomly selected members of the NomCom). For each selection task within the remit of the NomCom, the NomCom would publish a call for expressions of interest and then selecting a good civil society representative or group of representatives (the NomCom members themselves being not eligible). As a first step, I'd like to build a “list of civil society networks in the area of Internet Governance”, and I've created an Etherpad for this at http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/civil-society-networks Obviously all of the steering groups etc. of these networks must be invited to participate in the discussions around creating a Joint Civil Society NomCom mechanism, or other credible mechanism that could serve the same purpose. I however don't think that it is appropriate to restrict these dicussions only to people who are on some steering group. Therefore I'd like to broadly circulate a call for expressions of interest for participation in these discussions, in which everyone who is (1) experienced as a civil society participant in Internet governance debates, and is (2) clearly primarily participating as a civil society person, with reasonable independence from industry and government interests is invited to also participate in these discussions on the basis of a simple expression of interest. In case of any doubts in regard to whether someone expressing interest fulfills the criteria (1) and (2), I envision decisions about application of these to be made by the group of people which consists of all the people from the various steering groups of civil society networks. Acknowledgement: This initiative is significantly inspired by Thomas Lowenhaupt's suggestion of a while back to create a “Joint Board” for selection tasks. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive 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 Wed Aug 14 10:03:12 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 19:33:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: References: <52088579.8020605@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <520B8E20.2020002@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 14 August 2013 03:19 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear Parminder, > > You will excuse me, but I do not intend to engage in a long exchange > on this. Sorry Bertrand, I cant excuse you. You made a sweeping personal accusation and I ask you to justify it with some instances. You will have to do that. There is no escape or excusing. Ok, let me give you another way. You can do this off-list to me with cocos cc-ed, or include a wider group of all earlier co cos. But you cant get away with making personal characterisations on the list and then not justifying, what in default will be, your most objectionable conduct. > I have said what I felt. :) . I can assure you Bertrand, if it comes to that, and I have to say what I myself feel about some people who have been going around expressing their feelings openly, it will be fully as I really feel. The normal rule of public behaviour, especially on elists like this, however, is that even if you get some negative feelings about a person as such, beyond just his/ her arguments, dont bring it out publicly. You know what happens; if one consistently doesnt like the political view point of another, it can begin to tend towards personal dislike as well. Just a psychological fact. Not a good thing but that is how often it is. But one has to control oneself in public and stick to discussing issues rather than people. You (and some others) have broken that rule, and you must justify it. You can disagree as violently with a viewpoint as you want, but dont target the person. > I think it is time to move forward and not waste people's time that > could be devoted to something more useful. One can survive with egos > bruised. I can survive with bruised ego, but not with people having exercised power over me... I have a gut reaction against bowing to power. Maybe an activist's normal training. /*For me this is a political act.*/ Especially on this political field of this elist. The manner in which some members here think that they have superior rights than others to pass judgements, and others should then simply move on....... It cant be accepted. It wont be. parminder > It's a proof of moral strength and willingness to work for the common > good. > > Your response below however seems to imply you have little desire to > help calm things down, let alone recognize when your attitude may hurt > others. If you are looking for a confrontation, I regret it but will > not be the sparring partner you are looking for. Flame wars are not my > cup of tea. Besides, I am now on well deserved holidays and intend to > enjoy them. > > We will have other opportunities to address this in person in the > coming months, if the grudge persists after a few weeks. > > For now, I wish you and the list a very happy month of August and a > good preparation of what awaits us in September. > > Best as always > > Bertrand > > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 8:49 AM, parminder > wrote: > > Bertrand, > > Pl see inline. > > On Friday 09 August 2013 06:46 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >> Parminder, >> >> I have stopped posting on this list for a quite some time now for >> exactly the reasons that Avri has mentioned. And as one of the >> people who were at the origin of the creation of this very list >> and caucus to empower civil society, I am extremely saddened by >> the way it is currently evolving and indeed becoming irrelevant. >> >> I nonetheless feel compelled to react to the most recent >> exchange. You wrote: "/Ad hominem is when one says something like >> "you tend to twist people's words in order to score political >> points/"". >> >> I would like to differ. "/You tend to twist people's words in >> order to score political points/" is NOT an ad hominem attack >> (see Wikipedia) because it does not use your behavior to weaken a >> specific argument of yours. It is rather a judgement about your >> behavior, about whether you display (or not) the necessary >> fairness in representing somebody else's position. >> >> To illustrate the point: An ad hominem attack, would be for >> instance: "This person is usually lying, hence, when they >> (really) say A, this must not be true". However, if someone says >> A and another person says: "this person said B and therefore this >> person is wrong and should be condemned", this IS twisting >> people's words. In this case, you are basically saying: Anriette >> did not explicitly denounce something, therefore she supports it. >> This is putting words in somebody else's mouth. >> >> To be frank, I understand the tactic of discarding as an ad >> hominem attack a judgment about your behavior to avoid having to >> respond to it or ask yourself whether it is true. But it would be >> more credible if you did not yourself frequently attribute >> ulterior motives to other people's comments just because of their >> alleged political preferences, ties to certain types of actors >> (for instance business), geographical origin, lack of civil >> society purity, etc... >> >> This behavior is harming the civility of discourse on this list >> and actually weakening its influence in the global debate. >> >> I always respect your expressing positions, even when I disagree >> with them and engage in debates with you. But I resent your >> becoming one of the main sources of ad hominem attack on this list. > > > I have many things to say about your email, but for the present, > would you be so good as to provide instances to substantiate your > above sweeping statement(s). You have made some serious > allegations against a civil society colleague with whom you have > worked for around 8 years now. I sincerely hope you would not > shrink from standing your ground on this, and not slip away. > > > >> There are moments when one must call a spade a spade. > > Quite true. In fact I am considering availing some such moments > presently. Although this current 'controversy' really arose from > an incident of calling a spade a spade, however mildly - a spade > that laid in full view of the list members, in the text of emails > exchanged on the list. > > regards > > parminder > > > >> I wish the co-coordinators of this list had called your attitude >> to accountability earlier, for the sake of a sound debate. >> >> This is below you. You have more to contribute. >> >> Respectfully still.Bertrand >> > > >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:37 AM, parminder >> > wrote: >> >> >> On Friday 02 August 2013 02:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> On 31 Jul 2013, at 09:33, parminder wrote: >> >> ad hominem comment >> >> (to misquote an old IETF adage - comments made wearing >> asbestos - >> i tried to ignore this the first time hoping it would >> just go away and we could all get back to rational calm >> conversations) >> >> an ad hominem attack would be an attack that: because >> someone is a bully, their views are illegitimate/irrelevant. >> It does not include the content of calling a bully a bully. >> >> I am not sure I have ever heard an ad hominem attack on >> this list. >> >> >> Then you are not quite right in your understanding of what is >> ad hominem. Literally, attack against man, it occurs when, in >> a discussion, someone attacks a person's character or >> personal traits, instead of, and with a view to undermine, >> her/ his argument. You are making a specious distinction >> above that does not hold. In middle of a discussion, >> personal attacks are almost always made - certainly in >> conditions like of this list, where people otherwise have >> little or no offline relationship and thus no particular >> reason for animosity - with a view to undermine that person's >> argument. >> >> On the other hand there is indeed some difference between >> just an allegation and an ad hominem attack. >> >> Saying something like , to stick to present case of >> Anriette's email to me, 'you are twisting my words' is an >> allegation. (Allegations themselves could become quite >> serious, like you are deceiving, lying, cheating etc, whereby >> they may be tending towards ad hominem.) >> >> , Ad hominem is when one says something like "you tend to >> twist people's words in order to score political points". >> That is attacking someone in terms of ones character and >> personal traits, and as in this case, obviously to distract >> from the argument made - which in this case what that >> Anriette seemed to see nothing wrong or new with the >> Indonesian document, which I said was problematic to me for a >> CS rep on the MAG to say, which is just my view. Nothing >> personal here. >> >> >> For example a comment one might hear: X is a terrible >> bully, but sometimes, if you can get past the bullying, X >> makes a lot of sense. >> Another comment one might hear: I think I agree with what >> X is saying, but X is such a bully I am afraid that if I >> put my agreement in the wrong way I will get beat up for it. >> >> One could also say, I agree with a lot of what CX says, >> but X is just so mean. >> >> (I have versions of all of these about certain unnamed >> IGC participants) >> >> Those you accuse of ad hominem attacks against you, are >> among the greatest defenders off-list of some of the >> positions you represent. >> Many of us disagree with you but would never dare say so >> on the list for fear of starting a flame war. >> Many of the rest of us just try to hunker down and wait >> for the storm to pass. >> >> >> BTW, it is ad hominen whether the attack on one's character >> is made directly or rather more subtly. Your above statements >> themselves tends towards such an ad hominem attack, and you >> have very often said such things about me. And I claim you >> say it to undermine my arguments rather than anything else. >> However, I would give you an opportunity to disprove my >> claim. And I hope you will take this challenge. Please point >> out the precise language in the current exchange over the >> last few days that you find problematic in my emails, that is >> something other than a critique of someone's views, that I >> have a right to make, and rather of the nature of a personal >> attack. Please just give even one example. You may even go >> back further to earlier emails, becuase from the above it >> appears you are a very good record keeping and retrieval >> methods. Ok, I promise, I will not argue with the example/ >> instance you provide, I wont even respond, I just want it to >> out for everyone to see, rather that your be subject to your >> insinuations. >> >> >> Someone/everyone, please stop the venom. >> It has rendered the IGC nearly irrelevant. >> >> >> I have a different theory of what has rendered IGC >> irrelevant, which I am ready to enter a discussion about. >> >> When the IGC is discussed, pretty much the main content >> is the outrageousness of a few individuals. >> >> >> Certainly, I do often express strong feelings on some views - >> not people, never - that I feel strongly about. (And the fact >> is that there enough degree of difference in views on this >> list that at times one side and at other times the other >> side will feel strongly about things.) But, never against >> any person as such, unlike what I am almost regularly >> subjected to. Again, I am open to be given an instance to >> prove my statement wrong. As for personal attacks on me, >> apart from Anriette's email, even your reference above of not >> responding to me with the fear of starting a flame war is >> such an attack, although a somewhat lighter one, given the >> normal standards. >> >> (Another thing - yes, I have a structural critique of the >> role and positions of a good part of civil society involved >> in IG space - often dominant in its expression - and its >> support for certain power structures, which I do often voice, >> which I understand may not go well with some people. But I >> always voice it in a collective structural manner and never >> directed at an individual, or even a set f them. This is the >> view I have - and I consider it very important in the current >> global circumstances - and I cannot desist from offering >> when the occasion so demands.) >> >> >> The words of a few serving to delegitimize the efforts of >> many. >> >> >> Well, that, who are 'few' and who 'many' itself needs to >> examined.... That is always the million dollar democratic >> question! >> >> parminder >> >> >> please stop >> >> Note to coordinators. I would never quit IGC, but >> sometimes I beleive being kicked of the list would bring >> great relief. >> I have heard others say similar things. >> >> And now back to hunkering down hoping the storm will pass. >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ____________________ >> 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") > > > > > -- > ____________________ > 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 anriette at apc.org Wed Aug 14 10:47:29 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:47:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <28A63291-C148-4E35-B0BD-1F8A1DB4ADA2@glocom.ac.jp> References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> <20130813183514.0d8c8b97@quill> <6ACCFAD3-3FB9-416B-99FB-4772DDB4E71F@ciroap.org> <20130813184448.5983a1be@quill> <520AF6D8.50709@ciroap.org> <520B02E2.6050205@itforchange.net> <520B5FAD.9000704@apc.org> <28A63291-C148-4E35-B0BD-1F8A1DB4ADA2@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <520B9881.5010901@apc.org> Dear all Response from the Indonesian representative to my question made during the MAG meeting about this high-level ministerial event is as follows: - 3 hours - Participation by invitation only - Will start off with statements from each of the ministers present - This is followed by statements from leaders from business and CS - Then some deliberation and discussion In other words very much like the Nairobi meeting. Iif it is like Nairobi all could participate in the discussion, but ministers were given preference in the speaking order (as is the case in most UN bodies). They are waiting for nominations from non-governmental stakeholders for people to be invited. I raised Adam's other concerns about the governmental pre-event being given higher status than other pre-events. Someone else also added to that saying that for any newcomer it could be quite confusing, as they would assume that all events in the IGF schedule are open to all. Secretariat will consider this in future schedules. That is the sense I got but sound quality was not always that clear. There were other CS observers who can add their reflections. Best Anriette On 14/08/2013 13:10, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Anriette, > > Comment of the program and schedule: do not give the ministerial (or is it high level meeting, whatever it's called) preferential place on the pre-meeting agenda. In the Programme Paper make clear that this host country meeting is not part of the official agenda. As the IGF is convened by the UN Secretary General only official meetings should be mentioned in the body of the paper and final schedule, put pre-meetings not organized by the MAG in an annex. > > Do not list the ministerial (HLM) meeting on the Draft Schedule; particularly as the schedule for day zero also lists the national/regional IGF and capacity building sessions, which are part of the MAG organized event (MAG, for the UN SG). > > Adam > > > > > > > On Aug 14, 2013, at 7:45 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> I missed the MAG meeting last week, but will ask for more information >> about the 'high-level meeting' at today's MAG meeting should Izumi for >> some reason not be able to make it. >> >> Another question I will ask which is relevant is how one can apply for >> 'flash sessions'. This was proposed as a way for workshop proposals that >> did not make the final selection to still organise some kind of sharing >> session during the IGF. >> >> What would be very useful at this point for those of us on the MAG would >> be comments from civil society on the latest programme paper and schedule. >> >> http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/Draft%20Programme%20Paper%20Bali%202013.pdf >> >> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75646284/IGF2013Draft.Schedule.r1.pdf >> >> Anriette >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Wed Aug 14 10:59:53 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:59:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> <20130813183514.0d8c8b97@quill> <6ACCFAD3-3FB9-416B-99FB-4772DDB4E71F@ciroap.org> <20130813184448.5983a1be@quill> <520AF6D8.50709@ciroap.org> <520B02E2.6050205@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <520B9B69.9080204@apc.org> Dear Adam I am sorry... I missed this question about the Baku declaration. Good question.. but.. counter question... if we want the IGF to become more outcome oriented.. don't we want ALL outcomes from IGF-linked processes to be reflected.. or should that apply only to events that are formally part of the main IGF? I agree that it is good for governments to come to the IGF, and an event like this can help. I participated in the Nairobi event and it was certainly successful, but there was very little dialogue. It was more a case of one government after another showcasing what they are doing. I would really like to see governments have an interactive dialogue with one another at the IGF on internet policy issues. But high-level protocol is a powerful force, and not one that combines easily with interactive dialogue. Anriette On 14/08/2013 12:58, Adam Peake wrote: > Parminder, > > My understanding of the high-level meeting (I think labelled "ministerial" in Nairobi) is the same as yours: intended a session in a format more familiar to high-level government representatives, get them and their staff to attend and to hopefully stay on. And I understand it worked in Nairobi, it was an effective carrot for both African govt and others to attend the IGF. And I'm OK with that, a pre-meeting that is clearly separate from the IGF is fine whether it's bestbits, the host country's HLM or giganet (etc). But it is problematic when the Baku high-level meeting produces a declaration (however innocuous) that is then made available on the official IGF website in the same space as the Chairman's Summary, the document that's traditionally been to only official output of the IGF process . Also a problem that the UN flag raising ceremony was listed as part of the Baku HLM agenda. Need to be more thoughtful in how these meetings are presented. > > Anriette - another question for today's MAG call, could you ask why the Baku declaration is available on the IGF website, and why it's presented along side the Chairman's summary? If it were on the host website only, then much less of an issue. This should be fixed for Bali. > > Further complication this year is that sessions from the IGF proper will be held on day "zero" (regional IGF session, etc.) Pre-meetings begin to mix with sessions of the IGF. Would be good to make a very clear demarcation between what is IGF and what is not IGF (the HLM should not be.) > > Adam > > > On Aug 14, 2013, at 1:09 PM, parminder wrote: > >> in addition to the below issues, we still do not know what the form of the high level meeting is. Is it a real round table kind of forum where people get an opportunity to wiegh in substantially or just a 'mix and make connections' thing which corporates types may still love to do but not many civil society kinds may to be too eager about. >> >> Also, is their any drafting process for the likely statement to come out of the HLM. That is crucial. >> >> And, the IGF or non IGF status of the meeting? >> >> I had asked for these clarifications on the IGC list from a civil society member of the MAG, and await them. >> >> My understanding is that initially is was a kind of a 'formal thing without real substance', which was to attract high level participation from governments, esp ministrial level. Kind of peoople who do not come over just to sit in the audience at the IGF. And when ministers come, their retinue of senior officials also come along, and that was supposed to fill in a (really) missing gap at the IG, especially in terms of governmental participation from developing countires. I will be cautious to see this meeting take a character and big role for itself, which could compromise the relatively participative nature of the IGF. Especially of concern is the declaration that comes from this meeting, which at present is the only real 'consumable' doc coming out the IGF environment. So, maybe civil socity may want to think around these issues as well. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Wednesday 14 August 2013 08:47 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> On 14/08/13 00:44, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>> Jeremy Malcolm >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> How about setting up a joint NomCom by inviting members of all the >>>>>> various civil society organizations and networks to volunteer for >>>>>> the NomCom... >>>>>> >>>>> It is a very good plan for the future, but not something that could >>>>> be accomplished easily in two weeks. >>>>> >>>> Where does that “two weeks” timeline come from? >>>> >>> Actually you're quite right, I'm mixing up the deadline for the CSTD enhanced cooperation questionnaire (which is in two weeks) with the (yet unspecified, but Izumi is finding out) deadline for nominating panelists to the High Level Meeting. So maybe we have longer, but surely not much longer. >>> >>> Establishing (or re-establishing - we had one in WSIS) a high-level mechanism for civil society groups to jointly nominate candidates for positions is very important, I couldn't agree with you more. But it's also ambitious. >>> >>> Noting that thanks to your leadership the IGC has a workshop relevant to this topic planned for Bali ("MS selection processes: accountability and transparency"), it would be better, I feel, to come up with a proposal and present it at that workshop. I wouldn't want to rush it on account of what is probably a minimally important pre-event in Bali. >>> >>> However, if you disagree then by all means put your idea to the IGC then I can put it to the Best Bits interim steering group and we can reach out to the other relevant groups and networks too. If it were me though, I would rather wait. >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >>> >>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 Wed Aug 14 12:13:04 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 01:13:04 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <520B9B69.9080204@apc.org> References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> <20130813183514.0d8c8b97@quill> <6ACCFAD3-3FB9-416B-99FB-4772DDB4E71F@ciroap.org> <20130813184448.5983a1be@quill> <520AF6D8.50709@ciroap.org> <520B02E2.6050205@itforchange.net> <520B9B69.9080204@apc.org> Message-ID: <093676F2-05AD-409D-BA87-B3776BD70A7B@glocom.ac.jp> Hi Anriette, Thanks for asking those questions and more. Comments below. On Aug 14, 2013, at 11:59 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Adam > > I am sorry... I missed this question about the Baku declaration. > > Good question.. but.. counter question... if we want the IGF to become > more outcome oriented.. don't we want ALL outcomes from IGF-linked > processes to be reflected.. or should that apply only to events that are > formally part of the main IGF? > I think we'd quite soon face the same situation as we kind of see now with open forums when they become quasi-workshops. What I mean is, we are trying to create a fair and transparent process for the IGF adhering to various principles, side events would perhaps side-step those processes and principles. So for now my answer is we do not want ALL outcomes from IGF-linked processes to be reflected. Not until we know what we're dealing with and have principle-based processes in place, > I agree that it is good for governments to come to the IGF, and an event > like this can help. I participated in the Nairobi event and it was > certainly successful, but there was very little dialogue. It was more a > case of one government after another showcasing what they are doing. > >From what I remember the Nairobi ministerial meeting it was very limited in the number of non-govt stakeholders, and wasn't intended to be multi-stakeholder. The Bali meetings starts with the MAG all invited which makes 30+ (I think!), way ahead already. But I expect it will still be rather dull, the intent to allow governments to make statements as they usually do in UN forums. Exactly the kind of session we try to avoid in the IGF itself. I am not sure why people want to attend. > I would really like to see governments have an interactive dialogue with > one another at the IGF on internet policy issues. But high-level > protocol is a powerful force, and not one that combines easily with > interactive dialogue. > You have to get them there first before they can join the broader dialogue and that was the intention behind the ministerial/high-level meeting. Worked to a degree in Nairobi, not sure since. Best, Adam > Anriette > > On 14/08/2013 12:58, Adam Peake wrote: >> Parminder, >> >> My understanding of the high-level meeting (I think labelled "ministerial" in Nairobi) is the same as yours: intended a session in a format more familiar to high-level government representatives, get them and their staff to attend and to hopefully stay on. And I understand it worked in Nairobi, it was an effective carrot for both African govt and others to attend the IGF. And I'm OK with that, a pre-meeting that is clearly separate from the IGF is fine whether it's bestbits, the host country's HLM or giganet (etc). But it is problematic when the Baku high-level meeting produces a declaration (however innocuous) that is then made available on the official IGF website in the same space as the Chairman's Summary, the document that's traditionally been to only official output of the IGF process . Also a problem that the UN flag raising ceremony was listed as part of the Baku HLM agenda. Need to be more thoughtful in how these meetings are presented. >> >> Anriette - another question for today's MAG call, could you ask why the Baku declaration is available on the IGF website, and why it's presented along side the Chairman's summary? If it were on the host website only, then much less of an issue. This should be fixed for Bali. >> >> Further complication this year is that sessions from the IGF proper will be held on day "zero" (regional IGF session, etc.) Pre-meetings begin to mix with sessions of the IGF. Would be good to make a very clear demarcation between what is IGF and what is not IGF (the HLM should not be.) >> >> Adam >> >> >> On Aug 14, 2013, at 1:09 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> in addition to the below issues, we still do not know what the form of the high level meeting is. Is it a real round table kind of forum where people get an opportunity to wiegh in substantially or just a 'mix and make connections' thing which corporates types may still love to do but not many civil society kinds may to be too eager about. >>> >>> Also, is their any drafting process for the likely statement to come out of the HLM. That is crucial. >>> >>> And, the IGF or non IGF status of the meeting? >>> >>> I had asked for these clarifications on the IGC list from a civil society member of the MAG, and await them. >>> >>> My understanding is that initially is was a kind of a 'formal thing without real substance', which was to attract high level participation from governments, esp ministrial level. Kind of peoople who do not come over just to sit in the audience at the IGF. And when ministers come, their retinue of senior officials also come along, and that was supposed to fill in a (really) missing gap at the IG, especially in terms of governmental participation from developing countires. I will be cautious to see this meeting take a character and big role for itself, which could compromise the relatively participative nature of the IGF. Especially of concern is the declaration that comes from this meeting, which at present is the only real 'consumable' doc coming out the IGF environment. So, maybe civil socity may want to think around these issues as well. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday 14 August 2013 08:47 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> On 14/08/13 00:44, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>> Jeremy Malcolm >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> How about setting up a joint NomCom by inviting members of all the >>>>>>> various civil society organizations and networks to volunteer for >>>>>>> the NomCom... >>>>>>> >>>>>> It is a very good plan for the future, but not something that could >>>>>> be accomplished easily in two weeks. >>>>>> >>>>> Where does that “two weeks” timeline come from? >>>>> >>>> Actually you're quite right, I'm mixing up the deadline for the CSTD enhanced cooperation questionnaire (which is in two weeks) with the (yet unspecified, but Izumi is finding out) deadline for nominating panelists to the High Level Meeting. So maybe we have longer, but surely not much longer. >>>> >>>> Establishing (or re-establishing - we had one in WSIS) a high-level mechanism for civil society groups to jointly nominate candidates for positions is very important, I couldn't agree with you more. But it's also ambitious. >>>> >>>> Noting that thanks to your leadership the IGC has a workshop relevant to this topic planned for Bali ("MS selection processes: accountability and transparency"), it would be better, I feel, to come up with a proposal and present it at that workshop. I wouldn't want to rush it on account of what is probably a minimally important pre-event in Bali. >>>> >>>> However, if you disagree then by all means put your idea to the IGC then I can put it to the Best Bits interim steering group and we can reach out to the other relevant groups and networks too. If it were me though, I would rather wait. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >>>> >>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>> >>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>> >>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Wed Aug 14 14:13:37 2013 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 11:13:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] FW: RE: [fellowships-alumni] "...Internet Governance is Our Shared Responsibility." By Vint G. Cerf, Patrick S. Ryan... Message-ID: <1376504017.35716.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> ----Forwarded Message---- From: alfamamadou at hotmail.com To: ndonnang at nvconsulting.biz, fellowships-alumni at icann.org Sent: Wed, Aug 14, 2013 8:49 PM PKT Subject: RE: [fellowships-alumni] "...Internet Governance is Our Shared Responsibility." By Vint G. Cerf, Patrick S. Ryan... Thank you Victor for sharing! Mamadou From: ndonnang at nvconsulting.biz To: Fellowships-alumni at icann.org Subject: [fellowships-alumni] "...Internet Governance is Our Shared Responsibility." By Vint G. Cerf, Patrick S. Ryan... Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 14:44:12 +0100 Dear Fellows Friends, Just to share with you this interesting and latest paper about the Internet Governance…More on: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2309772 . You need to register to download the full paper. For those who don’t want to register, you can find that paper attached. This is an extract of the comment I shared on the AfrICANN list: “ … The Internet is indeed a shared resource, a « public gift » as Fadi Chehadé, the ICANN CEO used to say. And talking about the Internet Governance, Multistakeholderism and “share responsibility” are the only way. The Public interest has to drive all policies development and decision making processes when It comes to Internet and IG. But the question is: Which structure or institution is the best to protect the public interest? Not a single one I guess. There is a need of more collaboration between those institutions and actors to better serve the public interest. What is needed at the global level, is also needed at the regional and national levels.” Waiting to share your comments on this.Best regards,Victor. *********************************************Victor NdonnangICT ConsultantFounder & CEONV Consultingndonnang at nvconsulting.biz http://www.nvconsulting.cm Skype: ndonnang+237 77 75 07 24Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/VictorNdonnangTwitter: http://www.twitter.com/VictorNdonnang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 14 18:20:25 2013 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 15:20:25 -0700 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: References: <91EDBFFE-1228-4ECA-AAFC-C448E873D8CF@gmail.com> Message-ID: If Bertrand de La Chapelle and Daniel Pimienta are willing to dip their toes back into the sea of despondency that the IGC list has become, then I feel I should follow their example. Daniel suggested that: > ….. maybe the problem is not with civil society in IGF but with the fact that there is no more active forum for the post WSIS civil society to coordinate positions (within civil society) and have those difficult trade-offs discussed and consensuated (at least in some heavy situations). Maybe the turmoils which appear from time to time in IGF list could be then avoided by upstream discussions in a place which is not conditioned by multistakeholderism. > > Maybe we should consider either create a new forum inviting many players who are active in our field (and doing advocacy on their own) or simply revive the existing Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space which should have been the appropriate place for that purpose. I want to respond to his suggestion with a little historical perspective. Both Bertrand de La Chapelle and Daniel Pimienta will remember (since they were present at the creation) that we had such an active and appropriate forum at the global level well before WSIS. It was called the Global Community Networks Partnership (GCNP). It met four times before “civil society” abandoned it – twice in Barcelona (chaired by Artur Sera), and then in Buenos Aires and Montreal. In the early stages of its formation, the WSIS civil society secretariat used the Buenos Aires and Montreal meetings of GCNP to explore how civil society participation in WSIS might work. After all, at that time where else could they have held such a discussion? But there were two polarities inherent in GCNP that never reconciled. On the one hand, the stewards of the uses of ICTs for community development recognized that WSIS would (as it did) fail to grasp the nature of how societies and their technologies co-evolve. They stayed away from WSIS. On the other hand, the agencies that saw community networking as a means to the end of human rights, rather than an end in itself, trampled the stewards of community use into the dust as they stampeded towards the WSIS trough of resources. In large part, WSIS killed GCNP. It is my understanding that the early history of ICANN’s institutionalization contains a similar history. In its transition to a corporation, ICANN severed the connections to the community of users that had actively participated in its early growth. The creation of the At Large Advisory Committee and the structures of the Regional At Large Organizations were meant to suture up that wound. But it has taken many years to put those structures in place, and the exploration of their utility appears to me to be at a very early stage. I believe the nature of digital economy and society is revealed most strongly through the emergent patterns of community online and daily life online. That means the best way to evolve the Internet Governance Ecosystem remains local, not global. It means the conscious neglect of the experience of the stewards of the uses of ICTs for community development inherent in those two examples was a mistake. Those stewards have not gone away. Every increase in bandwidth, every decrease in bandwidth cost, every effort to locate control of Internet access in the hands of community, increases their interstitial strength and numbers. They are the early adopters of the phase change in governance we are now experiencing, away from closed systems of control and towards open complex adaptive systems that learn. Some nation states, particularly those that recognize the importance of digital inclusion, acknowledge their existence better than others. But they are clearly not “players who are active in our field,” if that field or “space” is defined as civil society. I believe that there has been a total breakdown of public trust in the structural capacity of a triumvirate of government, business and civil society to sustain a social contract. That’s true whether the governance structures are democracies, autocracies, plutocracies, theocracies or kleptocracies. Edward Snowden’s whistle blowing of National Security Agency activities is merely a symptom of that breakdown. There is no difference between King Canute standing in the waves telling the tide to go back and the NSA standing in the flow of “big data” saying “We control this!” Daniel, which is better? To mobilize a forum within the existing frame of a concept of civil society that is in transition to something else? Or to change the frame towards what is emerging and to bet on setting free the indigenous knowledge inherent in community and community online? I still believe we should support the autonomy to local communities to self-organize responses to the complex situations they face (as Internet Protocol does). Changing the concept of organization to self-organization will scale fractally towards planetary responses that are sensible to anyone at any level, without the need for the creation of monolithic and therefore very dangerous global institutions. Garth Graham -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Aug 14 22:00:54 2013 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 22:00:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: References: <91EDBFFE-1228-4ECA-AAFC-C448E873D8CF@gmail.com> Message-ID: Garth, I'm glad the "constructive provocation" virus is contagious and makes more good old dogs barking ;-). I do not think baby IGF shall be thrown out with the bathwater but some bubbles in the water may help it grow well. Besides nostalgy (and I could do the same with MISTICA community which was vibrant at the WSIS time and also disappeared - but it will not be fair to blame WSIS in that case), those are very interesting toughts you are casting and provocative questions you are asking. The issue of how locality (or at least glocality) is paid attention in those global discussions is certainly a valid question and at least we need to be reminded from time to time. Indeed, the world has been more drastically changed by the use of basic Internet applications by millons of people in many parts of the world than by our discussions. You ask me which is better. I always have been reluctant to see the development work area in terms of disjonctive alternatives; either you do telecenter or not, either you do community work or not, either you are in open source or not, either you are in the local or not, etc... I think the plurality and diversity of approaches is valid and the point is to reach excellence in each one. The challenge is how to articulate somehow those different approaches and here the results are often frustrating (one of the reason is the human tendency to consider own approach as the only valid). In spite the WSIS civil society process was not capable to integrate all the required diversity (and you are correct to remind us that), on my experience, it has been quite a succesful effort in terms of articulation and my frustration is that we have lost this momentum and I wish we could regain it during times where civil society influence has been decreasing while governments and some big players from private sector decide our cyberfuture in a way I personnaly do not feel comfortable. But I am sure your reflections will resonate in this room and make positive interferences with the coming discussions. Cheers 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 nne75 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 15 09:23:33 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 06:23:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Update on Africa Internet Governance Forum 2013 Message-ID: <1376573013.81855.YahooMailNeo@web120103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> CONFIRMED: Africa Internet Governance Forum 2013: Month: September Dates: 24 - 26 City: Nairobi Country: Kenya Contact: nnenna75 at gmail.com afigf at uneca.org #AFIGF *** Apologies for cross posting*** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr Thu Aug 15 09:56:05 2013 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 14:56:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Update on Africa Internet Governance Forum 2013 In-Reply-To: <1376573013.81855.YahooMailNeo@web120103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1376573013.81855.YahooMailNeo@web120103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1376574965.42863.YahooMailNeo@web133204.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Hi Nnenna, Thanks   NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général Skype : jpnkurunziz Facebook :  http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza Tel : +257 79 981459 ________________________________ De : Nnenna À : IG Caucus Cc : ACSIS ; "africa_net at yahoogroupes.fr" Envoyé le : Jeudi 15 août 2013 16h23 Objet : [governance] Update on Africa Internet Governance Forum 2013 CONFIRMED: Africa Internet Governance Forum 2013: Month: September Dates: 24 - 26 City: Nairobi Country: Kenya Contact: nnenna75 at gmail.com afigf at uneca.org #AFIGF *** Apologies for cross posting***   ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Aug 15 14:37:16 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 14:37:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [berkmanfriends] Where Teens Seek Online Privacy Advice - new report by the Pew Internet & American Life Project in collaboration with the Berkman Center In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sandra Cortesi Date: Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 1:49 PM Subject: [berkmanfriends] Where Teens Seek Online Privacy Advice - new report by the Pew Internet & American Life Project in collaboration with the Berkman Center Dear Friends and Colleagues, It is our great pleasure to share with you a new report by the Pew Internet & American Life Project in collaboration with the Berkman Center on "Where Teens Seek Online Privacy Advice". The report - the fourth in a Pew/Berkman series with focus on youth privacy issues - combines a number of quotes taken from focus group interviews conducted by our Youth and Media team with Pew data from a nationally representative phone survey of parents and their teens, with a focus on the use of social networking sites. Many thanks to the Berkman team - especially Meredith Beaton and Paulina Haduong - and our collaborators at Pew - especially Amanda Lenhart and Mary Madden - for all the awesome and hard work on this report. We invite you to share this report widely with colleagues, students, friends, and others who may have an interest in this area, and we welcome your feedback and comments. Access the full report here . For more information about our "Youth and Online Privacy" project visit: http://youthandmedia.org/youth-and-online-privacy/ Many thanks, Sandra =============================================================== WASHINGTON – (August 15, 2013) – Many teens ages 12-17 report that they usually figure out how to manage content sharing and privacy settings on their own. Focus group interviews with teens suggest that for their day-to-day privacy management, teens are guided through their choices in the app or platform when they sign up, or find answers through their own searching and use of their preferred platform. At the same time, though, a nationally representative survey of teen internet users shows that, at some point, 70% of them have sought advice from someone else about how to manage their privacy online. When they do seek outside help, teens most often turn to friends, parents or other close family members. Access the full report here . *About the Survey* These findings are based on a nationally representative phone survey of 802 parents and their 802 teens ages 12-17. It was conducted between July 26 and September 30, 2012. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish and on landline and cell phones. The margin of error for the full sample is ± 4.5 percentage points. In collaboration with the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard, this report also includes insights and quotes gathered through a series of in-person focus group interviews about privacy and digital media, with a focus on social networking sites (in particular Facebook), conducted by the Berkman Center’s Youth and Media Project between February and April 2013. The team conducted 24 focus group interviews with a total of 156 participants across the greater Boston area, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara (California), and Greensboro (North Carolina). *About the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project* The Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project is one of seven projects that make up the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan, nonprofit “fact tank” that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. The Project produces reports exploring the impact of the Internet on families, communities, work and home, daily life, education, health care, and civic and political life. The Project aims to be an authoritative source on the evolution of the Internet through surveys that examine how Americans use the Internet and how their activities affect their lives. *About the Berkman Center for Internet & Society* The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University is a research program founded to recognize, study, and engage the most difficult problems of the digital age and to share in their resolution in ways that advance the public interest. Founded in 1997, through a generous gift from Jack N. and Lillian R. Berkman, the Center is home to an ever-growing community of faculty, fellows, staff, and affiliates. Fundamental to its work is the study of the relationship between digital technologies and democratic values, including civic participation, access to knowledge, and the free flow of information. More information can be found at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu. =============================================================== *Sandra Cortesi* Director of the Youth and Media Project www.youthandmedia.org Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/youthandmediaberkmancenter Sign up for our mailing list: http://www.youthandmedia.org Follow us on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/YouthandMedia Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SandraCortesi ---------- You are subscribed to the BerkmanFriends discussion list. Mailing list options: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/info/berkmanfriends Mailing list members: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/review/berkmanfriends Reminder: emails sent through this list are considered on-record unless otherwise noted. -- *Carolina Rossini* *Project Director, Latin America Resource Center* Open Technology Institute *New America Foundation* // 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Aug 15 19:07:13 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 01:07:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: References: <91EDBFFE-1228-4ECA-AAFC-C448E873D8CF@gmail.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Fri Aug 16 05:53:14 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 11:53:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: [SPAM] Statement: Why Secure Email Provider Lavabit closes down In-Reply-To: <004b01ce94e4$a1408ea0$e3c1abe0$@gmail.com> References: <201308090905.r79952TP031725@vcn.bc.ca> <004b01ce94e4$a1408ea0$e3c1abe0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: When political regimes start getting totalitarian they go a long way before being rolled back. Remember Franco, Stalin, Hitler, MacCarthy, to name but a few. Good luck USA with Bushobama. Better keep safe from that plague as much as possible. Louis - - - On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 11:41 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org > [mailto:nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org] On Behalf Of nettime's paranoid > reader > Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 5:58 PM > To: nettime-l at mx.kein.org > Subject: [SPAM] Statement: Why Secure Email Provider Lavabit > closes down > > http://lavabit.com > > My Fellow Users, > > I have been forced to make a difficult decision: to become complicit in > crimes against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of > hard work by shutting down Lavabit. After significant soul searching, I > have > decided to suspend operations. I wish that I could legally share with you > the events that led to my decision. I cannot. I feel you deserve to know > what?s going on--the first amendment is supposed to guarantee me the > freedom to speak out in situations like this. > Unfortunately, Congress has passed laws that say otherwise. As things > currently stand, I cannot share my experiences over the last six weeks, > even though I have twice made the appropriate requests. > > What?s going to happen now? We?ve already started preparing the paperwork > needed to continue to fight for the Constitution in the Fourth Circuit > Court of Appeals. A favorable decision would allow me resurrect Lavabit as > an American company. > > This experience has taught me one very important lesson: without > congressional action or a strong judicial precedent, I would _strongly_ > recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with > physical ties to the United States. > > Sincerely, > Ladar Levison > Owner and Operator, Lavabit LLC > > Defending the constitution is expensive! Help us by donating to the Lavabit > Legal Defense Fund here [1]. > > [1] > > https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=7BCR4A5 > W9PNN4 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at internetdemocracy.in Fri Aug 16 10:30:52 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 20:00:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: <093676F2-05AD-409D-BA87-B3776BD70A7B@glocom.ac.jp> References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> <20130813183514.0d8c8b97@quill> <6ACCFAD3-3FB9-416B-99FB-4772DDB4E71F@ciroap.org> <20130813184448.5983a1be@quill> <520AF6D8.50709@ciroap.org> <520B02E2.6050205@itforchange.net> <520B9B69.9080204@apc.org> <093676F2-05AD-409D-BA87-B3776BD70A7B@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: I agree with Adam that as long as processes aren't clear, the HLM and its outcomes should be kept more clearly separate from the HLM. As to Adam's question of why people want to attend: in my case this was simply driven by the topic, "cyber ethics principles". Freedom of expression has been a major focus of the Internet Democracy Project, which I work with, over the past two years, and discussions like these have the potential to lead to very negative repercussions on free speech online. Being in the room makes it easier to know what is going on in governments' minds, and to adequately respond if necessary. Best, Anja On 14 August 2013 21:43, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Anriette, > > Thanks for asking those questions and more. > > Comments below. > > On Aug 14, 2013, at 11:59 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > > Dear Adam > > > > I am sorry... I missed this question about the Baku declaration. > > > > Good question.. but.. counter question... if we want the IGF to become > > more outcome oriented.. don't we want ALL outcomes from IGF-linked > > processes to be reflected.. or should that apply only to events that are > > formally part of the main IGF? > > > > > I think we'd quite soon face the same situation as we kind of see now with > open forums when they become quasi-workshops. What I mean is, we are > trying to create a fair and transparent process for the IGF adhering to > various principles, side events would perhaps side-step those processes and > principles. So for now my answer is we do not want ALL outcomes from > IGF-linked processes to be reflected. Not until we know what we're dealing > with and have principle-based processes in place, > > > > > I agree that it is good for governments to come to the IGF, and an event > > like this can help. I participated in the Nairobi event and it was > > certainly successful, but there was very little dialogue. It was more a > > case of one government after another showcasing what they are doing. > > > > > From what I remember the Nairobi ministerial meeting it was very limited > in the number of non-govt stakeholders, and wasn't intended to be > multi-stakeholder. The Bali meetings starts with the MAG all invited which > makes 30+ (I think!), way ahead already. But I expect it will still be > rather dull, the intent to allow governments to make statements as they > usually do in UN forums. Exactly the kind of session we try to avoid in > the IGF itself. I am not sure why people want to attend. > > > > I would really like to see governments have an interactive dialogue with > > one another at the IGF on internet policy issues. But high-level > > protocol is a powerful force, and not one that combines easily with > > interactive dialogue. > > > > You have to get them there first before they can join the broader dialogue > and that was the intention behind the ministerial/high-level meeting. > Worked to a degree in Nairobi, not sure since. > > Best, > > Adam > > > > > Anriette > > > > On 14/08/2013 12:58, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Parminder, > >> > >> My understanding of the high-level meeting (I think labelled > "ministerial" in Nairobi) is the same as yours: intended a session in a > format more familiar to high-level government representatives, get them and > their staff to attend and to hopefully stay on. And I understand it worked > in Nairobi, it was an effective carrot for both African govt and others to > attend the IGF. And I'm OK with that, a pre-meeting that is clearly > separate from the IGF is fine whether it's bestbits, the host country's HLM > or giganet (etc). But it is problematic when the Baku high-level meeting > produces a declaration (however innocuous) that is then made available on > the official IGF website in the same space as the Chairman's Summary, the > document that's traditionally been to only official output of the IGF > process . Also a problem > that the UN flag raising ceremony was listed as part of the Baku HLM > agenda. Need to be more thoughtful in how these meetings are presented. > >> > >> Anriette - another question for today's MAG call, could you ask why the > Baku declaration is available on the IGF website, and why it's presented > along side the Chairman's summary? If it were on the host website only, > then much less of an issue. This should be fixed for Bali. > >> > >> Further complication this year is that sessions from the IGF proper > will be held on day "zero" (regional IGF session, etc.) Pre-meetings begin > to mix with sessions of the IGF. Would be good to make a very clear > demarcation between what is IGF and what is not IGF (the HLM should not be.) > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> On Aug 14, 2013, at 1:09 PM, parminder wrote: > >> > >>> in addition to the below issues, we still do not know what the form of > the high level meeting is. Is it a real round table kind of forum where > people get an opportunity to wiegh in substantially or just a 'mix and make > connections' thing which corporates types may still love to do but not many > civil society kinds may to be too eager about. > >>> > >>> Also, is their any drafting process for the likely statement to come > out of the HLM. That is crucial. > >>> > >>> And, the IGF or non IGF status of the meeting? > >>> > >>> I had asked for these clarifications on the IGC list from a civil > society member of the MAG, and await them. > >>> > >>> My understanding is that initially is was a kind of a 'formal thing > without real substance', which was to attract high level participation from > governments, esp ministrial level. Kind of peoople who do not come over > just to sit in the audience at the IGF. And when ministers come, their > retinue of senior officials also come along, and that was supposed to fill > in a (really) missing gap at the IG, especially in terms of governmental > participation from developing countires. I will be cautious to see this > meeting take a character and big role for itself, which could compromise > the relatively participative nature of the IGF. Especially of concern is > the declaration that comes from this meeting, which at present is the only > real 'consumable' doc coming out the IGF environment. So, maybe civil > socity may want to think around these issues as well. > >>> > >>> parminder > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wednesday 14 August 2013 08:47 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >>>> On 14/08/13 00:44, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >>>>> Jeremy Malcolm > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>> How about setting up a joint NomCom by inviting members of all the > >>>>>>> various civil society organizations and networks to volunteer for > >>>>>>> the NomCom... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> It is a very good plan for the future, but not something that could > >>>>>> be accomplished easily in two weeks. > >>>>>> > >>>>> Where does that “two weeks” timeline come from? > >>>>> > >>>> Actually you're quite right, I'm mixing up the deadline for the CSTD > enhanced cooperation questionnaire (which is in two weeks) with the (yet > unspecified, but Izumi is finding out) deadline for nominating panelists to > the High Level Meeting. So maybe we have longer, but surely not much longer. > >>>> > >>>> Establishing (or re-establishing - we had one in WSIS) a high-level > mechanism for civil society groups to jointly nominate candidates for > positions is very important, I couldn't agree with you more. But it's also > ambitious. > >>>> > >>>> Noting that thanks to your leadership the IGC has a workshop relevant > to this topic planned for Bali ("MS selection processes: accountability and > transparency"), it would be better, I feel, to come up with a proposal and > present it at that workshop. I wouldn't want to rush it on account of what > is probably a minimally important pre-event in Bali. > >>>> > >>>> However, if you disagree then by all means put your idea to the IGC > then I can put it to the Best Bits interim steering group and we can reach > out to the other relevant groups and networks too. If it were me though, I > would rather wait. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> 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 > >>>> > >>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement > knowledge hub | > http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > >>>> > >>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > >>>> > >>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > >>>> > >>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > >>>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > > executive director, association for progressive communications > > www.apc.org > > po box 29755, melville 2109 > > south africa > > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Aug 17 09:07:22 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 09:07:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] More from ISOC on surveillance Message-ID: http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2013/08/perspective-principles-internet-surveillance -- 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 michelgauthierpresse at gmail.com Sat Aug 17 14:46:07 2013 From: michelgauthierpresse at gmail.com (michel Gauthier) Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 20:46:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] On "ad hominem" and "twisting words" In-Reply-To: References: <91EDBFFE-1228-4ECA-AAFC-C448E873D8CF@gmail.com> Message-ID: Houhaou! This seems a comprehensive review and project indeed. With many concepts and notions that need to be analyszed in more details. I would be interested in discussing all this, step by step and producing a report/plan from it. May I discuss it with you through private mail in French (I/you(?) would feel more at ease). Also, I am not sure you may want to go into details on a public list the NSA is most probably watching due to the "high level leaders/influencers" who participate. Michel Gauthier 2013/8/16 JFC Morfin > Dear Anriette, Bertrand, Daniel, Norbert, and Garth, > > This thread has become very interesting and "pre-fundamental". This mail > tries to synthetize our various inputs into a coherent > evaluation/proposition. Sorry for it to make a long mail, but this is due > to your different valuable contributions and their articulation. > > > > *At 12:31 14/08/2013, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > *Boy, do I like a good controversy: it is the only way to have all sides > of an issue, to think deeply, to be forced to reevaluate your own > assumptions and prejudices, to potentially reframe a debate (as we are > doing here) and move towards a solution. This is what Parliaments were > established for: light through debate. > > > Also for voted upon decisions. And before that, to votes on the way to > vote decisions. > > > > The IGC Charter says: 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. > > It also says: 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. > From this I understand that people want to talk in a forum about the way > to proceed with Enhanced Cooperations, and that the role of the IGC is to > provide such a forum, i.e. a mutual help point of entry into the IGF for > civil society members in order to enhance the cooperation as regards what > it may bring to the Internet utilization process. > > > ICANN is complex machinery and still a laboratory of multi-stakeholder > governance. Issues like the risk of capture(s) by one constituency or > another, the tension between a corporate vs. a regulatory role, or how to > ensure the defense of the global public interest, just to name a few, are > necessary, substantial debates. We need to have them. > > > ICANN is also a complicated enhanced cooperation machinery prototype, > experimenting a practical way to balance the four reference poles of a > global governance under the leading influence of a national unballancing > tutor. We needed the tutor; we have to get rid of the unballance, but > when/how? > > > > Actually, the launch of the new gTLD program will require a deep > examination of its impact on the structures and processes of ICANN. Whether > we call it ICANN 3.0 or not does not matter. What will be needed is > engagement in the discussion that will necessarily take place in the coming > years. > > > The vTLD (vanity TLD) program is not coherent with the openness of the > naming space that we established in 1978 and globally consensually agreed > on in 1984 (RFC 920) by Jon Postel, the IETF documented in RFCs, Vint Cerf > confirmed in 2000, and IDNA2008 RFCs, and what ICANN pleads for in its ICP3 > policy. We all need the multinational, multilingual, multiledger, > multilayer digital name space (ML-DNS) to be stable and well behaved. > > This is why we welcome the current technical respite that we currently > have, thanks to China/i-DNs' sense of responsibilities and precaution (I am > still looking for an appropriate modern word for the greek "philia"). > However, I am afraid ICANN is not suitably taking advantage of this period, > which could come to a close in the year to come (due to software and > architectonic progress and evolutions). This is why I fear that the > "discussion that will necessarily take place in the coming years" will turn > out to be more of a cyberwar leading to an uncertain eventual negentropy > and in the meanwhile to real and possibly economically devastating entropy. > > > *At 14:43 14/08/2013, Daniel Pimienta wrote: > *May be we should consider either create a new forum inviting many > players who are active in our field (and doing advocacy on their own) or > simply revive the existing Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space < > plenary at wsis-cs.org> which should have been the appropriate place for > that purpose. > > In the multi-stakeholder game (nothing pejorative in that word, I use it > in the mathematical sense of game theory) the other groups (governments and > private sector) have their own mechanism of coordination outside where we > are not present and this is perfectly fair. Civil society also needs to be > better coordinated in the inner circle and at this time we lack such > mechanism. In game theory the winner is the one which strategy is unknown > to the other players: we have implicitly accepted to discuss publically our > strategy here and this is not good for our chance of pushing our > consensuated visions. > > My proposition and action is based on the same analysis and on the > observation of the three other groups. > > > 1. International organizations are proceeding on the language plane. > Norbert reported it for the "Cloud", but this is true in other domains. > Their role is a global concordance for compatibility, interoperations, and > interintelligibility. The problem raised by the lack of civil society > cooperation in their normative effort is that their vocabulary and its > underlying concepts will result in a biased by solutions pact to the > detriment of use. > > 2. Governments are proceeding through the ITU normative forum and the > global treaty on telecommunications. With a well-organized debate, meeting, > and concluding pact. > > 3. The private sector also reached a paradigmatically normative pact and > an organization (named "OpenStand" - *http://open-stand.org*) embodied > through RFC 6852 that associates the private stakeholders around ISOC > (network engineering), W3C (business proposition) and IEEE (computer > engineering). > > 4. For the time being, ICANN stays in between Governments due to its de > facto affiliation with the US Government and intergovernmental philia, and > its self-sustenance protection policy. This teaches us a lot, but we cannot > copy this model at this stage by lack of budgetary sources or in the fear > to unsettle the cyberspace. > > Civil society must organize itself in taking advantage from these > experiments. This means that we must take control of a key something that > we can master with a heterarchic and fuzzy management through truly > enhanced cooperation where we will propose Govs, Intl.orgs, and Corps to > join us. > > - Governments have sovereignty and power - they use treaties. > - Private sector has standards and money - they have named their pact > “OpenStand”. > - Intl.orgs have documentation and ties - they call these “norms”. > - We have information and use - I call our capability in that are > “OpenUse” when dealing with OpenStand chairs. This is for this OpenUse > approach (* http://openuse.org* ) that I call for > help after having established an OpenUse technical liaison with the IETF > through IUCG at IETF. > > > *At 15:22 14/08/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote:* > this would be a joint NomCom of civil society as a whole: Members of all > the various civil society organizations and networks would be invited to > volunteer for the NomCom, and a reasonably sized group from among these > volunteers would be randomly selected to form the NomCom. The NomCom would > constitute itself (it particular the NomCom chair would be elected by the > randomly selected members of the NomCom). For each selection task within > the remit of the NomCom, the NomCom would publish a call for expressions of > interest and then selecting a good civil society representative or group of > representatives (the NomCom members themselves being not eligible). > > > +1. A CSnomcom is just a common service that is provided to the > organization of a group. If several organizations wish - for efficiency > sake - to be represented by a unique person, this is their choice. If this > choice turns out to be beneficial, next time others will join. > > > Obviously all of the steering groups etc. of these networks must be > invited to participate in the discussions around creating a Joint Civil > Society NomCom mechanism, or other credible mechanism that could serve the > same purpose. > > I however don't think that it is appropriate to restrict these discussions > only to people who are on some steering group. Therefore I'd like to > broadly circulate a call for expressions of interest for participation in > these discussions, in which everyone who is > (1) experienced as a civil society participant in Internet governance > debates, and is > (2) clearly primarily participating as a civil society person, with > reasonable independence from industry and government interests is invited > to also participate in these discussions on the basis of a simple > expression of interest. > > > +1. Just a remark: the term "dynamic coalition" has been coined not to be > specific to any form of coalition and organization by individuals or > groups. This should be respected as there are also other forms of > articulated relational spaces than the common steered networks formula. > > > Acknowledgement: This initiative is significantly inspired by Thomas > Lowenhaupt's suggestion of a while back to create a Joint Board for > selection tasks. > > > The process might be as touchy as the MAG selection process... But it > could start small and grow by positive reputation. > > > *At 16:47 14/08/2013, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:* > Response from the Indonesian representative to my question made during the > MAG meeting about this high-level ministerial event is as follows: > > > I note that the proposition was a "high level leaders meeting" and it then > becomes a “high level ministerial event”. Therefore, it means it is hosted > by governments. However, the terminology has not been adapted to a partly > claimed equal footing with business sector and civil society. > > > - Will start off with statements from each of the ministers present > - This is followed by statements from leaders from business and CS > > > I think it is time that we introduce a question about what a leader is in > the Internet Governance and for us to introduce the concept of "NIL" > Meetings. The NILs being the “Network influent level”. Those who are denied > to talk, and who can only do and pay. > > > if we want the IGF to become more outcome oriented.. don't we want ALL > outcomes from IGF-linked processes to be reflected.. or should that apply > only to events that are formally part of the main IGF? But high-level > protocol is a powerful force, and not one that combines easily with > interactive dialogue. > > > If we want interactive dialog among people who are not used to it, it is > up to us to organize it and make them participate in becoming the common > information media both in documenting their conclusions and in publicly > questioning them about the points they purposely or unwittingly ignore, > challenging these conclusions with those of other stakeholders, including > ours. They talk, we broadcast, archive, document. What realy counts is not > their rules, technology, agreements and norms but our intelligent use of > them and our best purchases and practices. > > This is the OpenUse attitude that I propose we all support . > > Now, let me finish with mentioning what you should all keep in mind. As a > typical representative of the non-funded civil society members, I see the > IGF as split into two: the TLLMand the others. The TLLM are the T&L level > members who can be invited (or participate in IETF or ISO meetings). I must > acknowledge that I am not very interested in TLLM participation in HLLMs > (T&L level members in High-Leader Level Meetings). The cost of the T&L to > Bali in order to attend the ethics alibi meeting would permit Free Research > and Development High Competence Level Members of civil society to > significantly upgrade the cyberspace (may I just remind everyone that > today’s Internet cyberspace has some analogy with the deck of the > SST(itanic)). > > > *At 00:20 15/08/2013, Garth Graham wrote: > *On the one hand, the stewards of the uses of ICTs for community > development recognized that WSIS would (as it did) fail to grasp the nature > of how societies and their technologies co-evolve. They stayed away from > WSIS. > > On the other hand, the agencies that saw community networking as a means > to the end of human rights, rather than an end in itself, trampled the > stewards of community use into the dust as they stampeded towards the WSIS > trough of resources. In large part, WSIS killed GCNP. > > I believe the nature of digital economy and society is revealed most > strongly through the emergent patterns of community online and daily life > online. That means the best way to evolve the Internet Governance > Ecosystem remains local, not global. It means the conscious neglect of the > experience of the stewards of the uses of ICTs for community development > inherent in those two examples was a mistake. > > Those stewards have not gone away. Every increase in bandwidth, every > decrease in bandwidth cost, every effort to locate control of Internet > access in the hands of community, increases their interstitial strength and > numbers. They are the early adopters of the phase change in governance we > are now experiencing, away from closed systems of control and towards open > complex adaptive systems that learn. Some nation states, particularly > those that recognize the importance of digital inclusion, acknowledge their > existence better than others. But they are clearly not players who are > active in our field, if that field or space is defined as civil society. > > > This analysis sounds perfect to me, except on my one key point: what the > French word “concertation” or the old Greek word “philia” imply: may be the > portmanteau “coopetition” in English. This is *the key of our complex > world*: we are bound together, so if something is truly good/bad for one > it is holistically good/bad for all, all the way to the whole universe > (this is what a fractal universe means). > > Nothing new under the sun: we know what it implies. “Man is by nature a > social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally > is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that > precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or > is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of > society, is either a beast or a god. ” (Aristotle). The 19th century > mistake led to our paying for creating the sole financial profit dedicated > “Homo economicus”. > > This societality also means that our human decision margin in order to > influence complexity is *slim. *Therefore*, *our current time’s job is > neither to choose between the tide of the technological innovation and the > wind of the societal evolution nor to decide on a route for others, but to > provide shipping (States, Corporations, Organizations, and people in a > people centered society) with navigational help permitting one to go where > one wants – otherwise, we will all sinkin the cybertempest. Among these > tools there are the WSIS, IGF, RFCs, best practices, dynamic coalitions, > enhanced cooperations, multistakeholderism, e-sovereignty, e-empowerments, > Internet architecture, etc.etc. All of these comprise the digital > architectonic area. > > > I believe that there has been a total breakdown of public trust in the > structural capacity of a triumvirate of government, business and civil > society to sustain a social contract. > > > Correct, in the cyberspace, at the speed we are going, we need a cyber > code, radars, adequate charts and referent frames, navigational aids, etc. > and mutual respect and civil friendship from others. This is like in a car > or on an airplane. > > > > Changing the concept of organization to self-organization will scale > fractally towards planetary responses that are sensible to anyone at any > level, without the need for the creation of monolithic and therefore very > dangerous global institutions > > > Garth, this is exactly what the WSIS did and what we should do. But we > read it first with our old glasses. Like the IETF did, and still partly > does with some RFCs. The RFC does not change, nor does the source code, but > the architectural or even architectonical perspective adapts. We want to > conduct fractality instead of influencing it. This is the error. We want to > rule the internet, instead of reaping the best advantage from it. This > cannot work: this is a layer violation. Too many unordered parameters and > interlinks. We have to learn. > > The problem with self-organization is that if you cannot moderate it > through adequate auto-catalysis, it then becomes critical. > Self-organization criticality (SOC) means that we humans do not scale to > the new level of complexity that we have reached. Then, the world takes > over (its automatic pilot is sometimes rude, as we experimented with WWII > or how we are currently doing with the global financial crisis). In some > cases, however, we can keep control, as seen during the Cold War. > > How did we make it? Probably because we learned and were precautious, i.e. > we prevented the major conflict ahead of time before having to fight it. > This is what is called counterwar.(i.e. to engage preemptive low cost > actions now, against further higher cost war – along the principle of > precaution). This is (IMHO) the plural attempts to excellence advocated by > Daniel. Defusing criticality in advance through intelligent > self-organization autocatalytic solutions (trying to adapt Ulanowicz to the > digital ecosystem, or an interesting paper of Barry McMullin > http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~alife/bmcm9901/html-multi/) > > > *At 04:00 15/08/2013, Daniel Pimienta wrote:* > You ask me which is better. I always have been reluctant to see the > development work area in terms of disjunctive alternatives; either you do > telecenter or not, either you do community work or not, either you are in > open source or not, either you are in the local or not, etc... I think the > plurality and diversity of approaches is valid and the point is to reach > excellence in each one. The challenge is how to articulate somehow those > different approaches and here the results are often frustrating (one of the > reason is the human tendency to consider own approach as the only valid). > In spite the WSIS civil society process was not capable to integrate all > the required diversity (and you are correct to remind us that), on my > experience, it has been quite a successful effort in terms of articulation > and my frustration is that we have lost this momentum and I wish we could > regain it during times where civil society influence has been decreasing > while governments and some big players from private sector decide our > cyberfuture in a way I personally do not feel comfortable. > > > Yes. I suggest we have to consider two things here: > > 1. the WSIS was correct in identifying 4 poles (Govs, CS, Business, and > Intl.orgs). What is wrong is our frequent replacement of Intl.orgs by the > Technical and Academic Community in our schemas. For two reasons: (1) there > are lead users, searchers, and engineers in each stakeholder category (ARPA > to start with is a governmental R&D, and OpenResearch is Civil Society > oriented) and (2) this artificially increases the power of Govs instead of > reducing it. International organizations are temper sovereignties, > sometimes for good and sometimes for the worse. > > 2. We are discussing the data level at the data level. In other words, we > are considering what transports and stores data (Internet, cloud), how it > is organized and how it impacts our lives. However, we do not consider the > fundamental power which is in metadata (the data on data) and in the > metaorganization of these metadata. Where the reality, i.e. the true power, > i.e. the syllodata (the data between the data), and the way to support them > is through communication. What counts first is the way the real world > actually IS, and then we can consider how we want to complement it > (architectonic) along prefundemantal considerations, then how we will > structure this complement (architecture), then the way we can implement it > (engineering), the way we can intelligently organize our use of this > complement, and then - and only then - the open and neutral best ways that > users can utilize and enjoy the result for their development. > > jfc > * http://openuse.org > > > > > > > * > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Aug 18 16:18:30 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 22:18:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Preparatory Process for Sharm el-Sheikh WSIS+10 Message-ID: <20130818221830.3685a8b0@quill> Dear all It seems that this link to information on the preparatory process for next year's WSIS+10 “High-Level Event” in Sharm el-Sheikh hasn't been posted here yet. https://www.itu.int/ITU-D/hcb/newsletter/display.php?M=31724&C=5f401d0eed1628c7420686ac36098fb9&S=205&L=26&N=107 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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Aug 19 10:31:23 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 10:31:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] / CELE's new document: intermediary liablity References: <1376920095.84662.YahooMailNeo@web125201.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <03003A77-4DF3-4815-83B4-9A48BEFCEE91@gmail.com> Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: CELE > Date: August 19, 2013, 9:48:15 AM EDT > To: undisclosed recipients: ; > Subject: [IRPCoalition] Nuevo trabajo del CELE: responsabilidad de intermediarios / CELE's new document: intermediary liablity > Reply-To: CELE > > > > English version below > > Las llaves del ama de llaves: la estrategia de los intermediarios en Internet y el impacto en el entorno digital > > De manera creciente se viene discutiendo en Latinoamérica sobre la responsabilidad que deben tener los intermediarios en Internet por las acciones de sus usuarios. Para los Estados y algunos actores privados, los intermediarios –la empresa que nos presta la conexión o la red social que usamos diariamente– están llamados a ejercer como guardianes en la red para combatir la difamación y la piratería en línea, entre otros. Éste, sin embargo, no es un debate limitado a los intereses del Estado y de las empresas que ofrecen servicios en la red. El entorno digital se ha convertido en una extensión del espacio físico, donde los ciudadanos ejercen derechos como el acceso a la información, la educación y la libertad de expresión. En esa medida, las soluciones regulatorias en este tema deben tomar en cuenta la tensión de derechos y los objetivos socialmente deseables. > > El objetivo de este nuevo documento de la Iniciativa por la Libertad de Expresión en Internet (iLEI) del CELE es ofrecer un sustento teórico y un contexto mínimo para el debate sobre la responsabilidad de los intermediarios en Internet con énfasis en los problemas relacionados con contenidos. > > El documento completo está disponible aquí > > ACERCA DEL CELE > > > El Centro de Estudios para la Libertad de Expresión y Acceso a la Información (CELE) fue creado en el año 2009 en el ámbito de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Palermo con el objetivo de proveer de investigaciones y estudios rigurosos a sectores de la sociedad civil, periodistas, instituciones gubernamentales e instituciones académicas dedicados a la defensa y a la promoción de estos derechos, especialmente en América Latina. La creación del CELE responde a la necesidad de construir espacios de debate y estudio dedicados a reflexionar sobre la importancia, los contenidos y los límites de estos derechos en la región. Para esto, el centro se propone dialogar y trabajar en conjunto con otras unidades académicas del país y de Latinoamérica. > > El CELE tiene como objetivo principal que sus investigaciones se constituyan en herramientas útiles para periodistas, instituciones gubernamentales, sectores privados y de la sociedad civil dedicados a la defensa y promoción de estos derechos, especialmente en América Latina. Teniendo en cuenta este objetivo, además de los estudios que considere necesarios, el centro encarará investigaciones solicitadas por estos grupos. > > El director del CELE es Eduardo Bertoni, Profesor de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Palermo y ex-Relator Especial para la Libertad de Expresión en la Organización de los Estados Americanos. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > The gatekeeper’s keys: the strategy of intermediaries on the Internet and the impact on the digital surroundings > > The responsibility that intermediaries must have regarding the behaviour of their users on the Internet has increasingly been discussed in Latin America. For States and certain private sectors, the intermediaries- the companies that provide the Internet connection or the social network we use every day- are called to act as gatekeepers on the network in order to combat defamation and online piracy, among others. This, however, is not a debate limited to the interests of the State and the companies offering services on the network. The digital environment has become an extension of the physical space, where citizens exercise rights such as access to information, education and freedom of expression. To that extent, regulatory solutions in this area should take into account the rights and power of socially desirable goals. > > The aim of this new document by the Freedom of Expression on the Internet initiative (iLEI) of CELE is to offer a theoretical foundation and a minimum context for the debate on liability of Internet intermediaries, with emphasis on problems related to content. > > The complete document (in Spanish) is available here > > > About CELE > > The Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (CELE) was founded in 2009 at the Palermo University Law School with the objective to provide rigorous research and studies to sectors of civil society, journalists, government institutions and the academic community that are dedicated to the promotion of those rights, primarily in Latin America. CELE was created in response to a need to construct spaces for debate and study dedicated to reflecting on the importance and the limits of freedom of expression and access to public information in the region. In order to accomplish this, the center proposes to create dialogue and collaborate with other academic entities in Argentina and in Latin America. > > CELE's principal objective is to produce reports that can be useful tools for those journalists, governmental institutions, and members of the private sector and civil society that are dedicated to the defense and promotion of these rights, especially in Latin America. In accordance with this objective, CELE will undertake research at the request of the aforementioned groups in addition to undertaking studies that CELE considers to be necessary. > > CELE's director is Eduardo Bertoni, a professor at Palermo University Lawschool and former Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression at the Organization of American States. > > UNIVERSIDAD DE PALERMO > 2013 Facultad de Derecho > Mario Bravo 1050 | Tel: 5199-4500 | www.palermo.edu/derecho > CELE Centro de Estudios en Libertad de Expresión y Acceso a la Información > www.palermo.edu/cele > Si no desea recibir más e-mails de esta dirección, por favor, responda con el asunto REMOVER. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 19 10:52:49 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 07:52:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013: Registration and visa update Message-ID: <1376923969.68017.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dear all, Registration is open for the 2013 Africa Internet Governance Forum. Forum comes up in Nairobi, Kenya. Dates: 24 - 26 September Register on: http://www.uneca.org/content/afigf-2013-registration-form-formulaire-dinscription and an invitation letter will be sent to you If you need a visa, please send the bio+passport info (or data page) to: nnenna75 at gmail.com with copy to faymakane at gmail.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 nomagean at yahoo.co.uk Mon Aug 19 13:11:18 2013 From: nomagean at yahoo.co.uk (nomsa muswai) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:11:18 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013: Registration and visa update In-Reply-To: <1376923969.68017.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1376923969.68017.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1376932278.91060.YahooMailNeo@web133206.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Good day Are there any fellowships available for this event?\ If so how may I go about it ?   Thanks Kind Regards ________________________________ From: Nnenna To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Sent: Monday, 19 August 2013, 16:52 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013: Registration and visa update Dear all, Registration is open for the 2013 Africa Internet Governance Forum. Forum comes up in Nairobi, Kenya. Dates: 24 - 26 September Register on: http://www.uneca.org/content/afigf-2013-registration-form-formulaire-dinscription and an invitation letter will be sent to you If you need a visa, please send the bio+passport info (or data page) to: nnenna75 at gmail.com with copy to faymakane at gmail.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bavouc at gmail.com Mon Aug 19 13:15:32 2013 From: bavouc at gmail.com (Martial Bavou[Private Business Account]) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:15:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013: Registration and visa update In-Reply-To: <1376923969.68017.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1376923969.68017.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Nnenna, Thanks sharing this. Is there any support to attend this event? Thanks for your time and consideration. Regards. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Nnenna Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 3:53 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013: Registration and visa update Dear all, Registration is open for the 2013 Africa Internet Governance Forum. Forum comes up in Nairobi, Kenya. Dates: 24 - 26 September Register on: http://www.uneca.org/content/afigf-2013-registration-form-formulaire-dinscri ption and an invitation letter will be sent to you If you need a visa, please send the bio+passport info (or data page) to: nnenna75 at gmail.com with copy to faymakane at gmail.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 soekpe at gmail.com Mon Aug 19 14:27:51 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 19:27:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013: Registration and visa update In-Reply-To: References: <1376923969.68017.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear All, >From the event site no fellowship, unless you sort from outside the box that is my understanding. I will be in Bali, Indonesia. Best. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Aug 19, 2013 6:16 PM, "Martial Bavou[Private Business Account]" < bavouc at gmail.com> wrote: > Nnenna,**** > > ** ** > > Thanks sharing this. Is there any support to attend this event? Thanks for > your time and consideration.**** > > ** ** > > Regards.**** > > ** ** > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Nnenna > *Sent:* Monday, August 19, 2013 3:53 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013: Registration and visa > update**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Dear all,**** > > Registration is open for the 2013 Africa Internet Governance Forum.**** > > Forum comes up in Nairobi, Kenya. **** > > Dates: 24 - 26 September > > **** > > Register on: > http://www.uneca.org/content/afigf-2013-registration-form-formulaire-dinscriptionand an invitation letter will be sent to you > **** > > If you need a visa, please send the bio+passport info (or data page) to:** > ** > > nnenna75 at gmail.com with copy to faymakane at gmail.com**** > > **** > > ** ** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nne75 at yahoo.com Mon Aug 19 17:18:27 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:18:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013: Registration and visa update In-Reply-To: <1376932278.91060.YahooMailNeo@web133206.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <1376923969.68017.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1376932278.91060.YahooMailNeo@web133206.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1376947107.45244.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> On the registration link, it is stated that participants fund themselves. I know that there will be remote participation, so that people can participate online Best regards Nnenna ________________________________ From: nomsa muswai To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Nnenna Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 5:11 PM Subject: Re: [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013: Registration and visa update Good day Are there any fellowships available for this event?\ If so how may I go about it ?   Thanks   Kind Regards From: Nnenna To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Sent: Monday, 19 August 2013, 16:52 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013: Registration and visa update Dear all, Registration is open for the 2013 Africa Internet Governance Forum. Forum comes up in Nairobi, Kenya. Dates: 24 - 26 September Register on: http://www.uneca.org/content/afigf-2013-registration-form-formulaire-dinscription and an invitation letter will be sent to you If you need a visa, please send the bio+passport info (or data page) to: nnenna75 at gmail.com with copy to faymakane at gmail.com   ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Mon Aug 19 17:51:06 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:51:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] UPDATE: Africa IGF 2013: Registration and visa update In-Reply-To: <1376947107.45244.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1376923969.68017.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1376932278.91060.YahooMailNeo@web133206.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <1376947107.45244.YahooMailNeo@web120102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3DBA68CB-665E-4278-8BC0-DC9A6E0F385D@acm.org> On 19 Aug 2013, at 17:18, Nnenna wrote: > I know that there will be remote participation, so that people can participate online that is what i plan to do. went to the registration to see if there was a remote participant registration. there wasn't 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Aug 20 04:59:13 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 14:29:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] China's Communist Party moving toward Maoist orthodoxy References: Message-ID: Note particularly the diatribes against "neo liberalism" (a cant phrase that I've heard here once in a while, sadly) and civil society in general. --srs (iPad) Begin forwarded message: > From: David Farber > Date: 20 August 2013 4:54:14 IST > To: "ip" > Subject: [IP] China's Communist Party moving toward Maoist orthodoxy > Reply-To: dave at farber.net > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Ellen Ullman > Subject: China's Communist Party moving toward Maoist orthodoxy > Date: August 19, 2013 7:13:31 PM EDT > To: dave at farber.net > Reply-To: Ellen Ullman > > For IP if you wish. > > Perhaps this NY Times piece gives pause re: an earlier posting championing China as a model democratic state. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-leadership-takes-hard-line-in-secret-memo.html?hp > > > August 19, 2013 > China’s New Leadership Takes Hard Line in Secret Memo > > By CHRISTOPHER BUCKLEY > > HONG KONG — Communist Party cadres have filled meeting halls around China to hear a somber, secretive warning issued by senior leaders. Power could escape their grip, they are being told, unless the party eradicates seven subversive currents coursing through Chinese society. > These seven perils were enumerated in a memo referred to as Document No. 9 that bears the unmistakable imprimatur of Xi Jinping, China’s new top leader. The first was “Western constitutional democracy”; others included promoting “universal values” of human rights, Western-inspired notions of media independence and civil society, ardently pro-market “neo-liberalism,” and “nihilist” criticisms of the party’s traumatic past. > Even as Mr. Xi has sought to ready some reforms to expose China’s economy to stronger market forces, he has undertaken a “mass line” campaign to enforce party authority that goes beyond the party’s periodic calls for discipline. The internal warnings to cadres show that Mr. Xi’s confident public face has been accompanied by fears that the party is vulnerable to an economic slowdown, public anger about corruption and challenges from liberals impatient for political change. > “Western forces hostile to China and dissidents within the country are still constantly infiltrating the ideological sphere,” says Document No. 9, the number given to it by the central party office that issued it in April. It has not been openly published, but a version was shown to The New York Times and was verified by four sources close to senior officials, including an editor with a party newspaper. > Opponents of one-party rule, it says, “have stirred up trouble about disclosing officials’ assets, using the Internet to fight corruption, media controls and other sensitive topics, to provoke discontent with the party and government.” > The warnings were not idle. Since the circular was issued, party-run publications and Web sites have vehemently denounced constitutionalism and civil society, notions that were not considered off limits in recent years. Officials have intensified efforts to block access to critical views on the Internet. Two prominent rights advocates have been detained in the past few weeks, in what their supporters have called a blow to the “rights defense movement,” which was already beleaguered under Mr. Xi’s predecessor, Hu Jintao. > Mr. Xi’s hard line has disappointed Chinese liberals, some of whom once hailed his rise to power as an opportunity to push for political change after a long period of stagnation. Instead, Mr. Xi has signaled a shift to a more conservative, traditional leftist stance with his “rectification” campaign to ensure discipline and conspicuous attempts to defend the legacy of Mao Zedong. That has included a visit to a historic site where Mao undertook one of his own attempts to remake the ruling party in the 1950s. > Mr. Xi’s edicts have been disseminated in a series of compulsory study sessions across the country, like one in the southern province of Hunan that was recounted on a local government Web site. > “Promotion of Western constitutional democracy is an attempt to negate the party’s leadership,” Cheng Xinping, a deputy head of propaganda for Hengyang, a city in Hunan, told a gathering of mining industry officials. Human rights advocates, he continued, want “ultimately to form a force for political confrontation.” > The campaign carries some risks for Mr. Xi, who has acknowledged that the slowing economy needs new, more market-driven momentum that can come only from a relaxation of state influence. > In China’s tight but often contentious political circles, proponents of deeper Western-style economic changes are often allied with those pushing for rule of law and a more open political system, while traditionalists favor greater state control of both economic and political life. Mr. Xi’s cherry picking of approaches from each of the rival camps, analysts say, could end up miring his own agenda in intraparty squabbling. > Condemnations of constitutional government have prompted dismayed opposition from liberal intellectuals and even some moderate-minded former officials. The campaign has also exhilarated leftist defenders of party orthodoxy, many of whom pointedly oppose the sort of market reforms that Mr. Xi and Prime Minister Li Keqiang have said are needed. > The consequent rifts are unusually open, and they could widen and bog down Mr. Xi, said Xiao Gongqin, a professor of history at Shanghai Normal University who is also a prominent proponent of gradual, party-guided reform. > “Now the leftists feel very excited and elated, while the liberals feel very discouraged and discontented,” said Professor Xiao, who said he was generally sympathetic to Mr. Xi’s aims. “The ramifications are very serious, because this seriously hurts the broad middle class and moderate reformers — entrepreneurs and intellectuals,” said Professor Xiao. “It’s possible that this situation will get out of control, and that won’t help the political stability that the central leadership stresses.” > The pressures that prompted the party’s ideological counteroffensive spilled onto the streets of Guangzhou, a city in southern China, early this year. Staff members at the Southern Weekend newspaper there protested after a propaganda official rewrote an editorial celebrating constitutionalism — the idea that state and party power should be subject to a supreme law that prevents abuses and protects citizens’ rights. > The confrontation at the newspaper and campaign demanding that officials disclose their wealth alarmed leaders and helped galvanize them into issuing Document No. 9, said Professor Xiao, the historian. Indeed, senior central propaganda officials met to discuss the newspaper protest, among other issues, and called it a plot to subvert the party, according to a speech on a party Web site of Lianyungang, a port city in eastern China. > “Western anti-China forces led by the United States have joined in one after the other, and colluded with dissidents within the country to make slanderous attacks on us in the name of so-called press freedom and constitutional democracy,” said Zhang Guangdong, a propaganda official in Lianyungang, citing the conclusions from the meeting of central propaganda officials. “They are trying to break through our political system, and this was a classic example,” he said of the newspaper protest. > But Mr. Xi and his colleagues were victims of expectations that they themselves encouraged, rather than a foreign conspiracy, said analysts. The citizen-activists demanding that party officials reveal their family wealth cited Mr. Xi’s own vows to end official corruption and deliver more candid government. Likewise, scholars and lawyers who have campaigned for limiting party power under the rule of law have also invoked Mr. Xi’s promise to honor China’s constitution. > Even these relatively measured campaigns proved too much for party leaders, who are wary of any challenges that could swell into outright opposition. Document No. 9 was issued by the Central Committee General Office, the administrative engine room of the central leadership, and required the approval of Mr. Xi and other top leaders, said Li Weidong, a political commentator and former magazine editor in Beijing. > “There’s no doubt then it had direct endorsement from Xi Jinping,” said Mr. Li. “It’s certainly had his approval and reflects his general views.” > Since the document was issued, the campaign for ideological orthodoxy has prompted a torrent of commentary and articles in party-run periodicals. Many of them have invoked Maoist rhetoric of class war rarely seen in official publications in recent years. Some have said that constitutionalism and similar ideas were tools of Western subversion that helped topple the former Soviet Union — and that a similar threat faces China. > “Constitutionalism belongs only to capitalism,” said one commentary in the overseas edition of the People’s Daily. Constitutionalism “is a weapon for information and psychological warfare used by the magnates of American monopoly capitalism and their proxies in China to subvert China’s socialist system,” said another commentary in the paper. > But leftists, feeling emboldened, could create trouble for Mr. Xi’s government, some analysts said. Mr. Xi has indicated that he wants a party meeting in the fall to endorse policies that would give market competition and private businesses a bigger role in the economy — and Marxist stalwarts in the party are deeply wary of such proposals. > Relatively liberal officials and intellectuals hoped the ousting last year of Bo Xilai, a charismatic politician who favored leftist policies, would help their cause. But they have been disappointed. Mr. Bo goes on trial on Thursday. > Hu Deping, a reform-minded former government official who has met Mr. Xi, recently issued a public warning about the leftward drift. “Just what is the bottom-line for reform?” Mr. Hu said on a Web site run by his family to commemorate his father, Hu Yaobang, a leader of political and economic relaxation in the 1980s. > Mr. Xi will face another ideological test later in the year, when the Communist Party celebrates the 120th anniversary of Mao’s birth. The scale of those celebrations has not been announced. But Xiangtan, the area in Hunan Province that encompasses Mao’s hometown, is spending $1 billion to spruce up commemorative sites and facilities for the occasion, according to the Xiangtan government Web site. > “You have to commemorate him, and because he’s already passed away, you can only speak well of him, not ill,” Professor Xiao, the historian, said of Mao’s anniversary. “That’s like pouring petrol on the leftists’ fire.” > Jonathan Ansfield contributed reporting from Beijing. > > > > Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Aug 20 13:46:25 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 19:46:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Local community oriented mesh networks Message-ID: <20130820194625.53615095@quill> An interesing article at motherjones.com... Greetings, Norbert JOSEPH BONICIOLI mostly uses the same internet you and I do. He pays a service provider a monthly fee to get him online. But to talk to his friends and neighbors in Athens, Greece, he's also got something much weirder and more interesting: a private, parallel internet. He and his fellow Athenians built it. They did so by linking up a set of rooftop wifi antennas to create a "mesh"... http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/08/mesh-internet-privacy-nsa-isp -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From angelacdaly at gmail.com Wed Aug 21 02:07:14 2013 From: angelacdaly at gmail.com (Angela Daly) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:07:14 +1000 Subject: [governance] Australian IGF Message-ID: Dear all, The Australian national IGF ('auIGF') is taking place the week before the international IGF, on 16 and 17 October in Melbourne. This timing was deliberate in order to attract people who were going to be in the broader region anyway to attend the meeting in Bali. More info about the event here: http://www.igf.org.au/ I am organising a workshop at the auIGF on 'digital intellectual property in Australia' on Thurs 17 October. If anyone on this list would be interesting in participating in the workshop, please contact me via private message. Unfortunately I don't think there is any money to cover travel expenses, but if you happen to be in the area anyway and/or can fund yourself, please get in touch. Thanks, Angela -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Aug 21 09:25:34 2013 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 15:25:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Workshop on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis (SIMPDA - Asian Edition) Message-ID: <02f901ce9e71$eb75c4e0$c2614ea0$@unimi.it> [Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this CFP] --------------------------- Call for Papers --------------------------- Workshop on Data-Driven Process Discovery and Analysis (SIMPDA - Asian Edition) Collocated with: The 9th International Conference on SIGNAL IMAGE TECHNOLOGY & INTERNET BASED SYSTEMS SITIS 2013, Kyoto, Japan, 2-5 December 2013 http://sitis-conf.org/en/workshop-on-data-driven-process-discovery-and-analy sis-simpda.php ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SIMPDA provides 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. All papers must be original contributions, not previously published or under review for publication elsewhere. All contributions must be written in English. A special session will be dedicated to discuss research plan from PhD students. TOPIC OF INTEREST ---------------- 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 PAPER SUBMISSION ---------------------- SITIS 2013 invites submission of high quality and original papers on the topics of the major tracks described below. All submitted papers will be peer-reviewed by at least two reviewers for technical merit, originality, significance and relevance to the topics of the corresponding track. Papers must be up to 8 pages long and follow IEEE double columns publication format. Paper submission will only be online via: SITIS 2013 submission site. The online system will be used to handle and process all papers and to prepare for the final proceedings. https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=sitis2013 Accepted papers will be included in the conference proceedings and published IEEE Computer Society and referenced in IEEE explore and major indexes. The proceedings will be available at the conference. Extended version of selected accepted papers will be considered for publication in major journals. CHAIRS ----------- - Rafael Accorsi, University of Freiburg, Germany - Paolo Ceravolo, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy - Philippe Cudré-Mauroux, University of Fribourg, Switzerland Contact Person - Paolo Ceravolo paolo.ceravolo at unimi.it 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. Several events and activities arose off these simposia, among the most notables we have two Dagstuhl seminars: - Dagstuhl Seminar on Semantic Challenges in Sensor Networks, January 24-29, 2010. - Dagstuhl Seminar on Unleashing Operational Process Mining, November 24-29, 2010. The venue was for both editions Campione d’Italia, the Italian enclave surrounded by Swiss territory, on the shores of Lake Lugano. PROGRAM COMMITTEE ---------------------- - Peter Spyns, Free University of Brussels, Belgium - Daniele Bonetta, Università della Svizzera Italiana, Swizerland - Maurice van Keulen, University of Twente, The Netherlands - Avigdor Gal, Israel Institute of Technology, Israel - Mohand-Said Hacid, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, France - Angelo Corallo, Università del Salento, Italy - Irene Vanderfeesten, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands - Rafael Accorsi, University of Freibur, Germany - Farookh Hussain, University of Technology, Sydney Australia - Thomas Risse, University of Berlin, Germany - Wolfgang Klas, University of Vienna, Austria - Davide Storelli, Università del Salento, Italy - Marcello Leida, EBTIC (Etisalat BT Innovation Centre), UAE - Gabriele Ruffatti, Engineering Group, Italy - Jerzy Korczak, Wroclaw University of Economics, Poland - Abder Koukam, University of Technology UTBM, France - Renato Iannella, Semantic Identity, Australia - Manfred Reichert, University of Ulm, Germany - Wei-Chiang Hong, Oriental Institute of Technology, Taiwan (China) - Mustafa Jarrar, Birzeit University, Palestinian Territory - Schahram Dustdar, Vienna University of Technology, Austria - Mohamed Achemlal, Orange Labs, France - Jose M Alcaraz Calero, Hewlett-Packard, UK - Mohamed Mosbah, University of Bordeaux, France - Eduardo FernEdez-Medina, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain - Meiko Jensen, ULD SH, Germany - Haris Mouratidis, University of East London, UK - Manfred Reichert, University of Ulm, Germany - Debasis Giri, Haldia Institute of Technology, India - Helen Balinsky, Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, UK - Valentina Emilia Balas, University of Arad, Romania - Antonio Mana Gomez, University of Malaga, Spain - Frèdèric Cuppens, Telecom Bretagne, France - Nora Cuppens, Telecom Bretagne, France - Mihaela Cardei, Florida Atlantic University, US - Eduardo Fernandez, Atlantic University, US - Andreas Wombacher, University of Twente, The Netherlands - Karima Boudaoud, Ecole Polytechnique de Nice Sophia Antipolis, France - George Spanoudakis, City University London, UK - Artur Hecker, Telecom ParisTech, France - Etienne Triviere, Université de Neuchàtel, Swizerland - Richard Chbeir, University of Bourgogne, France - Chi Hung, Tsinghua University, China - Anas Abouelkalam, Institut National Polytechnique de Toulouse, France - Luis Soares Barbosa, Universidade do Minho, Portugal - Adrian Pasarariu, Florida Atlantic University, US - Gregorio Martinez Perez, University of Murcia, Spain - Ioana Georgiana, Free University of Brussels, Belgium - Wil Van der Aalst, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands - Georg Grossmann, University of South Australia, Australia - Sylvain Halle, Université du Québec, Canada - Florian Rosenberg, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, USA - Ebrahim Bagheri, Ryerson University, Canada - Joào Paulo Almeida, Federal University of Espirito Santo, Brazil - Jan Mendling, Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Austria - Marlon Dumas, University of Tartu, Estonia - Alistair Barros, SAP Research and Queensland University of Technology, Australia - Hamid Motahari, HP Labs, USA - Gerd, Groener, University of Koblenz, Germany - Frank Leymann, University of Stuttgart, Germany - Bernhard Bauer, University of Augsburg, Germany - Paul Taylor, BT Technology Services & Operations, UK - Basim Majeed, EBTIC (Etisalat BT Innovation Center), UAE - Selma Limam Mansar, Carnegie Mellon University, Qatar - Minseok Song, UNIST (Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology), Korea - Tharam Dillon, Curtin University of Technology, Australia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sana at bolobhi.org Wed Aug 21 14:43:33 2013 From: sana at bolobhi.org (Sana Saleem) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 23:43:33 +0500 Subject: [governance] Pakistan: Ministry of IT Pursues Filtration Again Message-ID: Hi all, Many of you have been of great support during our campaign to get Ministry of IT to shelve their plans for a National Level URL Filtration & Blocking System that was announced in February last year, through your consistent support and pressure we were able to get the ministry to shelve the plan last year. However, as we feared and as now indicated through multiple media statements, the ministry is pursuing their plans and have in fact now indicated that the filters will be provided through an ISP for "free for one year". As partners and supporters of campaigns run by Civil Society in Pakistan, we are sending out this note to keep you updated on the situation. We've issued a detailed statement regarding the issue alongside extensive resources that we have been producing, including submissions to court in the YouTube case in which our director is Amicus Curiae Here's the link to our statement: http://bolobhi.org/press-releases/minstry-of-it-no-to-internet-filters-censorship/ The successful campaign last year which is now being disregarded : http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/26/the_fp_100_global_thinkers?page=0,58#thinker100 Submissions to court: http://bolobhi.org/press-releases/minstry-of-it-no-to-internet-filters-censorship/ Best, Sana -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director, Bolo Bhi, Advocacy-Policy-Research [http://bolobhi.org] Blogger: Dawn.com [http://blog.dawn.com/author/sana-saleem/] Global Voices: [http://globalvoicesonline.org/author/sana-saleem/] The Guardian:[ www.guardian.co.uk/profile/sana-saleem] Blog: http://sanasaleem.com] Twitter: @sanasaleem @bolobhi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Thu Aug 22 02:45:08 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:15:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] [off-topic] Fwd: A little surveillance humour Message-ID: Shared on ISOC PIC - but this is really great fun... Sorry for cross-posting. Best Regards, Chaitanya Dhareshwar ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dan McGarry Date: Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:34 AM Subject: [PICISOC] A little surveillance humour To: Pacific Islands Chapter of the Internet Society Discussion List < picisoc at picisoc.org> Because we all have to laugh from time to time: -- Dan McGarry dmcgarry at imagicity.com Writing: http://scriptorum.imagicity.**com/ Photos: http://humansofvanuatu.com/ ______________________________**_________________ PICISOC members discussion mailing list PICISOC at picisoc.org Unsubscription and other options: http://mailman.apnic.net/**mailman/listinfo/picisoc PICISOC Web site: http://www.picisoc.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 kabani.asif at gmail.com Thu Aug 22 03:53:36 2013 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:53:36 +0500 Subject: [governance] Pakistan: Ministry of IT Pursues Filtration Again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sana Many thanks, Since we are aware of this important development, for National level URL Filtration and Blocking system proposal, hope it not yet in place. secondly the youtube block, can share any new outcomes or decision on youtube by the court. if any Sincerely ------- *Stay Connected* [image: Facebook] [image: Twitter] [image: Youtube] [image: LinkedIn] About me: http://about.me/kabaniasif* * *My Blog: Internet Governance and Policy* Stay on top - NEWS, Views and Event - Live Visit: http://internetgovernancepolicy.blogspot.com *Before you print - Think about the** **ENVIRONMENT* On 21 August 2013 23:43, Sana Saleem wrote: > Hi all, > > Many of you have been of great support during our campaign to get Ministry > of IT to shelve their plans for a National Level URL Filtration & Blocking > System that was announced in February last year, through your consistent > support and pressure we were able to get the ministry to shelve the plan > last year. > > However, as we feared and as now indicated through multiple media > statements, the ministry is pursuing their plans and have in fact now > indicated that the filters will be provided through an ISP for "free for > one year". > > As partners and supporters of campaigns run by Civil Society in Pakistan, > we are sending out this note to keep you updated on the situation. We've > issued a detailed statement regarding the issue alongside extensive > resources that we have been producing, including submissions to court in > the YouTube case in which our director is Amicus Curiae > > Here's the link to our statement: > http://bolobhi.org/press-releases/minstry-of-it-no-to-internet-filters-censorship/ > > The successful campaign last year which is now being disregarded : http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/26/the_fp_100_global_thinkers?page=0,58#thinker100 > > Submissions to court: > http://bolobhi.org/press-releases/minstry-of-it-no-to-internet-filters-censorship/ > > Best, > Sana > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Director, Bolo Bhi, Advocacy-Policy-Research [http://bolobhi.org] > Blogger: Dawn.com [http://blog.dawn.com/author/sana-saleem/] > Global Voices: [http://globalvoicesonline.org/author/sana-saleem/] > The Guardian:[ www.guardian.co.uk/profile/sana-saleem] > Blog: http://sanasaleem.com] Twitter: @sanasaleem > @bolobhi > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Thu Aug 22 10:35:31 2013 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:35:31 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Australian IGF Message-ID: <1377182131.86993.BPMail_high_carrier@web28905.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Thank you for the info Angela. Note: The IGF central africa is taking place in #Kinshasa from August 28-30. And the Africa IGF last week of September in Nairobi. For those who didn't know or who would like to have info can get in touch with me for more info (for Kinshasa only). Best, Arsene ------------------------------ On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 8:07 AM CEST Angela Daly wrote: >Dear all, > >The Australian national IGF ('auIGF') is taking place the week before the >international IGF, on 16 and 17 October in Melbourne. This timing was >deliberate in order to attract people who were going to be in the broader >region anyway to attend the meeting in Bali. More info about the event here: >http://www.igf.org.au/ > >I am organising a workshop at the auIGF on 'digital intellectual property >in Australia' on Thurs 17 October. If anyone on this list would be >interesting in participating in the workshop, please contact me via private >message. Unfortunately I don't think there is any money to cover travel >expenses, but if you happen to be in the area anyway and/or can fund >yourself, please get in touch. > >Thanks, > >Angela -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Fri Aug 23 05:28:31 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 11:28:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] IG is consistent with US policies Message-ID: Noam Chomsky The MIT professor lays out how the majority of U.S. policies are opposed to what wide swaths of the public want http://www.salon.com/2013/08/17/chomsky_the_u_s_behaves_nothing_like_a_democracy/?source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Premium%29_7_30_110 Cheers. Louis. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joly at punkcast.com Fri Aug 23 14:39:08 2013 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 14:39:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] IG is consistent with US policies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A good read. What I thought possibly relevant was his invocation, right at the end, of the Charter of the Forests in the Magna Carta. On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 5:28 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Noam Chomsky > > The MIT professor lays out how the majority of U.S. policies are opposed > to what wide swaths of the public want > > > http://www.salon.com/2013/08/17/chomsky_the_u_s_behaves_nothing_like_a_democracy/?source=newsletter&utm_source=contactology&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Salon_Daily%20Newsletter%20%28Premium%29_7_30_110 > > Cheers. Louis. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.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 mail at christopherwilkinson.eu Sat Aug 24 15:41:29 2013 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 21:41:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=85=2E_the_Charter_of_the_Forests?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1669ADE9-EC76-4BC4-BA85-FE6FA2B0FFC9@christopherwilkinson.eu> Well, at the rate at which they are burning … CW On 23 Aug 2013, at 20:39, Joly MacFie wrote: > A good read. What I thought possibly relevant was his invocation, right at the end, of the Charter of the Forests in the Magna Carta. > > > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 5:28 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Aug 24 21:11:28 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 03:11:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] WGEC - Questionnaire Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Aug 25 02:38:32 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 12:08:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Latin America Condemns US Espionage at United Nations Security Council In-Reply-To: <026a01cea150$2b50bc10$81f23430$@gmail.com> References: <026a01cea150$2b50bc10$81f23430$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5219A668.1050709@itforchange.net> See in particular seeking of global standards for Internet regulation, and global means for prevention and sanctions regarding the the kind of things the NSA has been doing.... parminder *http://www.globalresearch.ca/latin-america-condemns-us-espionage-at-united-nations-security-council/5346120 Global Research August 17, 2013* Latin America Condemns US Espionage at United Nations Security Council *The foreign ministers of Brazil, Venezuela, Uruguay, Bolivia and Ecuador fiercely condemned the United States plan for worldwide espionage, which posed a lethal threat to the democratically elected governments of these Latin American nations and jeopardized their survival. By Carla Stea* / "The United States appears to be destined by Providence to plague America with misery in the name of liberty."/ Simon Bolivar Throughout the day, on August 6, President Cristina Fernandez Kirchner of Argentina chaired a historic United Nations Security Council meeting that revealed a seismic shift in geopolitical consciousness and incipient strength. The agenda of Security Council meeting 7015 was: /"Cooperation Between the United Nations and Regional and Sub-regional Organizations in Maintaining International Peace and Security."/ The prelude to this meeting was held, the prior day, August 5, at a press stakeout given by Elias Jaua Milano, Foreign Minister of Venezuela, Hector Timerman, Foreign Minister of Argentina, Antonio de Aguiar Patriota, Foreign Minister of Brazil, Luis Almagro, Foreign Minister of Uruguay and David Choquehuanca Cespedes, Foreign Minister of Bolivia. They spoke on behalf of Mercosur, the Southern Common Market, following their meeting with United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Their remarks focused on the expression of outrage contained in the "Annex to the note verbale dated 22 July from the Permanent Mission of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, which stated: "Decision rejecting the acts of espionage conducted by the United States in the countries of the region." "The President of the Argentine Republic, the President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, the President of the Federative Republic of Brazil, the President of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay and the President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, having met in Montevideo, Eastern Republic of Uruguay, on 12 July, 2013, within the framework of the presidential summit of the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR), Condemning the acts of espionage carried out by intelligence agencies of the United States of America, which affect all countries in the region, Strongly rejecting the interception of telecommunications and the acts of espionage carried out in our countries, which constitute a violation of the human rights, the right to privacy and the right to information of our citizens, and which also constitute unacceptable behavior that violates our sovereignty and is detrimental to the normal conduct of relations among nations, Considering the advisability of promoting a coordinated approach to this issue at the regional level, Decide to: Work together to guarantee the cybersecurity of the States members to MERCOSUR, which is essential to defending the sovereignty of our countries, Demand that those responsible immediately cease these activities and provide an explanation of the motives for and consequences of such activities, Stress that the prevention of crime and the suppression of transnational crimes, including terrorism, must be carried out in line with the rule of law and in strict observance of international law. Promote the adoption by the relevant multilateral institutions of standards for the regulation of the Internet which place a particular emphasis on cybersecurity issues, with a view to fostering the adoption of standards that guarantee the adequate protection of communications, in particular to safeguard the sovereignty of States and the privacy of individuals, Express our full solidarity with all countries, within and outside our region that have been victims of such actions, Promote the joint efforts of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs to inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations of these incidents and request prevention and sanction mechanisms on the issue at the multilateral level Instruct the delegations of the Member States participating in the upcoming session of the United Nations General Assembly to jointly present a formal proposal to that end, Request the Argentine Republic to submit this matter to the Security Council for consideration, Agree to establish a working group to coordinate efforts, together with the South American Defence Council and the South American Infrastructure and Planning Council, aimed at carrying out activities that will render our telecommunications more secure and reduce our dependence on foreign technology." The morning session of the August 6 Security Council meeting consisted primarily of technical diplomatic presentations. Following Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's statement, Cuban Foreign Minister Rodriguez Parrella opened the meeting, as President of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC): "The history of Latin American and the Caribbean has changed. Two hundred years after our independence, the ideas of 'a Nation of Republics,' and of 'Our America' envisaged by Bolivar and Marti, respectively, are taking shape. Thus, our Heads of State and Government decided in the Caracas Declaration that 'in accordance with the original mandate of our liberators, CELAC must move forward in the process of political, economic, social and cultural integration -- based on a wise equilibrium between the unity and diversity of our peoples ...Upon founding CELAC, our Heads of State and Government reiterated our commitment to the building of a more just, equitable and harmonious international order based on respect for international law and the Charter of the United Nations. ...They reaffirmed our commitment to the defense of sovereignty and the right of any state to establish its own political system, free from threats, aggression and unilateral coercive measures, and in an environment of peace, stability, justice, democracy and respect for human rights. CELAC reiterates that there can be no lasting peace without development and the eradication of poverty, hunger and inequality ... CELAC has adopted a unanimous position with regard to some far-reaching topics on the international agenda, such as, for example, Argentina's legitimate claim in the dispute concerning the sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, and -- today on the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima -- on so-called nuclear disarmament." The representatives of other regional organizations, and the members of the Security Council delivered their statements throughout the morning session of the meeting When the Security Council resumed for the afternoon session, in a courageous and brilliant tour de force, the Argentine Presidency of the Security Council availed itself of the opportunity to publicly denounce espionage in the service of the resurgence of neo-liberal capitalist imperialism. In an unusual gesture of solidarity and support (considering that Heads of State chairing Security Council meetings seldom remain beyond a perfunctory appearance at the morning session), President Cristina Fernandez Kirchner, Foreign Minister Hector Timerman and Ambassador Maria Cristina Perceval were present throughout the afternoon, as the succession of dazzling speeches, delivered by the Latin American Foreign Ministers of Brazil, Uruguay, Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador illuminated the global menace threatened by the United States National Security Agency programs of surveillance of phone records, e-mails, web-browsing, those very programs disclosed by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. The foreign ministers of Brazil , Venezuela , Uruguay , Bolivia and Ecuador fiercely condemned the United States plan for worldwide espionage, which posed a lethal threat to the democratically elected governments of these Latin American nations and jeopardized their survival. It is not surprising that this expression of alarm was voiced by Latin America, from Argentina through Uruguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, Venezuela -- in other words from the Southernmost tip of the huge southern continent to the Caribbean, for this continent, viewed imperialistically as the "backyard" of the United States, was for many tragic decades, crushed by military dictatorships inflicting state terror with impunity, following the blueprint of destabilization and overthrow, by the CIA and multinational corporate controlled entities, of their own democratically elected leaders. The tragic destruction of Latin America's democratically elected governments included President Arbenz in Guatemala, 1954; President Goulart in Brazil, 1964; President Juan Bosch in the Dominican Republic, 1965; President Torres in Bolivia, 1971; President Allende in Chile, 1973, and more recently the destabilizations of the democratically elected governments of Honduras and Paraguay (this is not a complete list) This more than half-century violation of the will of the people of Latin America, engineered by agencies of "the Colossus of the North" was a shattering trauma seared deeply into the consciousness of these leaders, whose recent triumph over fascist military dictatorships which were installed and supported by the United States, is a testament to their moral and intellectual strength and their passion for dignity and control over their own destinies. The Latin American governments speaking at the August 6 Security Council are like the canary in the coal mine: intensely alert and sensitive to imminent or potential threats of repetition of that horrific period they had endured and so recently overcome, these governments denounced widespread evidence of perilous subversive activity, the lethal consequences of which are predictable and terrifying. The August 6, 2013 afternoon session of the UN Security Council began with Mr. Antonio de Aguiar Patriota, Foreign Minister of Brazil, who stated, in English: "You, Madam President made my task easier by referring to the interception of communications and acts of espionage. Such practices violate sovereignty, harm relations between nations and constitute a violation of human rights, in particular the right to privacy and the right of our citizens to information. In that respect, you have complied with the decision of the States parties of the Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR) who met in Montevideo last month. Yesterday, the Foreign Minister of MERCOSUR conveyed to the Secretary-General the position of Argentina , Bolivia , Brazil , Uruguay and Venezuela with respect to and in compliance with, that decision. The matter will also be placed before various United Nations bodies, in accordance with the decision and the document circulated under the symbol A/67/946. This is a very serious issue with a profound impact on the international system. Brazil is coordinating with countries that share similar concerns for the benefit of an international order that respects human rights and the sovereignty of states. I welcome the timely statement made on 12 July by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms. Navi Pillay: 'surveillance programmes without adequate safeguards to protect the right to privacy actually risk impacting negatively on the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.' Pillay also mentioned Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Articles 17 and 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which established, respectively, that 'No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence,' and that 'Everyone has the right to protection of the law against such interference or attacks.' Brazil also associates itself with the repeated appeals by Ms. Pillay in various forums that efforts to combat terrorism must necessarily respect human rights and humanitarian law. Her position was incorporated into the decision of the Heads of State of MERCOSUR as well as the Presidential Statement (S/PRST/2013/12) adopted by the Council this morning... Mention should be made of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)... .a defense alliance that does not seem to frame its activities clearly under Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations and has made use of concepts and strategies that raise problematic and sensitive issues in terms of the articulation between the regional level and the United Nations system. We are concerned that, historically, leaders of NATO and member countries have considered that the organization does not necessarily require explicit authorization from the Security Council to resort to coercion. We are also concerned that NATO has loosely interpreted mandates for action aimed at promoting international peace and security authorized by the Security Council. As Brazil has maintained, including through the Brazilian concept of 'responsibility while protecting,' (S/2011/701, annex), the Security Council should avail itself of the institutional means of monitoring the adequate fulfillment of its mandates. We are concerned, as well that NATO has been searching to establish partnerships out of its area, far beyond the North Atlantic, including in regions of peace, democracy and social inclusion, and that rule out the presence of weapons of mass destruction in their territories. It would be extremely grave for the future of the articulation between regional and global efforts at promoting peace, as prescribed by the United Nations, if groups of countries started to unilaterally define their sphere of action beyond the territory of their own members." Next, Mr. David Choquehuanca Cespedes, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia spoke: "Preserving peace is not and will not be the result of the existence of international policemen, but rather as a result of the promotion of social justice, equity, complementarity, solidarity and respect between states......I should like to express our rejection and condemnation of the practice of espionage on the part of the United States. I should also like to express the grief and indignation of my people and my Government over the act of aggression experienced by President Evo Morales Ayma, which has been described by the international community as offensive, humiliating, discriminatory, colonialistic, unfriendly and a violation of human rights and international standards. Given the grave nature of these facts, we ask the United Nations to clarify these events and to take measures to guarantee human rights and international law so that no one will have to suffer such violations again." Next, His Excellency, Mr. Elias Jaua Milano, Minister of the People's Power for Foreign Affairs of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and Pro-Tempore President of the Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR) stated: "Today we join in the pleasure of the Bolivian people on its national holiday, and recall the commemoration of the 200 years of the triumphant entry of the liberator Simon Bolivar after having carried out a successful campaign that began in December of 1812 in New Grenada. We must always remember that, when united, we South Americans will achieve independence, equality and democracy for our peoples....Peace cannot be achieved in the world without social justice and without eradicating once and for all hunger, poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition and the wide technological divides, in other words, without guaranteeing to all the resources necessary for their full development in equal conditions....The instruments, declarations, decisions and resolutions of MERCOSUR have sought democracy and peace in the region, including by preventing coups and other attempts to frustrate the democratic will of our peoples, promoted by fascistic movements represented by political and economic leaders that are found particularly in media corporations. These movements attack democratic governments and peoples that have chosen the path of independence, social inclusion and the grass-roots democratization of our societies..... The timely and firm action of MERCOSUR along with other regional and subregional organizations, managed to stop attempted coups in Paraguay in 1996 and 1999, thereby guaranteeing democratic order. Similarly, in 2006 and 2007 MERCOSUR condemned and took action to prevent attempts to divide Bolivia as a way of weakening the democratic government of President Evo Morales. Likewise, the Foreign Ministers of the countries members of MERCOSUR condemned the attempted coup against President Rafael Correa in Ecuador on 30 September 2010, joining with other regional blocs to issue a joint warning to the world and prevent that crime from taking place. Although it could not be prevented, MERCOSUR acted decisively in the parliamentary coup against President Fernando Lugo of Paraguay in June, 2012. On that occasion the foreign ministers of MERCOSUR and UNASUR traveled to Asuncion with the intention of starting a dialogue and preventing the interruption of the constitutional order. That was not achieved, and the bloc had to temporarily suspend the Republic of Paraguay until its political, institutional and democratic situation was normalized through the holding of elections. More recently, MERCOSUR has been able to circumvent those situations with peaceful and democratic mechanisms, without economic blocades, military intervention, indiscriminate bombing or armed intervention of any kind. We believe that the only way to defeat violence is with greater democracy and peaceful means. Mercosur has also participated in issues that affect international peace and security, such as the coup in Honduras against President Zelaya... Unfortunately in recent times we have been concerned to see that some countries have continued to assert their political, military and economic power and distorted the very essence of cooperation between the United Nations and regional and subregional organizations. They have gone so far as to use the Security Council as a platform to encourage armed interventions against sovereign states and peoples with a view to promoting the poorly named regime change, in contravention of all principles of International Law... as Foreign Minister of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and as Pro-Tempore President of MERCOSUR I take this opportunity to reiterate our firm condemnation of the insult to the office of the President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, President Evo Morales, when some European Governments did not permit the overflight or landing of the aircraft transporting him. That was not only a hostile, unfounded, discriminatory and arbitrary action, but also a flagrant violation of the precepts of international law." "Similarly, we reject the actions of global espionage carried out by the government of the United States , which undermine the sovereignty of States and which we have become familiar with through the revelations of the former security contractor, Edward Snowden. Given the seriousness of these reports of computer espionage on a global scale, recognized by the Secretary-General of the International Telecommunication Union himself, the United Nations must initiate a broad multilateral discussion that would make it possible to design agreements to safeguard the sovereignty and security of States in the light of such illegal practices. MERCOSUR has begun action to promote a discussion on this matter so that we can open an appropriate investigation within the United Nations and punish and condemn this violation of international law." "We reiterate our condemnation of actions that could undermine the power of States to fully implement the right of humanitarian asylum. In this respect, we reject any attempt to pressure, harass or criminalize a state or third party over the sovereign decision of any nation to grant asylum, which is enshrined in all international conventions. Likewise, we express our solidarity with the Governments of Bolivia and Nicaragua , which, like Venezuela , have offered asylum to Mr. Snowden, as expressed by the Heads of State of MERCOSUR in the decision concerning the universal recognition of the right of political asylum, issued in Montevideo on 12 July. These three matters were discussed yesterday with the Secretary-General of the United Nations" In her remarkable work, entitled "The Shock Doctrine, The Rise of Disaster Capitalism," (published in 2007) journalist Naomi Klein states, page 573: "Though clearly drawing on a long militant history, Latin America 's contemporary movements are not direct replicas of their predecessors. Of all the differences, the most striking is an acute awareness of the need for protection from the shocks of the past -- the coups, the foreign shock therapists, the U.S. trained torturers, as well as the debt shocks and currency collapses of the eighties and nineties. Latin America 's mass movements, which have powered the wave of election victories for left-wing candidates, are learning how to build shock absorbers into their organizing models. ... Latin America's new leaders are also taking bold measures to block any future U.S. backed coups that could attempt to undermine their democratic victories. The governments of Venezuela, Costa Rica, Argentina and Uruguay have all announced they will no longer send students to the School of Americas, the infamous police and military training center in Fort Benning, Georgia, where so many of the continent's notorious killers learned the latest I "counterterrorism" (torture) techniques, then promptly directed them against farmers in El Salvador and auto workers in Argentina....If the U.S. military does not have bases or training programs, its power to inflict shocks will be greatly eroded... Latin America's most significant protection from future shocks (and therefore the shock doctrine) flows from the continent's emerging independence from Washington's financial institutions, the result of greater integration among regional governments. The Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) is the continent's retort to the Free Trade Area of the Americas , the now buried corporatist dream of a free-trade zone from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego.... Thanks to high oil prices, Venezuela has emerged as a major lender to other developing countries, allowing them to do an end run around Washington, and even Argentina, Washington's former 'model pupil' has been part of the trend. In his 2007 State of the Union Address (the late) President Nestor Kirchner said that the country's foreign creditors had told him, 'You must have an agreement with the International Fund to be able to pay the debt. We say to them, 'Sirs, we are sovereign. We want to pay the debt, but no way in hell are we going to make an agreement again with the IMF.' As a result the IMF, supremely powerful in the eighties, is no longer a force on the continent. In 2005 Latin America made up 80 percent of the IMF's total lending portfolio, in 2007 the continent represented just 1 percent -- a sea change in only two years. 'There is life after the IMF,' Kirchner declared, 'and it is a good life.'" Having resisted foreign (and domestic) military control, and foreign (and neoliberal) economic control, the new peril confronting Latin America's independent governments emanates from the United States' National Security Agency's electronic surveillance programs, an insidious new cyber-age method of total social control of the most private and intimate spaces of their lives -- and identities, their minds, destroying their capacity to forge networks of solidarity and obtain the information crucial to their understanding and critical thinking, without which they are vulnerable to being reduced to the condition of the "zombies" (so popular in Hollywood's movie narrative), rendering them confused, docile, easily herded, subjugated, ultimately exploited and enslaved. This surveillance is tantamount to imposing total individual and societal control, which is a stealthy form of isolation, a form of psychological and intellectual solitary confinement, one of the cruelest forms of torture, which ultimately leads to the disintegration of the human personality, within an invisible prison. This condition is described by the American Civil Liberties Union, and quoted in Charles Savage's August 8 report to The New York Times: "Hints of the surveillance appeared in a set of rules, leaked by Mr. Snowden, for how the NSA may carry out the 2008 FISA law. One paragraph mentions that the agency 'seeks to acquire communications about the target that are not to or from the target.' The pages were posted online by the newspaper The Guardian on June 20, but the telltale paragraph, the only rule marked 'Top Secret' amid 18 pages of restrictions, went largely overlooked amid other disclosures....While the paragraph hinting at the surveillance has attracted little attention, the American Civil Liberties Union did take note of the 'about the target' language in a June 21 post analyzing the larger set of rules, arguing that the language could be interpreted as allowing 'bulk collection of international communications, including those of Americans'....Jameel Jaffer, a senior lawyer at the ACLU said Wednesday that such 'dragnet surveillance will be poisonous to the freedoms of inquiry and association' because people who know that their communications will be searched will change their behavior. 'They'll hesitate before visiting controversial web sites, discussing controversial topics or investigating politically sensitive questions. Individually, these hesitations might appear to be inconsequential, but the accumulation of them over time will change citizens' relationship to one another and to the government.'" The infrastructure for de facto fascist police state and military control is being established under the guise of counterterrorism, (as, earlier, similar fascist states were established under the guise of fighting communism) a phenomena Latin America recognizes and knows from horrific historic experience. And their historic memory of this has not yet been expunged: indeed, many of the leaders of Latin America today were earlier imprisoned and tortured only a few decades ago under such fascist police and military states (established ostensibly in the name of anti-communism), including Chile's former, and possibly future President Michelle Bachelet, Brazil's President Dilma Roussef, Argentina's late President Nestor Kirchner, and the world famous father of Argentina's Foreign Minister Hector Timerman, the late Jacobo Timerman, imprisoned and tortured for two years during the Argentine military dictatorship's "dirty war." No doubt, Uruguay 's President Jose Mujica well remembers those horrors, and Chile 's former President Ricardo Lago spent considerable time in prison during the Pinochet dictatorship. Patino Aroca, Foreign Minister of Ecuador, next delivered, at the August 6 Security Council meeting, one of the great speeches in United Nations history. "During the recent summit of the Common Market of the South (MERCOSUR) that took place on 12 July in Montevideo, the States convened resolved to 'request Argentina to submit the matter of the massive espionage case uncovered by Edward Snowden for consideration by the Security Council.' They also resolved to 'demand that those responsible for those actions immediately cease therefrom and provide explanations of their motivations and their consequences.' In similar terms, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America spoke at the last Guayaquil summit which was held just five days ago, when it was decided to 'warn the international community about the seriousness of these actions, which imply a threat to the security and peaceful coexistence among our States"... "Just a few weeks ago the world saw a sequence of events more akin to a Cold War spy novel than to modern times. On 5 June, leaks began to appear in publications in major global media outlets, leaks that were mixed with almost deathly intent and unspooled as a reality show before global public opinion. The leaks came from a former 29-year-old American analyst who sought to escape deportation to his country, where he would be tried for those leaks. After a journey that began in Hong Kong and was supposed to end in Latin America, today, it seems to have stopped, but it may not have completely run its course, despite the granting of asylum by Russia ." "During those few days in June we saw the size and the discretional nature of a massive surveillance apparatus that suddenly brought all the inhabitants of the planet closer than ever to an Orwellian nightmare. Although at first it appeared to be a simple matter of wiretapping, it was later discovered that there was discretionary monitoring of e-mails. While it seemed initially that the apparatus was being used in operations against organized crime, later we learned that it was also being used to gain advantage in trade negotiations with other countries. If we once thought that they were simply looking at unaffected States, we now know that everyone --- absolutely everyone, debtors and creditors, friends and enemies, South and North -- is considered a usual suspect by the authorities of the United States of America . Now we know that our communications are permanently monitored by them." "No one knows yet if Mr. Snowden will once again manage to leak information that he claims to possess. Of course, it seems that he will not do it when he is in Russia . In any case, the wounds opened by those events should be assessed within the main multilateral forums. They deserve to be so because not only do they reflect an unacceptable imbalance in the global governance system, which in no case would help to build a climate of trust and cooperation between countries, and, in the final analysis, a climate of peace among nations. They deserve to be assessed because we have also moved dangerously close to the limits set out by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." "The imbalances to which I refer are clear -- the United States, like any other countries, has the need to deal with demands related to its national security, it goes without saying, but those legitimate demands must be dealt with in a way that does not affect the rights of individuals or indeed the sovereignty of other nations. That is to say, limits must be set. However, we are now faced with the fact that any limits there may have been have vanished. The national security of the United States has been placed above all universal moral values." "Such a drive has meant that the principles of equality and non-interference in the affairs of States, established in the Westphalia peace agreement, have now vanished into thin air. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been violated. The rights to the privacy of correspondence -- article 12 -- and to freedom of expression and opinion -- article 19 -- the rights of all citizens of the world, including United States citizens, have been trampled in the name of a greater goal, that is, national security -- or rather, for the sake of the profits of the national security industry." "What are the limits, really? Has the time not come for the Council to take up this question again and discuss it? In the end, does this not pose a threat to global peace? What mutual trust could possibly exist among nations under such circumstances? We believe that the time has come for the United Nations to face up to this matter responsibly." "As we have seen with the disappearance of such limits, this situation threatens to build walls between our countries. If it has not done so already, it could also affect international cooperation against organized crime; strangely enough, there is even the possibility that trade negotiations could be disrupted. Paradoxically, even the very national security of the United States will suffer from the increase in global mistrust generated by massive espionage." "The events to which I have referred have also revealed other very disturbing realities. To start off with, it has re-ignited the debate on the right of asylum, which all human beings have, as enshrined in international law, as well as the ability of any sovereign state to grant it. This is a right that is granted to avoid fear of political persecution; its legitimacy can only be determined by the country granting it. Let us also remember its peaceful and humanitarian nature, which cannot in any case be described as unfriendly towards any other State, as established in General Assembly resolution 2312 (XXII) on territorial asylum. I should also quote Ms. Navi Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, on the case at hand: 'Snowden's case has shown the need to protect persons disclosing information on matters that have implications for human rights, as well as the importance of ensuring respect for the right to privacy.'" "Leaders who should be giving explanations and facing up to the debate on the limits of what we are discussing, have instead launched a crusade against the right to asylum -- a full-on diplomatic offensive against countries that have taken to the global stage to show interest in such an important case. States in the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) have been under pressure, simply because they are considering a request for asylum. All those countries have signed the 1954 Caracas Convention on Territorial Asylum, which is perhaps one of the most important instruments of the Inter-American human rights system." "The day the United States signs that treaty -- even the day it ratifies the San Jose pact, one of the foundations of the Inter-American system of human rights -- we will be closer to seeing that country adhere to the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties, and it will become a part of a group of equal nations, committed to complying with international law." "Instead of joining this group, we find ourselves with a country that prefers to lunge forwards and blame the messenger in order to cloud the message. The final result was that a group of countries decided to endanger the life of the President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia , forcing him and his entourage to make an emergency landing in violation of international norms governing respectful relations among nations." "It is not the revelation of the offence that threatens the climate of understanding among nations, it is the offence itself. In a fragile world where armed conflicts are barely affected by international pressure, such actions do not help generate trust but tension." "I would like to conclude with two comments." "First, the Government of Ecuador fully supports the request of the Bolivian Government that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights conduct an exhaustive investigation into the unjustifiable treatment suffered by President Evo Morales Ayma during his trip from Moscow to La Paz." "Secondly, massive global, discretionary and unlimited surveillance must stop. It is for the Security Council to urgently make that demand of one of its permanent members, since, theoretically, it is up to this body to maintain peace on our planet. That, too, is the demand of Latin America , a zone of peace that, through organizations such as MERCOSUR and ALBA, has demanded an end to those practices. It is also required by the spirit of coexistence, which inspired the drafting of the Charter of the United Nations. It is also the appeal of billions of people in the world who understand that any action that aims to ensure the security of a country has its limits, which are the human rights of everyone on the planet." The representative of the United States, Mr. DeLaurentis replied: "Let me address an issue unrelated to our debate that was raised earlier today, namely, the United States efforts to prevent terrorism and the recent disclosure of classified information about techniques we use to do that. All Governments do things that are secret: it is a fact of modern governing and a necessity in the light of the threats all our citizens face. Our counter-Terrorism policy is ultimately about saving people's lives, which is why the United States works with other countries to protect our citizens and those of other nations from many threats. All nations should be concerned about the damage these disclosures can cause to our ability to collectively defend against those threats." Contradicting this assertion, a senior United States intelligence official said, regarding the 'about the target' surveillance that it "was difficult to point to any particular terrorist plot that would have been carried out if the surveillance had not taken place." He said it was one tool among many used to assemble a 'mosaic' of information in such investigations. "The surveillance was used for other types of foreign-intelligence collection, not just terrorism investigations," the official said. This admission that this surveillance is not limited to preventing terrorism is the most damning indictment of the secrecy of the program. The American people, whose taxes pay for these programs, have an inalienable right to know what are the "other" uses to which these surveillance programs are being put, in their name. Powerfully refuting any contention that these surveillance activities are for the purpose of preventing terrorism is the testimony of United States Senator, Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, who said he had been shown a classified list of "terrorist events" detected through surveillance, and it did not show that 'dozens or even several terrorist plots' had been thwarted by the domestic program. "If this program if not effective, it has to end. So far I'm not convinced by what I've seen," Senator Leahy said, denouncing ' the massive privacy implications' of keeping records of every American's domestic calls. What really is the purpose of this NSA program of global surveillance? Failing to significantly thwart terrorist activity, it must have an ultimate purpose. The possibilities are terrifying. The hysterical, desperate and deadly determination to arrest Snowden suggests that he may have uncovered something further, something so illegal that the authors of such crimes will not hesitate to endanger the very lives they claim to be protecting, in order to prevent exposure. The frantic orchestration of the actions endangering the life of the President of Bolivia makes this conclusion unavoidable. The August 6 Security Council meeting under the Presidency of Argentina re-enforced the credibility of the United Nations. The Government of Argentina and her courageous sister nations of Latin America have thrown down the gauntlet on behalf of the majority of the citizens of this planet. */Carla Stea i/*/s Global Research's accredited correspondent at the United Nations headquarters, New York./ -- --- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 25 14:26:27 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 18:26:27 +0000 Subject: [governance] WGEC - Questionnaire In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24B9C0E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of JFC Morfin > I am afraid I have no idea about what significance, purpose, and scope may be > referring to here. Always helpful when people pay such close attention to what the proceeding is about. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sana at bolobhi.org Sun Aug 25 15:40:39 2013 From: sana at bolobhi.org (Sana Saleem) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 00:40:39 +0500 Subject: [governance] Pakistan: Ministry of IT Pursues Filtration Again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sorry for the delay in responding to you. On CC is my partner Farieha Aziz, who has been appointed Amicus Cureai in the case and has been advising the court on the civil liberties and policy aspects of the issue. Following are the details of her submission to the court on behalf of Bolo Bhi, as well as resources gathered by our team. Hope they're helpful. Please feel free to reach out and ask if you'd like more info, similarly please do suggest thoughts or advice on the matter: In short, in the last hearing the Judge, after discussions with PTA officials and the amicus, that state based filters are not the solution. The discourse in the court is focused on home based solutions, given how state based filters are prone to abuse. We feel the discourse in the court is heading towards the right direction. However, the minister of IT and the secretary have not appeared the court despite being called twice. We hope that the ministry pays heed to the courts requests and participates in the discourse. Here's a timeline for all updates - *Bolo Bhi Amicus Report on Case Hearing * - *Bolo Bhi's Submission To The Court * ( through april &july + summary of court proceedings) - *Bolo Bhi's Submission to Court August 2nd: Youtube & Educatio n * - *Bolo Bhi Submission to Court August 2nd: Experts Letters * *Resources from team and other experts:* - *Understanding HTTPS* - *TIMELINE: Youtube Ban 2012 - 2013 * - *TIMELINE: Content Filtration Over The Years * Best, Sana -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Director, Bolo Bhi, Advocacy-Policy-Research [http://bolobhi.org] Blogger: Dawn.com [http://blog.dawn.com/author/sana-saleem/] Global Voices: [http://globalvoicesonline.org/author/sana-saleem/] The Guardian:[ www.guardian.co.uk/profile/sana-saleem] Blog: http://sanasaleem.com] Twitter: @sanasaleem @bolobhi On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Kabani wrote: > Sana > > Many thanks, Since we are aware of this important development, for > National level URL Filtration and Blocking system proposal, hope it not yet > in place. secondly the youtube block, can share any new outcomes or > decision on youtube by the court. if any > > Sincerely > > > > ------- > *Stay Connected* > [image: Facebook] [image: Twitter] > [image: Youtube] [image: > LinkedIn] > About me: http://about.me/kabaniasif* > * > > *My Blog: Internet Governance and Policy* > Stay on top - NEWS, Views and Event - Live > Visit: http://internetgovernancepolicy.blogspot.com > *Before you print - Think about the** **ENVIRONMENT* > > > On 21 August 2013 23:43, Sana Saleem wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Many of you have been of great support during our campaign to get >> Ministry of IT to shelve their plans for a National Level URL Filtration & >> Blocking System that was announced in February last year, through your >> consistent support and pressure we were able to get the ministry to shelve >> the plan last year. >> >> However, as we feared and as now indicated through multiple media >> statements, the ministry is pursuing their plans and have in fact now >> indicated that the filters will be provided through an ISP for "free for >> one year". >> >> As partners and supporters of campaigns run by Civil Society in Pakistan, >> we are sending out this note to keep you updated on the situation. We've >> issued a detailed statement regarding the issue alongside extensive >> resources that we have been producing, including submissions to court in >> the YouTube case in which our director is Amicus Curiae >> >> Here's the link to our statement: >> http://bolobhi.org/press-releases/minstry-of-it-no-to-internet-filters-censorship/ >> >> The successful campaign last year which is now being disregarded : http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/26/the_fp_100_global_thinkers?page=0,58#thinker100 >> >> Submissions to court: >> http://bolobhi.org/press-releases/minstry-of-it-no-to-internet-filters-censorship/ >> >> Best, >> Sana >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Director, Bolo Bhi, Advocacy-Policy-Research [http://bolobhi.org] >> Blogger: Dawn.com [http://blog.dawn.com/author/sana-saleem/] >> Global Voices: [http://globalvoicesonline.org/author/sana-saleem/] >> The Guardian:[ www.guardian.co.uk/profile/sana-saleem] >> Blog: http://sanasaleem.com] Twitter: @sanasaleem >> @bolobhi >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 25 15:56:12 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 07:56:12 +1200 Subject: [governance] Pakistan: Ministry of IT Pursues Filtration Again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8C7290E8-FB57-4EFC-8D85-5483AC538146@gmail.com> Dear Sana, and All, Thank you for this important update and for updating the community on challenges in Pakistan. It might be useful for the IGC to consider developing a statement on surveillance vrs privacy. Whilst Article 19 of the ICCPR contains the exceptions, it is critical that these exceptions are not abused. Filtering is not all bad where it is used to ensure that traffic flows seamlessly and is not bogged down by unwanted unsolicited traffic. The issue in terms of (unwanted and unsolicited) is distinguishing between what is ok and what just clogs up the network. I recently visited two governments in the Pacific and noted that they had to manage traffic in a way that allowed fair and equitable use for its users. There are countries in the world where internet access is expensive as they do not have global submarine cables landing and rely in satellite for access, so unwarranted and unsolicited bulk mail or annoying traffic can cause serious congestions. When filtering mechanisms are abused or when exceptions in Article 19 of the ICCPR are abused then this sets a dangerous precedent. Over the last five years this has been increasingly a moral, ethical debate. Most countries are grappling with this in Europe, US, Pakistan and the Pacific. The IGC might wish to consider developing a discussion and statement on this prior to Bali. Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad On Aug 26, 2013, at 7:40 AM, Sana Saleem wrote: > Sorry for the delay in responding to you. On CC is my partner Farieha Aziz, who has been appointed Amicus Cureai in the case and has been advising the court on the civil liberties and policy aspects of the issue. Following are the details of her submission to the court on behalf of Bolo Bhi, as well as resources gathered by our team. Hope they're helpful. Please feel free to reach out and ask if you'd like more info, similarly please do suggest thoughts or advice on the matter: > > In short, in the last hearing the Judge, after discussions with PTA officials and the amicus, that state based filters are not the solution. The discourse in the court is focused on home based solutions, given how state based filters are prone to abuse. We feel the discourse in the court is heading towards the right direction. However, the minister of IT and the secretary have not appeared the court despite being called twice. > > We hope that the ministry pays heed to the courts requests and participates in the discourse. > > Here's a timeline for all updates > > Bolo Bhi Amicus Report on Case Hearing > Bolo Bhi's Submission To The Court ( through april &july + summary of court proceedings) > Bolo Bhi's Submission to Court August 2nd: Youtube & Education > Bolo Bhi Submission to Court August 2nd: Experts Letters > Resources from team and other experts: > Understanding HTTPS > TIMELINE: Youtube Ban 2012 - 2013 > TIMELINE: Content Filtration Over The Years > Best, > Sana > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Director, Bolo Bhi, Advocacy-Policy-Research [http://bolobhi.org] > Blogger: Dawn.com [http://blog.dawn.com/author/sana-saleem/] > Global Voices: [http://globalvoicesonline.org/author/sana-saleem/] > The Guardian:[ www.guardian.co.uk/profile/sana-saleem] > Blog: http://sanasaleem.com] Twitter: @sanasaleem @bolobhi > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Kabani wrote: >> Sana >> >> Many thanks, Since we are aware of this important development, for National level URL Filtration and Blocking system proposal, hope it not yet in place. secondly the youtube block, can share any new outcomes or decision on youtube by the court. if any >> >> Sincerely >> >> >> >> ------- >> Stay Connected >> >> About me: http://about.me/kabaniasif >> >> My Blog: Internet Governance and Policy >> Stay on top - NEWS, Views and Event - Live >> Visit: http://internetgovernancepolicy.blogspot.com >> Before you print - Think about the ENVIRONMENT >> >> >> On 21 August 2013 23:43, Sana Saleem wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Many of you have been of great support during our campaign to get Ministry of IT to shelve their plans for a National Level URL Filtration & Blocking System that was announced in February last year, through your consistent support and pressure we were able to get the ministry to shelve the plan last year. >>> >>> However, as we feared and as now indicated through multiple media statements, the ministry is pursuing their plans and have in fact now indicated that the filters will be provided through an ISP for "free for one year". >>> >>> As partners and supporters of campaigns run by Civil Society in Pakistan, we are sending out this note to keep you updated on the situation. We've issued a detailed statement regarding the issue alongside extensive resources that we have been producing, including submissions to court in the YouTube case in which our director is Amicus Curiae >>> >>> Here's the link to our statement: http://bolobhi.org/press-releases/minstry-of-it-no-to-internet-filters-censorship/ >>> The successful campaign last year which is now being disregarded : http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/26/the_fp_100_global_thinkers?page=0,58#thinker100 >>> Submissions to court: http://bolobhi.org/press-releases/minstry-of-it-no-to-internet-filters-censorship/ >>> >>> Best, >>> Sana >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Director, Bolo Bhi, Advocacy-Policy-Research [http://bolobhi.org] >>> Blogger: Dawn.com [http://blog.dawn.com/author/sana-saleem/] >>> Global Voices: [http://globalvoicesonline.org/author/sana-saleem/] >>> The Guardian:[ www.guardian.co.uk/profile/sana-saleem] >>> Blog: http://sanasaleem.com] Twitter: @sanasaleem @bolobhi >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sana at bolobhi.org Sun Aug 25 16:04:41 2013 From: sana at bolobhi.org (Sana Saleem) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 01:04:41 +0500 Subject: [governance] Pakistan: Ministry of IT Pursues Filtration Again In-Reply-To: <8C7290E8-FB57-4EFC-8D85-5483AC538146@gmail.com> References: <8C7290E8-FB57-4EFC-8D85-5483AC538146@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Sala, Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. Would be happy to brainstorm with IGC members over this. Given the lack of accountability and the prolonged debate over morality & religion, there are reasons to believe this will be used to violate rights. But we believe its both our duty and important to educate people with in the government as to why such a technology would be bad, how it would be abuse and why they need to be wary of fundamental rights before making such decisions. This is why networks like liberation tech and IGC are crucial for us. Allowing us to bring diverse voices and expertise, that aren't merely denouncing an action but also making governments and ppl at large more aware of why the stance is important. I'd be happy to discuss/help further. Sana On 26-Aug-2013, at 12:56 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear Sana, and All, > > Thank you for this important update and for updating the community on challenges in Pakistan. It might be useful for the IGC to consider developing a statement on surveillance vrs privacy. Whilst Article 19 of the ICCPR contains the exceptions, it is critical that these exceptions are not abused. > > Filtering is not all bad where it is used to ensure that traffic flows seamlessly and is not bogged down by unwanted unsolicited traffic. The issue in terms of (unwanted and unsolicited) is distinguishing between what is ok and what just clogs up the network. > > I recently visited two governments in the Pacific and noted that they had to manage traffic in a way that allowed fair and equitable use for its users. There are countries in the world where internet access is expensive as they do not have global submarine cables landing and rely in satellite for access, so unwarranted and unsolicited bulk mail or annoying traffic can cause serious congestions. > > When filtering mechanisms are abused or when exceptions in Article 19 of the ICCPR are abused then this sets a dangerous precedent. > > Over the last five years this has been increasingly a moral, ethical debate. Most countries are grappling with this in Europe, US, Pakistan and the Pacific. > > The IGC might wish to consider developing a discussion and statement on this prior to Bali. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On Aug 26, 2013, at 7:40 AM, Sana Saleem wrote: > >> Sorry for the delay in responding to you. On CC is my partner Farieha Aziz, who has been appointed Amicus Cureai in the case and has been advising the court on the civil liberties and policy aspects of the issue. Following are the details of her submission to the court on behalf of Bolo Bhi, as well as resources gathered by our team. Hope they're helpful. Please feel free to reach out and ask if you'd like more info, similarly please do suggest thoughts or advice on the matter: >> >> In short, in the last hearing the Judge, after discussions with PTA officials and the amicus, that state based filters are not the solution. The discourse in the court is focused on home based solutions, given how state based filters are prone to abuse. We feel the discourse in the court is heading towards the right direction. However, the minister of IT and the secretary have not appeared the court despite being called twice. >> >> We hope that the ministry pays heed to the courts requests and participates in the discourse. >> >> Here's a timeline for all updates >> >> Bolo Bhi Amicus Report on Case Hearing >> Bolo Bhi's Submission To The Court ( through april &july + summary of court proceedings) >> Bolo Bhi's Submission to Court August 2nd: Youtube & Education >> Bolo Bhi Submission to Court August 2nd: Experts Letters >> Resources from team and other experts: >> Understanding HTTPS >> TIMELINE: Youtube Ban 2012 - 2013 >> TIMELINE: Content Filtration Over The Years >> Best, >> Sana >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Director, Bolo Bhi, Advocacy-Policy-Research [http://bolobhi.org] >> Blogger: Dawn.com [http://blog.dawn.com/author/sana-saleem/] >> Global Voices: [http://globalvoicesonline.org/author/sana-saleem/] >> The Guardian:[ www.guardian.co.uk/profile/sana-saleem] >> Blog: http://sanasaleem.com] Twitter: @sanasaleem @bolobhi >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Kabani wrote: >>> Sana >>> >>> Many thanks, Since we are aware of this important development, for National level URL Filtration and Blocking system proposal, hope it not yet in place. secondly the youtube block, can share any new outcomes or decision on youtube by the court. if any >>> >>> Sincerely >>> >>> >>> >>> ------- >>> Stay Connected >>> >>> About me: http://about.me/kabaniasif >>> >>> My Blog: Internet Governance and Policy >>> Stay on top - NEWS, Views and Event - Live >>> Visit: http://internetgovernancepolicy.blogspot.com >>> Before you print - Think about the ENVIRONMENT >>> >>> >>> On 21 August 2013 23:43, Sana Saleem wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Many of you have been of great support during our campaign to get Ministry of IT to shelve their plans for a National Level URL Filtration & Blocking System that was announced in February last year, through your consistent support and pressure we were able to get the ministry to shelve the plan last year. >>>> >>>> However, as we feared and as now indicated through multiple media statements, the ministry is pursuing their plans and have in fact now indicated that the filters will be provided through an ISP for "free for one year". >>>> >>>> As partners and supporters of campaigns run by Civil Society in Pakistan, we are sending out this note to keep you updated on the situation. We've issued a detailed statement regarding the issue alongside extensive resources that we have been producing, including submissions to court in the YouTube case in which our director is Amicus Curiae >>>> >>>> Here's the link to our statement: http://bolobhi.org/press-releases/minstry-of-it-no-to-internet-filters-censorship/ >>>> The successful campaign last year which is now being disregarded : http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/26/the_fp_100_global_thinkers?page=0,58#thinker100 >>>> Submissions to court: http://bolobhi.org/press-releases/minstry-of-it-no-to-internet-filters-censorship/ >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Sana >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Director, Bolo Bhi, Advocacy-Policy-Research [http://bolobhi.org] >>>> Blogger: Dawn.com [http://blog.dawn.com/author/sana-saleem/] >>>> Global Voices: [http://globalvoicesonline.org/author/sana-saleem/] >>>> The Guardian:[ www.guardian.co.uk/profile/sana-saleem] >>>> Blog: http://sanasaleem.com] Twitter: @sanasaleem @bolobhi >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 25 16:13:49 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 08:13:49 +1200 Subject: [governance] Pakistan: Ministry of IT Pursues Filtration Again In-Reply-To: References: <8C7290E8-FB57-4EFC-8D85-5483AC538146@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6073F534-1F1E-4F7D-941C-AE42BB756F88@gmail.com> Dear Sana, and all, You are absolutely right, the sustainable approach is education, awareness on why an open and free internet is important. Philosophically, technology does not breed darkness as darkness really emnates out of the hearts of man- the desire to exploit, bring harm. Mankind has struggled over centuries in taming the heart. Mankind will always find a way to exploit vulnerabilities, whether these are systems, technology, infrastructure etc. A statement from the global community would indeed be a useful reference point for decision makers and policy makers. One of your former PTA members is With ISOC and there are tonnes of opportunity for your organisations and new ones like ISOC Pakistan and other similar interest groups to create this much needed awareness. If you would like help from external groups, we can relay your requests for assistance. In terms of Statements, we should press forward on this. What do others think? Sent from my iPad On Aug 26, 2013, at 8:04 AM, Sana Saleem wrote: > > > Hi Sala, > > Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. Would be happy to brainstorm with IGC members over this. Given the lack of accountability and the prolonged debate over morality & religion, there are reasons to believe this will be used to violate rights. > > But we believe its both our duty and important to educate people with in the government as to why such a technology would be bad, how it would be abuse and why they need to be wary of fundamental rights before making such decisions. > > This is why networks like liberation tech and IGC are crucial for us. Allowing us to bring diverse voices and expertise, that aren't merely denouncing an action but also making governments and ppl at large more aware of why the stance is important. > > I'd be happy to discuss/help further. > > Sana > > On 26-Aug-2013, at 12:56 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> Dear Sana, and All, >> >> Thank you for this important update and for updating the community on challenges in Pakistan. It might be useful for the IGC to consider developing a statement on surveillance vrs privacy. Whilst Article 19 of the ICCPR contains the exceptions, it is critical that these exceptions are not abused. >> >> Filtering is not all bad where it is used to ensure that traffic flows seamlessly and is not bogged down by unwanted unsolicited traffic. The issue in terms of (unwanted and unsolicited) is distinguishing between what is ok and what just clogs up the network. >> >> I recently visited two governments in the Pacific and noted that they had to manage traffic in a way that allowed fair and equitable use for its users. There are countries in the world where internet access is expensive as they do not have global submarine cables landing and rely in satellite for access, so unwarranted and unsolicited bulk mail or annoying traffic can cause serious congestions. >> >> When filtering mechanisms are abused or when exceptions in Article 19 of the ICCPR are abused then this sets a dangerous precedent. >> >> Over the last five years this has been increasingly a moral, ethical debate. Most countries are grappling with this in Europe, US, Pakistan and the Pacific. >> >> The IGC might wish to consider developing a discussion and statement on this prior to Bali. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Aug 26, 2013, at 7:40 AM, Sana Saleem wrote: >> >>> Sorry for the delay in responding to you. On CC is my partner Farieha Aziz, who has been appointed Amicus Cureai in the case and has been advising the court on the civil liberties and policy aspects of the issue. Following are the details of her submission to the court on behalf of Bolo Bhi, as well as resources gathered by our team. Hope they're helpful. Please feel free to reach out and ask if you'd like more info, similarly please do suggest thoughts or advice on the matter: >>> >>> In short, in the last hearing the Judge, after discussions with PTA officials and the amicus, that state based filters are not the solution. The discourse in the court is focused on home based solutions, given how state based filters are prone to abuse. We feel the discourse in the court is heading towards the right direction. However, the minister of IT and the secretary have not appeared the court despite being called twice. >>> >>> We hope that the ministry pays heed to the courts requests and participates in the discourse. >>> >>> Here's a timeline for all updates >>> >>> Bolo Bhi Amicus Report on Case Hearing >>> Bolo Bhi's Submission To The Court ( through april &july + summary of court proceedings) >>> Bolo Bhi's Submission to Court August 2nd: Youtube & Education >>> Bolo Bhi Submission to Court August 2nd: Experts Letters >>> Resources from team and other experts: >>> Understanding HTTPS >>> TIMELINE: Youtube Ban 2012 - 2013 >>> TIMELINE: Content Filtration Over The Years >>> Best, >>> Sana >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Director, Bolo Bhi, Advocacy-Policy-Research [http://bolobhi.org] >>> Blogger: Dawn.com [http://blog.dawn.com/author/sana-saleem/] >>> Global Voices: [http://globalvoicesonline.org/author/sana-saleem/] >>> The Guardian:[ www.guardian.co.uk/profile/sana-saleem] >>> Blog: http://sanasaleem.com] Twitter: @sanasaleem @bolobhi >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Kabani wrote: >>>> Sana >>>> >>>> Many thanks, Since we are aware of this important development, for National level URL Filtration and Blocking system proposal, hope it not yet in place. secondly the youtube block, can share any new outcomes or decision on youtube by the court. if any >>>> >>>> Sincerely >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------- >>>> Stay Connected >>>> >>>> About me: http://about.me/kabaniasif >>>> >>>> My Blog: Internet Governance and Policy >>>> Stay on top - NEWS, Views and Event - Live >>>> Visit: http://internetgovernancepolicy.blogspot.com >>>> Before you print - Think about the ENVIRONMENT >>>> >>>> >>>> On 21 August 2013 23:43, Sana Saleem wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Many of you have been of great support during our campaign to get Ministry of IT to shelve their plans for a National Level URL Filtration & Blocking System that was announced in February last year, through your consistent support and pressure we were able to get the ministry to shelve the plan last year. >>>>> >>>>> However, as we feared and as now indicated through multiple media statements, the ministry is pursuing their plans and have in fact now indicated that the filters will be provided through an ISP for "free for one year". >>>>> >>>>> As partners and supporters of campaigns run by Civil Society in Pakistan, we are sending out this note to keep you updated on the situation. We've issued a detailed statement regarding the issue alongside extensive resources that we have been producing, including submissions to court in the YouTube case in which our director is Amicus Curiae >>>>> >>>>> Here's the link to our statement: http://bolobhi.org/press-releases/minstry-of-it-no-to-internet-filters-censorship/ >>>>> The successful campaign last year which is now being disregarded : http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/26/the_fp_100_global_thinkers?page=0,58#thinker100 >>>>> Submissions to court: http://bolobhi.org/press-releases/minstry-of-it-no-to-internet-filters-censorship/ >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> Sana >>>>> >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> Director, Bolo Bhi, Advocacy-Policy-Research [http://bolobhi.org] >>>>> Blogger: Dawn.com [http://blog.dawn.com/author/sana-saleem/] >>>>> Global Voices: [http://globalvoicesonline.org/author/sana-saleem/] >>>>> The Guardian:[ www.guardian.co.uk/profile/sana-saleem] >>>>> Blog: http://sanasaleem.com] Twitter: @sanasaleem @bolobhi >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Aug 25 17:44:16 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 23:44:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] WGEC - Questionnaire In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24B9C0E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.sy r.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24B9C0E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Sun Aug 25 20:07:39 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 01:07:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] WGEC - Questionnaire In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24B9C0E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Thank you JFC . Best. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Aug 25, 2013 10:44 PM, "JFC Morfin" wrote: > At 20:26 25/08/2013, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] > *On Behalf Of *JFC Morfin > > > I am afraid I have no idea about what significance, purpose, and scope > may be > > referring to here. > > Always helpful when people pay such close attention to what the proceeding > is about. > > > Dear Milton, > > I did not think that I would have to comment on this second degree remark > to the second degree. But you are right to emphasize its importance (we are > so used to the confused bureaucracy of the IGF process, when compared with > the IETF for example, that we just note it and do not fight it each time). > > The questionnaire is... a questionnaire, not an academic exam. It is to be > self-contained. In this circumstance, proceedings are of no interest except > to be pedantic. > Now, I must admit that it was in fact a way for me to mention that the > main blocking factor of enhanced cooperations is the proceeding. We want > actions, not reactions. > > I, therefore, thank you for emphasizing the sentence. I will use this > exchange to make it more explicit, as it is a key point: academics, > technicians, proceedings, etc. do not constitute a stakeholder category but > they do resort as consultants, experts, documentation, etc. to the four > (regalian, civil, private, international) authoritative poles. > > Cheers, > > jfc > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani.asif at gmail.com Mon Aug 26 07:32:04 2013 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:32:04 +0500 Subject: [governance] Pakistan: Ministry of IT Pursues Filtration Again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Sana, Many thanks for sharing the updates from Civil Society point of view, Since it good to hear that Farieha Aziz has been appointed as Amicus Cureai in the case and have been advising the court. (Good Job). Since, its todays news that govt plan to open youtube with some technical solution. Let hope it protects the basic Human Rights of Pakistani's. Thanking you for your input. Sincerely ------- *Stay Connected* [image: Facebook] [image: Twitter] [image: Youtube] [image: LinkedIn] About me: http://about.me/kabaniasif* * *My Blog: Internet Governance and Policy* Stay on top - NEWS, Views and Event - Live Visit: http://internetgovernancepolicy.blogspot.com *Before you print - Think about the** **ENVIRONMENT* On 26 August 2013 00:40, Sana Saleem wrote: > Sorry for the delay in responding to you. On CC is my partner Farieha > Aziz, who has been appointed Amicus Cureai in the case and has been > advising the court on the civil liberties and policy aspects of the issue. > Following are the details of her submission to the court on behalf of Bolo Bhi, > as well as resources gathered by our team. Hope they're helpful. Please > feel free to reach out and ask if you'd like more info, similarly please do > suggest thoughts or advice on the matter: > > In short, in the last hearing the Judge, after discussions with PTA > officials and the amicus, that state based filters are not the solution. > The discourse in the court is focused on home based solutions, given how > state based filters are prone to abuse. We feel the discourse in the court > is heading towards the right direction. However, the minister of IT and the > secretary have not appeared the court despite being called twice. > > We hope that the ministry pays heed to the courts requests and > participates in the discourse. > > Here's a timeline for all updates > > > - *Bolo Bhi Amicus Report on Case Hearing > * > - *Bolo Bhi's Submission To The Court > * ( through april &july + summary of court proceedings) > - *Bolo Bhi's Submission to Court August 2nd: Youtube & Educatio > n * > - *Bolo Bhi Submission to Court August 2nd: Experts Letters > * > > *Resources from team and other experts:* > > - *Understanding HTTPS* > - *TIMELINE: Youtube Ban 2012 - 2013 > * > - *TIMELINE: Content Filtration Over The Years > * > > Best, > Sana > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Director, Bolo Bhi, Advocacy-Policy-Research [http://bolobhi.org] > Blogger: Dawn.com [http://blog.dawn.com/author/sana-saleem/] > Global Voices: [http://globalvoicesonline.org/author/sana-saleem/] > The Guardian:[ www.guardian.co.uk/profile/sana-saleem] > Blog: http://sanasaleem.com] Twitter: @sanasaleem > @bolobhi > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Kabani wrote: > >> Sana >> >> Many thanks, Since we are aware of this important development, for >> National level URL Filtration and Blocking system proposal, hope it not yet >> in place. secondly the youtube block, can share any new outcomes or >> decision on youtube by the court. if any >> >> Sincerely >> >> >> >> ------- >> *Stay Connected* >> [image: Facebook] [image: Twitter] >> [image: Youtube] [image: >> LinkedIn] >> About me: http://about.me/kabaniasif* >> * >> >> *My Blog: Internet Governance and Policy* >> Stay on top - NEWS, Views and Event - Live >> Visit: http://internetgovernancepolicy.blogspot.com >> *Before you print - Think about the** **ENVIRONMENT* >> >> >> On 21 August 2013 23:43, Sana Saleem wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Many of you have been of great support during our campaign to get >>> Ministry of IT to shelve their plans for a National Level URL Filtration & >>> Blocking System that was announced in February last year, through your >>> consistent support and pressure we were able to get the ministry to shelve >>> the plan last year. >>> >>> However, as we feared and as now indicated through multiple media >>> statements, the ministry is pursuing their plans and have in fact now >>> indicated that the filters will be provided through an ISP for "free for >>> one year". >>> >>> As partners and supporters of campaigns run by Civil Society in >>> Pakistan, we are sending out this note to keep you updated on the >>> situation. We've issued a detailed statement regarding the issue alongside >>> extensive resources that we have been producing, including submissions to >>> court in the YouTube case in which our director is Amicus Curiae >>> >>> Here's the link to our statement: >>> http://bolobhi.org/press-releases/minstry-of-it-no-to-internet-filters-censorship/ >>> >>> The successful campaign last year which is now being disregarded : http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/26/the_fp_100_global_thinkers?page=0,58#thinker100 >>> >>> Submissions to court: >>> http://bolobhi.org/press-releases/minstry-of-it-no-to-internet-filters-censorship/ >>> >>> Best, >>> Sana >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Director, Bolo Bhi, Advocacy-Policy-Research [http://bolobhi.org] >>> Blogger: Dawn.com [http://blog.dawn.com/author/sana-saleem/] >>> Global Voices: [http://globalvoicesonline.org/author/sana-saleem/] >>> The Guardian:[ www.guardian.co.uk/profile/sana-saleem] >>> Blog: http://sanasaleem.com] Twitter: @sanasaleem >>> @bolobhi >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani.asif at gmail.com Mon Aug 26 07:33:54 2013 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:33:54 +0500 Subject: [governance] Pakistan: Ministry of IT Pursues Filtration Again In-Reply-To: <8C7290E8-FB57-4EFC-8D85-5483AC538146@gmail.com> References: <8C7290E8-FB57-4EFC-8D85-5483AC538146@gmail.com> Message-ID: Sala, Agree with you on subject. Still, we can have more input from the IGC group, if any, before we make the statement. Thanks & Regards ------- *Stay Connected* [image: Facebook] [image: Twitter] [image: Youtube] [image: LinkedIn] About me: http://about.me/kabaniasif* * *My Blog: Internet Governance and Policy* Stay on top - NEWS, Views and Event - Live Visit: http://internetgovernancepolicy.blogspot.com *Before you print - Think about the** **ENVIRONMENT* On 26 August 2013 00:56, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Sana, and All, > > Thank you for this important update and for updating the community on > challenges in Pakistan. It might be useful for the IGC to consider > developing a statement on surveillance vrs privacy. Whilst Article 19 of > the ICCPR contains the exceptions, it is critical that these exceptions are > not abused. > > Filtering is not all bad where it is used to ensure that traffic flows > seamlessly and is not bogged down by unwanted unsolicited traffic. The > issue in terms of (unwanted and unsolicited) is distinguishing between what > is ok and what just clogs up the network. > > I recently visited two governments in the Pacific and noted that they had > to manage traffic in a way that allowed fair and equitable use for its > users. There are countries in the world where internet access is expensive > as they do not have global submarine cables landing and rely in satellite > for access, so unwarranted and unsolicited bulk mail or annoying traffic > can cause serious congestions. > > When filtering mechanisms are abused or when exceptions in Article 19 of > the ICCPR are abused then this sets a dangerous precedent. > > Over the last five years this has been increasingly a moral, ethical > debate. Most countries are grappling with this in Europe, US, Pakistan and > the Pacific. > > The IGC might wish to consider developing a discussion and statement on > this prior to Bali. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On Aug 26, 2013, at 7:40 AM, Sana Saleem wrote: > > Sorry for the delay in responding to you. On CC is my partner Farieha > Aziz, who has been appointed Amicus Cureai in the case and has been > advising the court on the civil liberties and policy aspects of the issue. > Following are the details of her submission to the court on behalf of Bolo Bhi, > as well as resources gathered by our team. Hope they're helpful. Please > feel free to reach out and ask if you'd like more info, similarly please do > suggest thoughts or advice on the matter: > > In short, in the last hearing the Judge, after discussions with PTA > officials and the amicus, that state based filters are not the solution. > The discourse in the court is focused on home based solutions, given how > state based filters are prone to abuse. We feel the discourse in the court > is heading towards the right direction. However, the minister of IT and the > secretary have not appeared the court despite being called twice. > > We hope that the ministry pays heed to the courts requests and > participates in the discourse. > > Here's a timeline for all updates > > > - *Bolo Bhi Amicus Report on Case Hearing > * > - *Bolo Bhi's Submission To The Court > * ( through april &july + summary of court proceedings) > - *Bolo Bhi's Submission to Court August 2nd: Youtube & Educatio > n * > - *Bolo Bhi Submission to Court August 2nd: Experts Letters > * > > *Resources from team and other experts:* > > - *Understanding HTTPS* > - *TIMELINE: Youtube Ban 2012 - 2013 > * > - *TIMELINE: Content Filtration Over The Years > * > > Best, > Sana > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Director, Bolo Bhi, Advocacy-Policy-Research [http://bolobhi.org] > Blogger: Dawn.com [http://blog.dawn.com/author/sana-saleem/] > Global Voices: [http://globalvoicesonline.org/author/sana-saleem/] > The Guardian:[ www.guardian.co.uk/profile/sana-saleem] > Blog: http://sanasaleem.com] Twitter: @sanasaleem > @bolobhi > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Kabani wrote: > >> Sana >> >> Many thanks, Since we are aware of this important development, for >> National level URL Filtration and Blocking system proposal, hope it not yet >> in place. secondly the youtube block, can share any new outcomes or >> decision on youtube by the court. if any >> >> Sincerely >> >> >> >> ------- >> *Stay Connected* >> [image: Facebook] [image: Twitter] >> [image: Youtube] [image: >> LinkedIn] >> About me: http://about.me/kabaniasif* >> * >> >> *My Blog: Internet Governance and Policy* >> Stay on top - NEWS, Views and Event - Live >> Visit: http://internetgovernancepolicy.blogspot.com >> *Before you print - Think about the** **ENVIRONMENT* >> >> >> On 21 August 2013 23:43, Sana Saleem wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Many of you have been of great support during our campaign to get >>> Ministry of IT to shelve their plans for a National Level URL Filtration & >>> Blocking System that was announced in February last year, through your >>> consistent support and pressure we were able to get the ministry to shelve >>> the plan last year. >>> >>> However, as we feared and as now indicated through multiple media >>> statements, the ministry is pursuing their plans and have in fact now >>> indicated that the filters will be provided through an ISP for "free for >>> one year". >>> >>> As partners and supporters of campaigns run by Civil Society in >>> Pakistan, we are sending out this note to keep you updated on the >>> situation. We've issued a detailed statement regarding the issue alongside >>> extensive resources that we have been producing, including submissions to >>> court in the YouTube case in which our director is Amicus Curiae >>> >>> Here's the link to our statement: >>> http://bolobhi.org/press-releases/minstry-of-it-no-to-internet-filters-censorship/ >>> >>> The successful campaign last year which is now being disregarded : http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/26/the_fp_100_global_thinkers?page=0,58#thinker100 >>> >>> Submissions to court: >>> http://bolobhi.org/press-releases/minstry-of-it-no-to-internet-filters-censorship/ >>> >>> Best, >>> Sana >>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Director, Bolo Bhi, Advocacy-Policy-Research [http://bolobhi.org] >>> Blogger: Dawn.com [http://blog.dawn.com/author/sana-saleem/] >>> Global Voices: [http://globalvoicesonline.org/author/sana-saleem/] >>> The Guardian:[ www.guardian.co.uk/profile/sana-saleem] >>> Blog: http://sanasaleem.com] Twitter: @sanasaleem >>> @bolobhi >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 26 16:53:10 2013 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 20:53:10 +0000 Subject: [governance] UNESCO calls for research proposals: case studies on the role of Internet intermediaries in promoting freedom of expression on Internet Message-ID: Might be of interest to some of you. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single-view/news/unesco_calls_for_research_proposals_case_studies_on_the_role_of_internet_intermediaries_in_promoting_freedom_of_expression_on_internet/#.Uhu_IBtkSuI -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 26 21:51:05 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:51:05 +1000 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: <5208605C.8080101@apc.org> References: <5208605C.8080101@apc.org> Message-ID: Joy wrote: > Hi all - as noted last week, the deadline for submission of responses > to the WGEC questionnaire is 31 August. The questionnaire itself can > be found here: http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx > I may have missed the discussion, but wondering: is the caucus > considering posting a response? The joint civil society submission prepared through the Best Bits platform has now been opened for endorsements: http://bestbits.net/ec Members of the Internet Governance Caucus are warmly encouraged to read the submission to see whether they are able to agree with it, and if so, to add your endorsements by 31 August. If you can't, then I hope you will be able to take the time to submit your own submission instead. Although the Caucus is a little fractured at the moment, Norbert and Sala might nevertheless wish to gauge the feeling of the Caucus towards signing on corporately. -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 26 21:57:05 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 13:57:05 +1200 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <5208605C.8080101@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear Jeremy, >From the responses received so far the Caucus is against submitting a corporate response although personally I would have loved for the IGC to submit a response. Thank you though for opening the opportunity to participate and also endorse via Best Bits. Kind Regards, Sala On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Joy wrote: > > Hi all - as noted last week, the deadline for submission of responses > to the WGEC questionnaire is 31 August. The questionnaire itself can > be found here: http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx > I may have missed the discussion, but wondering: is the caucus > considering posting a response? > > > The joint civil society submission prepared through the Best Bits platform > has now been opened for endorsements: > > http://bestbits.net/ec > > Members of the Internet Governance Caucus are warmly encouraged to read > the submission to see whether they are able to agree with it, and if so, to > add your endorsements by 31 August. If you can't, then I hope you will be > able to take the time to submit your own submission instead. > > Although the Caucus is a little fractured at the moment, Norbert and Sala > might nevertheless wish to gauge the feeling of the Caucus towards signing > on corporately. > > -- > > *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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 suresh at hserus.net Mon Aug 26 22:13:15 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 07:43:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <5208605C.8080101@apc.org> Message-ID: On 27-Aug-2013, at 7:21, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Although the Caucus is a little fractured at the moment, Norbert and Sala might nevertheless wish to gauge the feeling of the Caucus towards signing on corporately. > It would help gain broader consensus if the worst bits of that statement were removed. Bringing ICANN under UN oversight, really? And then, if we were to scout for the one government that is holier than thou, that would be chimerical .. in such cases you pick the least of the evils, and opt for the current status quo to continue. 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 Aug 27 01:34:27 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:04:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] Article on India's cybersecurity Message-ID: <3DC662A8-F5B2-47C4-86C0-69030F83F668@hserus.net> http://m.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/cyber-security-hyperconfusion/article5061718.ece/ Devastatingly accurate --srs (iPad) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Aug 27 03:59:21 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 16:59:21 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Nominees to High Level meeting in Bali on "Global Multi-Stakeholder Cyber Ethics Principles" In-Reply-To: References: <5209F29D.2050406@ciroap.org> <20130813183514.0d8c8b97@quill> <6ACCFAD3-3FB9-416B-99FB-4772DDB4E71F@ciroap.org> <20130813184448.5983a1be@quill> <520AF6D8.50709@ciroap.org> <520B02E2.6050205@itforchange.net> <520B9B69.9080204@apc.org> <093676F2-05AD-409D-BA87-B3776BD70A7B@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Hi Anja, Apologies, I missed this email. On Aug 16, 2013, at 11:30 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > I agree with Adam that as long as processes aren't clear, the HLM and its outcomes should be kept more clearly separate from the HLM. > > As to Adam's question of why people want to attend: in my case this was simply driven by the topic, "cyber ethics principles". Freedom of expression has been a major focus of the Internet Democracy Project, which I work with, over the past two years, and discussions like these have the potential to lead to very negative repercussions on free speech online. Being in the room makes it easier to know what is going on in governments' minds, and to adequately respond if necessary. > I didn't mean to question the value of some civil society experts attending, just trying to say it shouldn't become a priority. I doubt the Bali HLM will differ much from what happened in Baku (the only interesting thing was Hamadoun Touré again having a go at Larry Strickling) You are absolutely right, you and other interested experts should be in the room for all the reasons you mention. Unless there's some change and any declaration that comes out of the meeting starts making substantive recommendations, or discussion becomes a serious dialog rather than mainly a series of statements, I think governments should be just left to their meeting. A pre-meeting not IGF. No more status in the IGF than bestbits, giganet or whatever the private sector or ISOC might organize for themselves. If the HLM works as a means of encouraging more governments to stay on for the IGF then that's a good thing, not multi-stakeholder without them. Best, Adam > Best, > Anja > > > > On 14 August 2013 21:43, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Anriette, > > Thanks for asking those questions and more. > > Comments below. > > On Aug 14, 2013, at 11:59 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > > Dear Adam > > > > I am sorry... I missed this question about the Baku declaration. > > > > Good question.. but.. counter question... if we want the IGF to become > > more outcome oriented.. don't we want ALL outcomes from IGF-linked > > processes to be reflected.. or should that apply only to events that are > > formally part of the main IGF? > > > > > I think we'd quite soon face the same situation as we kind of see now with open forums when they become quasi-workshops. What I mean is, we are trying to create a fair and transparent process for the IGF adhering to various principles, side events would perhaps side-step those processes and principles. So for now my answer is we do not want ALL outcomes from IGF-linked processes to be reflected. Not until we know what we're dealing with and have principle-based processes in place, > > > > > I agree that it is good for governments to come to the IGF, and an event > > like this can help. I participated in the Nairobi event and it was > > certainly successful, but there was very little dialogue. It was more a > > case of one government after another showcasing what they are doing. > > > > > From what I remember the Nairobi ministerial meeting it was very limited in the number of non-govt stakeholders, and wasn't intended to be multi-stakeholder. The Bali meetings starts with the MAG all invited which makes 30+ (I think!), way ahead already. But I expect it will still be rather dull, the intent to allow governments to make statements as they usually do in UN forums. Exactly the kind of session we try to avoid in the IGF itself. I am not sure why people want to attend. > > > > I would really like to see governments have an interactive dialogue with > > one another at the IGF on internet policy issues. But high-level > > protocol is a powerful force, and not one that combines easily with > > interactive dialogue. > > > > You have to get them there first before they can join the broader dialogue and that was the intention behind the ministerial/high-level meeting. Worked to a degree in Nairobi, not sure since. > > Best, > > Adam > > > > > Anriette > > > > On 14/08/2013 12:58, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Parminder, > >> > >> My understanding of the high-level meeting (I think labelled "ministerial" in Nairobi) is the same as yours: intended a session in a format more familiar to high-level government representatives, get them and their staff to attend and to hopefully stay on. And I understand it worked in Nairobi, it was an effective carrot for both African govt and others to attend the IGF. And I'm OK with that, a pre-meeting that is clearly separate from the IGF is fine whether it's bestbits, the host country's HLM or giganet (etc). But it is problematic when the Baku high-level meeting produces a declaration (however innocuous) that is then made available on the official IGF website in the same space as the Chairman's Summary, the document that's traditionally been to only official output of the IGF process . Also a problem that the UN flag raising ceremony was listed as part of the Baku HLM agenda. Need to be more thoughtful in how these meetings are presented. > >> > >> Anriette - another question for today's MAG call, could you ask why the Baku declaration is available on the IGF website, and why it's presented along side the Chairman's summary? If it were on the host website only, then much less of an issue. This should be fixed for Bali. > >> > >> Further complication this year is that sessions from the IGF proper will be held on day "zero" (regional IGF session, etc.) Pre-meetings begin to mix with sessions of the IGF. Would be good to make a very clear demarcation between what is IGF and what is not IGF (the HLM should not be.) > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> On Aug 14, 2013, at 1:09 PM, parminder wrote: > >> > >>> in addition to the below issues, we still do not know what the form of the high level meeting is. Is it a real round table kind of forum where people get an opportunity to wiegh in substantially or just a 'mix and make connections' thing which corporates types may still love to do but not many civil society kinds may to be too eager about. > >>> > >>> Also, is their any drafting process for the likely statement to come out of the HLM. That is crucial. > >>> > >>> And, the IGF or non IGF status of the meeting? > >>> > >>> I had asked for these clarifications on the IGC list from a civil society member of the MAG, and await them. > >>> > >>> My understanding is that initially is was a kind of a 'formal thing without real substance', which was to attract high level participation from governments, esp ministrial level. Kind of peoople who do not come over just to sit in the audience at the IGF. And when ministers come, their retinue of senior officials also come along, and that was supposed to fill in a (really) missing gap at the IG, especially in terms of governmental participation from developing countires. I will be cautious to see this meeting take a character and big role for itself, which could compromise the relatively participative nature of the IGF. Especially of concern is the declaration that comes from this meeting, which at present is the only real 'consumable' doc coming out the IGF environment. So, maybe civil socity may want to think around these issues as well. > >>> > >>> parminder > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wednesday 14 August 2013 08:47 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >>>> On 14/08/13 00:44, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >>>>> Jeremy Malcolm > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>> How about setting up a joint NomCom by inviting members of all the > >>>>>>> various civil society organizations and networks to volunteer for > >>>>>>> the NomCom... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> It is a very good plan for the future, but not something that could > >>>>>> be accomplished easily in two weeks. > >>>>>> > >>>>> Where does that “two weeks” timeline come from? > >>>>> > >>>> Actually you're quite right, I'm mixing up the deadline for the CSTD enhanced cooperation questionnaire (which is in two weeks) with the (yet unspecified, but Izumi is finding out) deadline for nominating panelists to the High Level Meeting. So maybe we have longer, but surely not much longer. > >>>> > >>>> Establishing (or re-establishing - we had one in WSIS) a high-level mechanism for civil society groups to jointly nominate candidates for positions is very important, I couldn't agree with you more. But it's also ambitious. > >>>> > >>>> Noting that thanks to your leadership the IGC has a workshop relevant to this topic planned for Bali ("MS selection processes: accountability and transparency"), it would be better, I feel, to come up with a proposal and present it at that workshop. I wouldn't want to rush it on account of what is probably a minimally important pre-event in Bali. > >>>> > >>>> However, if you disagree then by all means put your idea to the IGC then I can put it to the Best Bits interim steering group and we can reach out to the other relevant groups and networks too. If it were me though, I would rather wait. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> 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 > >>>> > >>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > >>>> > >>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > >>>> > >>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > >>>> > >>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > >>>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > > executive director, association for progressive communications > > www.apc.org > > po box 29755, melville 2109 > > south africa > > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Aug 27 11:04:33 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 20:34:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] A long time IPer -- Michael Kende Joins Internet Society as Chief Economist References: <6B5EFF6B-46C5-435D-A2EC-D0DDCA0E5AF9@gmail.com> Message-ID: congratulations --srs (iPad) Begin forwarded message: > From: David Farber > Date: 27 August 2013 20:27:32 IST > To: "ip" > Subject: [IP] A long time IPer -- Michael Kende Joins Internet Society as Chief Economist > Reply-To: dave at farber.net > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Wende Cover > Subject: [Chapter-delegates] NEWS RELEASE: Michael Kende Joins Internet Society as Chief Economist > Date: August 27, 2013 8:58:29 AM EDT > To: "chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org" > > Michael Kende Joins Internet Society as Chief Economist > > Veteran Economist Brings Deep Knowledge of Internet Economics and Emerging Global Trends to Internet Society > > [Washington, D.C. and Geneva, Switzerland – 27 August 2013] – As the first Chief Economist of the Internet Society, Michael Kende has joined the organization to provide strategic insights into the economic dynamics of Internet issues, as well as current and emerging trends impacting the Internet. Based in Geneva, Switzerland, Mr. Kende will be responsible for leading economic research and analyses and providing leadership on key Internet development, policy, market, and technology issues. > > “We’ve worked with Michael over the years on numerous reports and studies, and we are delighted to bring his expertise into our organization,” said Karen Rose, Senior Director of Strategic Development and Business Planning at the Internet Society. “Michael’s extensive background working on Internet issues in academic, government, and consulting markets makes him the ideal candidate for this role. His experience working on regulatory, operational, and market issues in all regions of the world spans a broad range of topics, including Internet governance, interconnection, Internet exchange points, and mobile and fixed broadband deployment.” > > Mr. Kende was previously a partner at Analysys Mason, a global consulting firm, where he led the Policy and Regulatory sector and was responsible for developing its Internet practice. During the past several years, Mr. Kende authored a number of papers for the Internet Society, including a study of the impact of IXPs in Kenya and Nigeria and improving Internet connectivity in Africa. > > Kende commented, “The Internet Society is well known and highly respected for advocating for the fundamental principles of the open Internet. I am excited to add a new dimension to the organization and to support its important work in advancing issues focused on the growth and sustainability of the Internet.” > > Mr. Kende has a Ph.D. in Economics from MIT. After MIT, he spent five years as a professor of Economics at INSEAD in Paris before joining the Federal Communications Commission. At the FCC, Kende was the Director of Internet Policy Analysis, where he was responsible for managing a wide range of policy analyses and regulatory decisions on Internet policy, broadband deployment, and mergers. Mr. Kende is a dual Swiss and U.S. national and speaks English, French, and German. > _______________________________________________ > As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed > to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society > Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org > > Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Aug 27 21:17:37 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 13:17:37 +1200 Subject: [governance] Community Priority Evaluation Guidelines #newgTLDs [Call for Comments] Message-ID: Dear All, On 16th August, 2013 invitations to give feedback to the Community Priority Evaluation Guidelines was published with the view of closing input on the 30th August, 2013. This has shifted till 7 September, 2013 as it did not factor in the 21 days that need to run before closing the time frame for feedback. You can access the Community Priority Evaluation Guideline Document and information here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/announcement-4-16aug13-en You can also send your views here: newgtld-cpe at icann.org. The ALAC is in the process of preparing a statement and there is room for people to comment directly on the Wiki. If you are a member of an At Large Accredited Structure (ALS) would like to have a Wiki account, please send an email tostaff at atlarge.icann.org to enable you to post directly on the wiki from your personal wiki account or you could post anonymously as well. You have the option of raising your views through the At Large space or directly to newgtld-cpe at icann.org. The ALAC is in the process of developing a statement and it will be put to the ALAC for a vote. If you are not a member of At Large you can still comment on the Guidelines via the email above. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Aug 27 23:14:20 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 03:14:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] A long time IPer -- Michael Kende Joins Internet Society as Chief Economist In-Reply-To: References: <6B5EFF6B-46C5-435D-A2EC-D0DDCA0E5AF9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BB237@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> ISOC badly needs an economist. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:05 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] A long time IPer -- Michael Kende Joins Internet Society as Chief Economist congratulations --srs (iPad) Begin forwarded message: From: David Farber > Date: 27 August 2013 20:27:32 IST To: "ip" > Subject: [IP] A long time IPer -- Michael Kende Joins Internet Society as Chief Economist Reply-To: dave at farber.net Begin forwarded message: From: Wende Cover > Subject: [Chapter-delegates] NEWS RELEASE: Michael Kende Joins Internet Society as Chief Economist Date: August 27, 2013 8:58:29 AM EDT To: "chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org" > Michael Kende Joins Internet Society as Chief Economist Veteran Economist Brings Deep Knowledge of Internet Economics and Emerging Global Trends to Internet Society [Washington, D.C. and Geneva, Switzerland – 27 August 2013] – As the first Chief Economist of the Internet Society, Michael Kende has joined the organization to provide strategic insights into the economic dynamics of Internet issues, as well as current and emerging trends impacting the Internet. Based in Geneva, Switzerland, Mr. Kende will be responsible for leading economic research and analyses and providing leadership on key Internet development, policy, market, and technology issues. “We’ve worked with Michael over the years on numerous reports and studies, and we are delighted to bring his expertise into our organization,” said Karen Rose, Senior Director of Strategic Development and Business Planning at the Internet Society. “Michael’s extensive background working on Internet issues in academic, government, and consulting markets makes him the ideal candidate for this role. His experience working on regulatory, operational, and market issues in all regions of the world spans a broad range of topics, including Internet governance, interconnection, Internet exchange points, and mobile and fixed broadband deployment.” Mr. Kende was previously a partner at Analysys Mason, a global consulting firm, where he led the Policy and Regulatory sector and was responsible for developing its Internet practice. During the past several years, Mr. Kende authored a number of papers for the Internet Society, including a study of the impact of IXPs in Kenya and Nigeria and improving Internet connectivity in Africa. Kende commented, “The Internet Society is well known and highly respected for advocating for the fundamental principles of the open Internet. I am excited to add a new dimension to the organization and to support its important work in advancing issues focused on the growth and sustainability of the Internet.” Mr. Kende has a Ph.D. in Economics from MIT. After MIT, he spent five years as a professor of Economics at INSEAD in Paris before joining the Federal Communications Commission. At the FCC, Kende was the Director of Internet Policy Analysis, where he was responsible for managing a wide range of policy analyses and regulatory decisions on Internet policy, broadband deployment, and mergers. Mr. Kende is a dual Swiss and U.S. national and speaks English, French, and German. _______________________________________________ As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mail at christopherwilkinson.eu Wed Aug 28 01:55:09 2013 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 07:55:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] A long time IPer -- Michael Kende Joins Internet Society as Chief Economist In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BB237@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <6B5EFF6B-46C5-435D-A2EC-D0DDCA0E5AF9@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BB237@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 28 Aug 2013, at 05:14, Milton L Mueller wrote: > ISOC badly needs an economist. > So does ICANN. CW -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 28 06:02:57 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 17:02:57 +0700 Subject: [governance] FW: How America Spies on Europe and the UN - Spiegel Online In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <030901cea3d5$cb7495e0$625dc1a0$@gmail.com> "In an internal presentation, the NSA sums up its vision, which is both global and frighteningly ambitious: "information superiority." To achieve this worldwide dominance Essay question, "What role does Internet Governance play in the NSA's ambitions towards global information dominance For extra marks, "Discuss the recent "Internet Freedom" campaign in the context of your answer.. For extra extra marks include an analysis of Multistakeholderism in your discussion.. M From: sid-l at googlegroups.com [mailto:sid-l at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sid Shniad Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:48 PM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: How America Spies on Europe and the UN - Spiegel Online http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/secret-nsa-documents-show-how-the- us-spies-on-europe-and-the-un-a-918625.html Spiegel Online August 26, 2013 Codename 'Apalachee': How America Spies on Europe and the UN By Laura Poitras, Marcel Rosenbach and Holger Stark President Obama promised that NSA surveillance activities were aimed exclusively at preventing terrorist attacks. But secret documents from the intelligence agency show that the Americans spy on Europe, the UN and other countries. The European Union building on New York's Third Avenue is an office tower with a glittering facade and an impressive view of the East River. Chris Matthews, the press officer for the EU delegation to the United Nations, opens the ambassadors' room on the 31st floor, gestures toward a long conference table and says: "This is where all ambassadors from our 28 members meet every Tuesday at 9 a.m." It is the place where Europe seeks to forge a common policy on the UN. http://adserv.quality-channel.de/RealMedia/ads/adstream_nx.ads/www.spiegel.d e/international/artikel/1749390327 at Bottom,Bottom1,Bottom2,Bottom3,Left,Middl e,Middle1,Middle2,Middle3,Position1,Position2,Right,Right1,Right2,Right3,Rig ht4,Right5,RightAut,RightEin,RightGes,RightKar,RightKul,RightNet,RightPan,Ri ghtPol,RightRei,RightSpa,RightSpo,RightUni,RightWir,RightWis,Spezial,Sub1,Su b2,Top1,Top2,TopRight,VMiddle2,VMiddle,VRight,x01,x02,x03,x04,x05,x06,x07,x0 8,x09,x10,x11,x12,x20,x21,x22,x23,x70%21Middle2 To mark the official opening of the delegation's new offices in September 2012, EU Commission President José Manuel Barroso and EU Council President Herman Van Rompuy flew in from Brussels, and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was on hand as guest of honor. For "old" Europe -- which finances over one-third of the regular UN budget -- this was a confirmation of its geopolitical importance. For the National Security Agency (NSA), America's powerful intelligence organization, the move was above all a technical challenge . A new office means freshly painted walls, untouched wiring and newly installed computer networks -- in other words, loads of work for the agents. While the Europeans were still getting used to their glittering new offices, NSA staff had already acquired the building's floor plans. The drawings completed by New York real estate company Tishman Speyer show precisely to scale how the offices are laid out. Intelligence agents made enlarged copies of the areas where the data servers are located. At the NSA, the European mission near the East River is referred to by the codename "Apalachee". The floor plans are part of the NSA's internal documents relating to its operations targeting the EU. They come from whistleblower Edward Snowden, and SPIEGEL has been able to view them. For the NSA, they formed the basis for an intelligence-gathering operation -- but for US President Barack Obama they have now become a political problem. Just over two weeks ago, Obama made a promise to the world. "The main thing I want to emphasize is that I don't have an interest and the people at the NSA don't have an interest in doing anything other than making sure that (...) we can prevent a terrorist attack," Obama said during a hastily arranged press conference at the White House on August 9. He said the sole purpose of the program was to "get information ahead of time (...) so we are able to carry out that critical task," adding: "We do not have an interest in doing anything other than that." Afterward, the president flew to the Atlantic island of Martha's Vineyard for his summer vacation. Wide Range of New Surveillance Programs Obama's appearance before the press was an attempt to morally justify the work of the intelligence agencies; to declare it as a type of emergency defense. His message was clear: Intelligence is only gathered because there is terror -- and anything that saves people's lives can't be bad. Ever since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, this logic has been the basis for a wide range of new surveillance programs. With his statement delivered in the White House briefing room, Obama hoped to take the pressure off, primarily on the domestic political front. In Washington the president is currently facing opposition from an unusual alliance of left-wing Democrats and libertarian conservatives. They are supported by veteran politicians like Republican Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, one of the architects of the Patriot Act, which was used to massively expand surveillance in the wake of 9/11. On July 24, a bill that would have curtailed the power of the NSA was only narrowly defeated by 217 to 205 votes in the House of Representatives. Even stalwart Obama supporters like Democrat Nancy Pelosi, minority leader in the House of Representatives, are now calling into question the work of the intelligence agency. Pelosi says that what she reads in the newspapers is "disturbing." It wasn't until late last week that news broke that the NSA had illegally collected tens of thousands of emails over a number of years. Obama's public appearance was aimed at reassuring his critics. At the same time, he made a commitment. He gave assurances that the NSA is a clean agency that isn't involved in any dirty work. Obama has given his word on this matter. The only problem is that, if internal NSA documents are to be believed, it isn't true. The classified documents, which SPIEGEL has seen, demonstrate how systematically the Americans target other countries and institutions like the EU, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna and the UN. They show how the NSA infiltrated the Europeans' internal computer network between New York and Washington, used US embassies abroad to intercept communications and eavesdropped on video conferences of UN diplomats. The surveillance is intensive and well-organized -- and it has little or nothing to do with counter-terrorism. Targeting Foreign Governments In an internal presentation, the NSA sums up its vision, which is both global and frighteningly ambitious: "information superiority." To achieve this worldwide dominance, the intelligence agency has launched diverse programs with names like "Dancingoasis," "Oakstar" and "Prism." Some of them aim to prevent terrorist attacks, while others target things like arms deliveries, drug trafficking and organized crime. But there are other programs, like "Blarney" and "Rampart-T," that serve a different purpose: that of traditional espionage targeting foreign governments. Blarney has existed since the 1970s and it falls under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, at least according to the NSA documents, which state that it is based on the cooperation of at least one US telecommunications company that provides services to the agency. The NSA describes the program's main targets as "diplomatic establishment, counter-terrorism, foreign government and economic." These documents also say that Blarney is one of the "top sources" for the President's Daily Brief, a top-secret document which briefs the US president every morning on intelligence matters. Some 11,000 pieces of information reportedly come from Blarney every year. No less explosive is the program dubbed "Rampart-T" by the NSA and which, by the agency's own accounts, has been running since 1991. It has to do with "penetration of hard targets at or near the leadership level" -- in other words: heads of state and their closest aides. This information is intended for "the president and his national security advisors." Rampart-T is directed against some 20 countries, including China and Russia, but also Eastern European states. The Americans recently drew up a secret chart that maps out what aspects of which countries require intelligence. The 12-page overview, created in April, has a scale of priorities ranging from red "1" (highest degree of interest) to blue "5" (low interest). Countries like Iran, North Korea, China and Russia are colored primarily red, meaning that additional information is required on virtually all fronts. But the UN and the EU are also listed as espionage targets, with issues of economic stability as the primary concern. The focus, though, is also on trade policy and foreign policy (each rated "3") as well as energy security, food products and technological innovations (each rated "5"). Bugging the EU The espionage attack on the EU is not only a surprise for most European diplomats, who until now assumed that they maintained friendly ties to the US government. It is also remarkable because the NSA has rolled out the full repertoire of intelligence-gathering tools -- and has apparently been taking this approach for many years now. According to an operational overview from September 2010 that is rated "secret," not only have the Americans infiltrated the EU mission to the UN in New York, but also the EU embassy in Washington, giving the building in the heart of the American capital the code name "Magothy." According to this secret document, the NSA has targeted the European missions in three ways: * The embassies in Washington and New York are bugged. * At the embassy in New York, the hard disks have also been copied. * In Washington the agents have also tapped into the internal computer cable network. http://adserv.quality-channel.de/RealMedia/ads/adstream_nx.ads/www.spiegel.d e/international/artikel/1749390327 at Bottom,Bottom1,Bottom2,Bottom3,Left,Middl e,Middle1,Middle2,Middle3,Position1,Position2,Right,Right1,Right2,Right3,Rig ht4,Right5,RightAut,RightEin,RightGes,RightKar,RightKul,RightNet,RightPan,Ri ghtPol,RightRei,RightSpa,RightSpo,RightUni,RightWir,RightWis,Spezial,Sub1,Su b2,Top1,Top2,TopRight,VMiddle2,VMiddle,VRight,x01,x02,x03,x04,x05,x06,x07,x0 8,x09,x10,x11,x12,x20,x21,x22,x23,x70%21Middle3 The infiltration of both EU embassies gave the technicians from Fort Meade an invaluable advantage: It guaranteed the Americans continuous access, even if they temporarily lost contact with one of the systems -- due, for instance, to a technical update or because an EU administrator thought that he had discovered a virus. The embassies are linked via a so-called virtual private network (VPN). "If we lose access to one site, we can immediately regain it by riding the VPN to the other side and punching a whole (sic!) out," the NSA technicians said during an internal presentation. "We have done this several times when we got locked out of Magothy." Of particular note, the data systems of the EU embassies in America are maintained by technicians in Brussels; Washington and New York are connected to the larger EU network. Whether the NSA has been able to penetrate as far as Brussels remains unclear. What is certain, though, is that they had a great deal of inside knowledge from Brussels, as demonstrated by a classified report from the year 2005 concerning a visit by top American diplomat Clayland Boyden Gray at Fort Meade. -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sid-l" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sid-l+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. !DSPAM:2676,521d9d3892538441211360! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: application/octet-stream Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: application/octet-stream Size: 174 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Aug 28 06:10:04 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:40:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: How America Spies on Europe and the UN - Spiegel Online In-Reply-To: <030901cea3d5$cb7495e0$625dc1a0$@gmail.com> References: <030901cea3d5$cb7495e0$625dc1a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <060A5A22-E051-4A3C-A2EE-5424D6BE3C4A@hserus.net> To achieve a perfect score, point out how entirely wrong it is to drag in completely unrelated parties who were part of the internet freedom (which I refuse to add snarky "quotes" to, by the way) campaign - by which I suppose you mean the opposition to various proposals at WCIT - into this intelligence gathering. Which isn't quite new - the great seal at the US embassy in moscow - presented by the soviets - had a bug concealed in it, back in the 60s. --srs (iPad) On 28-Aug-2013, at 15:32, "michael gurstein" wrote: > "In an internal presentation, the NSA sums up its vision, which is both global and frighteningly ambitious: "information superiority." To achieve this worldwide dominance… > > Essay question, "What role does Internet Governance play in the NSA's ambitions towards global information dominance… > > For extra marks, "Discuss the recent "Internet Freedom" campaign in the context of your answer.. > > For extra extra marks include an analysis of Multistakeholderism in your discussion.. > > M > > From: sid-l at googlegroups.com [mailto:sid-l at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sid Shniad > Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 1:48 PM > To: undisclosed-recipients: > Subject: How America Spies on Europe and the UN - Spiegel Online > > http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/secret-nsa-documents-show-how-the-us-spies-on-europe-and-the-un-a-918625.html > > Spiegel Online August 26, 2013 > Codename 'Apalachee': > > How America Spies on Europe and the UN > > By Laura Poitras, Marcel Rosenbach and Holger Stark > President Obama promised that NSA surveillance activities were aimed exclusively at preventing terrorist attacks. But secret documents from the intelligence agency show that the Americans spy on Europe, the UN and other countries. > The European Union building on New York's Third Avenue is an office tower with a glittering facade and an impressive view of the East River. Chris Matthews, the press officer for the EU delegation to the United Nations, opens the ambassadors' room on the 31st floor, gestures toward a long conference table and says: "This is where all ambassadors from our 28 members meet every Tuesday at 9 a.m." It is the place where Europe seeks to forge a common policy on the UN. > > > To mark the official opening of the delegation's new offices in September 2012, EU Commission President José Manuel Barroso and EU Council President Herman Van Rompuy flew in from Brussels, and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was on hand as guest of honor. For "old" Europe -- which finances over one-third of the regular UN budget -- this was a confirmation of its geopolitical importance. > For the National Security Agency (NSA), America's powerful intelligence organization, the move was above all a technical challenge. A new office means freshly painted walls, untouched wiring and newly installed computer networks -- in other words, loads of work for the agents. While the Europeans were still getting used to their glittering new offices, NSA staff had already acquired the building's floor plans. The drawings completed by New York real estate company Tishman Speyer show precisely to scale how the offices are laid out. Intelligence agents made enlarged copies of the areas where the data servers are located. At the NSA, the European mission near the East River is referred to by the codename "Apalachee". > > The floor plans are part of the NSA's internal documents relating to its operations targeting the EU. They come from whistleblower Edward Snowden, and SPIEGEL has been able to view them. For the NSA, they formed the basis for an intelligence-gathering operation -- but for US President Barack Obama they have now become a political problem. > > Just over two weeks ago, Obama made a promise to the world. "The main thing I want to emphasize is that I don't have an interest and the people at the NSA don't have an interest in doing anything other than making sure that (...) we can prevent a terrorist attack," Obama said during a hastily arranged press conference at the White House on August 9. He said the sole purpose of the program was to "get information ahead of time (...) so we are able to carry out that critical task," adding: "We do not have an interest in doing anything other than that." Afterward, the president flew to the Atlantic island of Martha's Vineyard for his summer vacation. > > Wide Range of New Surveillance Programs > > Obama's appearance before the press was an attempt to morally justify the work of the intelligence agencies; to declare it as a type of emergency defense. His message was clear: Intelligence is only gathered because there is terror -- and anything that saves people's lives can't be bad. Ever since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, this logic has been the basis for a wide range of new surveillance programs. > > With his statement delivered in the White House briefing room, Obama hoped to take the pressure off, primarily on the domestic political front. In Washington the president is currently facing opposition from an unusual alliance of left-wing Democrats and libertarian conservatives. They are supported by veteran politicians like Republican Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, one of the architects of the Patriot Act, which was used to massively expand surveillance in the wake of 9/11. On July 24, a bill that would have curtailed the power of the NSA was only narrowly defeated by 217 to 205 votes in the House of Representatives. > > Even stalwart Obama supporters like Democrat Nancy Pelosi, minority leader in the House of Representatives, are now calling into question the work of the intelligence agency. Pelosi says that what she reads in the newspapers is "disturbing." It wasn't until late last week that news broke that the NSA had illegally collected tens of thousands of emails over a number of years. > > Obama's public appearance was aimed at reassuring his critics. At the same time, he made a commitment. He gave assurances that the NSA is a clean agency that isn't involved in any dirty work. Obama has given his word on this matter. The only problem is that, if internal NSA documents are to be believed, it isn't true. > > The classified documents, which SPIEGEL has seen, demonstrate how systematically the Americans target other countries and institutions like the EU, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna and the UN. They show how the NSA infiltrated the Europeans' internal computer network between New York and Washington, used US embassies abroad to intercept communications and eavesdropped on video conferences of UN diplomats. The surveillance is intensive and well-organized -- and it has little or nothing to do with counter-terrorism. > > Targeting Foreign Governments > > In an internal presentation, the NSA sums up its vision, which is both global and frighteningly ambitious: "information superiority." To achieve this worldwide dominance, the intelligence agency has launched diverse programs with names like "Dancingoasis," "Oakstar" and "Prism." Some of them aim to prevent terrorist attacks, while others target things like arms deliveries, drug trafficking and organized crime. But there are other programs, like "Blarney" and "Rampart-T," that serve a different purpose: that of traditional espionage targeting foreign governments. > > Blarney has existed since the 1970s and it falls under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, at least according to the NSA documents, which state that it is based on the cooperation of at least one US telecommunications company that provides services to the agency. The NSA describes the program's main targets as "diplomatic establishment, counter-terrorism, foreign government and economic." These documents also say that Blarney is one of the "top sources" for the President's Daily Brief, a top-secret document which briefs the US president every morning on intelligence matters. Some 11,000 pieces of information reportedly come from Blarney every year. > > No less explosive is the program dubbed "Rampart-T" by the NSA and which, by the agency's own accounts, has been running since 1991. It has to do with "penetration of hard targets at or near the leadership level" -- in other words: heads of state and their closest aides. > > This information is intended for "the president and his national security advisors." Rampart-T is directed against some 20 countries, including China and Russia, but also Eastern European states. > > The Americans recently drew up a secret chart that maps out what aspects of which countries require intelligence. The 12-page overview, created in April, has a scale of priorities ranging from red "1" (highest degree of interest) to blue "5" (low interest). Countries like Iran, North Korea, China and Russia are colored primarily red, meaning that additional information is required on virtually all fronts. > > But the UN and the EU are also listed as espionage targets, with issues of economic stability as the primary concern. The focus, though, is also on trade policy and foreign policy (each rated "3") as well as energy security, food products and technological innovations (each rated "5"). > > Bugging the EU > > The espionage attack on the EU is not only a surprise for most European diplomats, who until now assumed that they maintained friendly ties to the US government. It is also remarkable because the NSA has rolled out the full repertoire of intelligence-gathering tools -- and has apparently been taking this approach for many years now. According to an operational overview from September 2010 that is rated "secret," not only have the Americans infiltrated the EU mission to the UN in New York, but also the EU embassy in Washington, giving the building in the heart of the American capital the code name "Magothy." > > According to this secret document, the NSA has targeted the European missions in three ways: > > The embassies in Washington and New York are bugged. > At the embassy in New York, the hard disks have also been copied. > In Washington the agents have also tapped into the internal computer cable network. > > The infiltration of both EU embassies gave the technicians from Fort Meade an invaluable advantage: It guaranteed the Americans continuous access, even if they temporarily lost contact with one of the systems -- due, for instance, to a technical update or because an EU administrator thought that he had discovered a virus. > The embassies are linked via a so-called virtual private network (VPN). "If we lose access to one site, we can immediately regain it by riding the VPN to the other side and punching a whole (sic!) out," the NSA technicians said during an internal presentation. "We have done this several times when we got locked out of Magothy." > > Of particular note, the data systems of the EU embassies in America are maintained by technicians in Brussels; Washington and New York are connected to the larger EU network. Whether the NSA has been able to penetrate as far as Brussels remains unclear. What is certain, though, is that they had a great deal of inside knowledge from Brussels, as demonstrated by a classified report from the year 2005 concerning a visit by top American diplomat Clayland Boyden Gray at Fort Meade. > > > -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sid-l" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sid-l+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > !DSPAM:2676,521d9d3892538441211360! > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 28 06:53:06 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 16:23:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation Message-ID: <521DD692.700@itforchange.net> Dear All IT for Change and some other NGOs plan to forward the following position to the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Preceding the position statement is a covering letter seeking support. You are /*welcome to support this position any time before 12 noon GMT on 31st Aug*/. We are happy to provide any additional information/ clarification etc. Also happy to otherwise discuss this position, and its different elements. We are motivated by the need to come up with precise and clear institutional options at this stage. Politics of inertia and not doing anything just serves the status quo. These may not be the best institutional options, and we are ready to enter into discussion with other groups on what instead would be the better options. But, again, not doing anything is, in our opinion, would be detrimental to global public interest. The web link to this position is at http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_input_to_the_UN_Working_Group_for_global_governance_of_the_Internet . parminder /*Covering letter / Background */ In May 2012, more than 60 civil society organisations and several individuals participated in a campaign for 'democratising the global governance of the Internet '. A joint letter signed by the participants of this campaign /inter alia/ asked for setting up a UN Working Group towards this objective. Such a Working Group was set up and has now asked for public inputs to formulate its recommendations. In our joint letter, we had proposed some outlines for reforming the current global governance architecture of the Internet. Time has come now to make more clear and specific recommendations of the actual institutional mechanism that we need. With most governments more worried about their narrow geopolitical interests and relationships with individual countries, it falls upon the civil society to be bold and forward looking and put precise proposals on the table that can then be taken forward by state actors. In a post-Snowden world, there is deep discomfort among almost all countries, other than the US, with the manner in which the global Internet is run and is evolving. The need for some global norms, principles, rules, and necessary governance mechanisms for the global Internet is being felt now as never before. The Internet can no longer remain anchored to the political and business interests of one country, or to serving global capital, as it is at present. As a global commons, it is our collective democratic right and responsibility to participate in the governance of the Internet, so that it can become a vehicle for greater prosperity, equity and social justice for all. We seek your support to join us in proposing the enclosed document as an input to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. The Working Group has sought public inputs through a questionnaire which can be seen at http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx . The most important question is at number 8, which seeks input with regard to precise mechanism(s) that are required. Our response will mostly address this all-important question. (You are also encouraged to, separately, give a fuller response to the questionnaire on your behalf or on behalf of your organization.) We will also like to give wide media publicity to this civil society statement . We will be glad if you can send your response to us /*before the 30th of August*/. We are of course happy to respond to any clarification or additional information that you may want to seek in the above regard. Please also circulate this to others who you think may want to participate in this initiative. The global Internet governance space seems to be dominated by those who push for neoliberal models of governance. We must therefore have as many voices heard as possible. (The statement is cut pasted below this email and may also be seen here ) With best regard, Parminder *Parminder Jeet Singh* ------------------------------------------------------------------------ IT for Change In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC www.ITforChange.net T: 00-91-80-26654134| T: 00-91-80-26536890| Fax: 00-91-80-41461055 /_*A civil society input to the UN Working Group looking at *_/ /_*institutional mechanisms for global governance of the Internet *_/ /(Please write to itfc @itforchange.net before 29th Aug if you will like to endorse this statement)**/ /* Why global governance of the Internet?*/ Internet governance is seen largely in terms of national sovereignty and security or as pertaining to free speech and privacy. We are of the view that there exist many other equally important issues for global Internet governance that arise from the whole gamut of rights and aspirations of people – social, economic, cultural, political and developmental. The relationship of the global Internet to cultural diversity is one example. The Internet increasingly determines not only the global flows of information but also of cultures, and their commodification. No social process is exempt from the influence of the Internet – from education to health and governance. Social systems at national and local levels are being transformed under the influence of the global Internet. Instead of decentralizing power, the current structure of the global Internet tends to centralize control in the hands of a small number of companies. Some of these companies have near-monopoly power over key areas of economic and social significance. Therefore, regulation of global Internet business through pertinent competition law, consumer law, open interoperability standards, etc, is becoming a pressing need. Increasing statist controls need to be similarly resisted. With the emergent paradigm of cloud computing presenting the looming prospect of remote management of our digital lives from different 'power centres' across the world, it is inconceivable that we can do without appropriate democratic governance of the global Internet. Post-Snowden, as many countries have begun to contemplate and even embark upon measures for 'digital sovereignty', the only way to preserve a /global//**/Internet is through formulating appropriate /global/ norms, principles and rules that will underpin its governance. /*Background of this civil society input*/ A group of over 60 civil society organizations and several individuals, made a statement on /'Democratizing the global governance of the Internet '/ to the open consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'^1 called by the Chair of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) on May 18th, 2012, in Geneva. The statement /inter alia/ sought the setting up of a CSTD Working Group to address this issue. We are happy to note that such a Working Group has been set up and has now called for public inputs to make its recommendations. This document is an input to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) on the behalf of the undersigned . In the aforementioned statement of May 2012, the civil society signatories had called for the following institutional developments to take place in the global Internet governance architecture: /Our demands with respect to 'global' Internet Governance espouse a simple and obvious democratic logic. On the technical governance side, the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure, at present with the US government, should be transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative, multi-lateral body, without disturbing the existing distributed architecture of technical governance of the Internet in any significant way. (However, improvements in the technical governance systems are certainly needed.) On the side of larger Internet related public policy-making on global social, economic, cultural and political issues, the OECD-based model of global policy making, as well as the default application of US laws, should be replaced by a new UN-based democratic mechanism. Any such new arrangement should be based on the principle of subsidiarity, and be innovative in terms of its mandate, structure, and functions, to be adequate to the unique requirements of global Internet governance. It must be fully participative of all stakeholders, promoting the democratic and innovative potential of the//Internet. / As the WGEC deliberates on concrete ways to move forward, the time is ripe to propose clear and specific institutional mechanisms for democratizing the global governance of the Internet. We have, therefore, expanded the above demands into specific mechanisms that should be set in place for this purpose. /*New global governance mechanisms are needed*/ We are of the view that it would be useful to have two distinct mechanisms – one that looks at the global Internet-related public policy issues in various social, economic, cultural and political domains, and another that should undertake oversight of the technical and operational functions related to the Internet (basically, replacing the current unilateral oversight of the ICANN^2 by the US government). This will require setting up appropriate new global governance bodies as well as a framework of international law to facilitate their work, as follows. /*A new UN body for Internet-related public policy issues:*//**/ An anchor global institution for taking up and addressing various public policy issues pertaining to the Internet in an ongoing manner is urgently required. It can be a committee attached to the UN General Assemblyor a more elaborate and relatively autonomous set up linked loosely to the UN (as a specialized UN body). It should have a very strong and institutionalized public consultative mechanism, in the form of stakeholder advisory groups that are selected through formal processes by different stakeholder constituencies, ensuring adequate representativeness. (OECD's /Committee on Computer, Information and Communication Policy/ and India's recent proposal for a /UN/ /Committee on Internet-related Policies/ are two useful, and somewhat similar, models that can be looked at.) This 'new body' will stay abreast of global Internet-related issues; where necessary, develop international level public policies in the concerned areas; seek appropriate harmonization of national level policies, and; facilitate required treaties, conventions and agreements. It will also have the necessary means to undertake studies and present analyses in different policy areas. Most Internet-related public policy issues are of a cross-cutting nature, and involve overlaps with mandates of other existing global governance bodies, like WIPO, UNESCO, WTO, UNDP, UNCTAD, ITU and so on. Due to this reason, the proposed new 'body' will establish appropriate relationships with all these other existing bodies, including directing relevant public policy issues to them, receiving their inputs and comments, and itself contributing specific Internet-related perspectives to issues under the purview of these other bodies. /*A new 'Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Board':*/ This board will replace the US government's current oversight role over the technical and operational functions performed by ICANN. The membership of this oversight board can be of a techno-political nature, /i.e./consisting of people with specialized expertise but who also have appropriate political backing, ascertained through a democratic process. For instance, the board can be made of 10/15 members, with 2/3 members each from five geographic regions (as understood in the UN system). These members can perhaps be selected through an appropriate process by the relevant technical standards bodies and/or country domain name bodies of all the countries of the respective region. (Other mechanisms for constituting the techno-political membership of this board can also be considered.) The Internet technical oversight and advisory board will seek to ensure that the various technical and operational functions related to the global Internet are undertaken by the relevant organizations as per international law and public policy principles developed by the concerned international bodies. With regard to ICANN, the role of this board will more or less be exactly the same as exercised by the US government in its oversight over ICANN. As for the decentralized Internet standards development mechanisms, like the Internet Engineering Task Force, these self organizing systems based on voluntary adoption of standards will continue to work as at present. The new board will have a very light touch and non-binding role with regard to them. It will bring in imperatives from, and advise these technical standards bodies on, international public policies, international law and norms being developed by various relevant bodies. For this board to be able to fulfill its oversight mandate, ICANN must become an international organization, without changing its existing multistakeholder character in any substantial manner. It would enter into a host country agreement with the US government (if ICANN has to continue to be headquartered in the US). It would have full immunity from US law and executive authority, and be guided solely by international law, and be incorporated under it. Supervision of the authoritative root zone server must also be transferred to this oversight broad. The board will exercise this role with the help of an internationalized ICANN. This board will also advise the afore-mentioned new public policy body on technical matters pertaining to the Internet policy making, as well as take public policy inputs from it. /*Framework Convention on the Internet:*//**/An appropriate international legal framework will be required sooner than later for the above bodies to function properly. Accordingly, one of the early tasks of the proposed 'new body' dealing with Internet-related public policy issues, discussed above, will be to help negotiate a 'Framework Convention on the Internet' (somewhat like the /Framework Convention on Climate Change )/. Governance of the Internet concerns different kinds of issues that are ever-evolving. It is, therefore, preferable to formulate an enabling legal structure as a 'framework convention' rather than as a specific treaty or convention that addresses only a bounded set of issues. It may also be easier to initially agree to a series of principles, protocols and processes that can then frame further agreements, treaties etc on more specific issues. Such a Framework Convention will thus enable appropriate and ongoing global policy responses to various opportunities and challenges that the fast-evolving phenomenon of the Internet throws up. It will also formalize the basic architecture of the global governance of the Internet; /inter alia/ recognizing and legitimizing the existing role and functions of the various bodies currently involved with managing the technical and logical infrastructure of the Internet, including the ICANN, Regional Internet Registries, Internet technical standards bodies and so on. Appropriate mechanisms for crisis response and dispute resolution in relation to the global Internet, and the social activity dependent on it, will also be required to be set up. /*Relationship with the IGF*/ The UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was established as a multistakeholder 'policy dialogue forum' by the World Summit on the Information Society. The proposed global Internet policy mechanism, especially the new UN based body, will maintain a close relationship with the IGF. IGF affords a very new kind of participative mechanism for policy making, whereby the participation realm is institutionalized, and relatively independent of the policy making structures. The IGF should preferably pre-discuss issues that are taken up by this new policy body and present diverse perspectives for its consideration. A good part of the agenda for this new body can emerge from the IGF. Whenever possible, draft proposals to be adopted by this new body should be shared with the IGF. To perform such a participation enhancing role, the IGF must be adequately strengthened and reformed, especially to address the dominance of Northern corporatist interests in its current working. It must be supported with public funds, and insulated from any funding system that can bring in perverse influences on its agenda and outcomes. Other required processes must also be put in place to ensure that the IGF indeed brings in constituencies that are typically under-represented, rather than provide further political clout to the already dominant. A participative body is only as good as the policy making mechanisms that feed off it. To that extent, the meaningfulness and effectiveness of the IGF itself requires a strong policy development mechanism, as suggested in this document, to be linked to it. Investing in the IGF is useful only if its outputs and contributions lead to something concrete. /*Funding*/ An innovative way to fund the proposed new global Internet policy mechanisms, and also the IGF, is to tap into the collections made by the relevant bodies from allocation of names and numbers resources pertaining to the global Internet (like the fee that ICANN collects annually from each domain name owner). These accruals now run into millions of dollars every year and could be adequate to fund a large part of the needed mechanisms for democratic governance of the global Internet. In the end, we may add that there is nothing really very novel in the above proposal for setting up new mechanisms for global governance of the Internet. Similar models, for instance, were proposed in the report of the Working Group on Internet Governance that was set up during the World Summit on the Information Society, back in 2004. We hope that the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will fulfill its high mandate to lead the world towards the path of democratic governance of the global commons of the Internet. 1 The outcome documents of the World Summit on the Information Society, held in 2005, employed this as a placeholder term giving the mandate for further exploration of the necessary mechanisms for global governance of the Internet. 2 Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the US based non-profit that manages much of technical and logical infrastructural functions related to the Internet. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Wed Aug 28 07:35:02 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 13:35:02 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <521DD692.700@itforchange.net> References: <521DD692.700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1637502051.10943.1377689702956.JavaMail.www@wwinf1p16> Dear Parminder and all I agree in general to the terms of this covering letter to the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. I' d just suggest to complete the sentence by adding China to the US, for instance as follows : In a post-Snowden world, there is deep discomfort among almost all countries, other than the US and China to some extent, with the manner in which the global Internet is run and is evolving. . Best regards Jean-Louios Fullsack > Message du 28/08/13 12:53 > De : "parminder" > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation > >Dear All > > IT for Change and some other NGOs plan to forward the following position to the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Preceding the position statement is a covering letter seeking support. You are welcome to support this position any time before 12 noon GMT on 31st Aug. We are happy to provide any additional information/ clarification etc. Also happy to otherwise discuss this position, and its different elements. We are motivated by the need to come up with precise and clear institutional options at this stage. Politics of inertia and not doing anything just serves the status quo. These may not be the best institutional options, and we are ready to enter into discussion with other groups on what instead would be the better options. But, again, not doing anything is, in our opinion, would be detrimental to global public interest. > > The web link to this position is at http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_input_to_the_UN_Working_Group_for_global_governance_of_the_Internet . > > parminder > > > Covering letter / Background > > In May 2012, more than 60 civil society organisations and several individuals participated in a campaign for 'democratising the global governance of the Internet'. A joint letter signed by the participants of this campaign inter alia asked for setting up a UN Working Group towards this objective. Such a Working Group was set up and has now asked for public inputs to formulate its recommendations. > > In our joint letter, we had proposed some outlines for reforming the current global governance architecture of the Internet. Time has come now to make more clear and specific recommendations of the actual institutional mechanism that we need. With most governments more worried about their narrow geopolitical interests and relationships with individual countries, it falls upon the civil society to be bold and forward looking and put precise proposals on the table that can then be taken forward by state actors. > > In a post-Snowden world, there is deep discomfort among almost all countries, other than the US, with the manner in which the global Internet is run and is evolving. The need for some global norms, principles, rules, and necessary governance mechanisms for the global Internet is being felt now as never before. The Internet can no longer remain anchored to the political and business interests of one country, or to serving global capital, as it is at present. As a global commons, it is our collective democratic right and responsibility to participate in the governance of the Internet, so that it can become a vehicle for greater prosperity, equity and social justice for all. > > We seek your support to join us in proposing the enclosed document as an input to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. The Working Group has sought public inputs through a questionnaire which can be seen at http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx . The most important question is at number 8, which seeks input with regard to precise mechanism(s) that are required. Our response will mostly address this all-important question. (You are also encouraged to, separately, give a fuller response to the questionnaire on your behalf or on behalf of your organization.) We will also like to give wide media publicity to this civil society statement . > > We will be glad if you can send your response to us before the 30th of August. We are of course happy to respond to any clarification or additional information that you may want to seek in the above regard. Please also circulate this to others who you think may want to participate in this initiative. The global Internet governance space seems to be dominated by those who push for neoliberal models of governance. We must therefore have as many voices heard as possible. > > (The statement is cut pasted below this email and may also be seen here ) > > With best regard, > > Parminder > > > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC > www.ITforChange.net > T: 00-91-80-26654134 | T: 00-91-80-26536890 | Fax: 00-91-80-41461055 > A civil society input to the UN Working Group looking at institutional mechanisms for global governance of the Internet (Please write to itfc at itforchange.net before 29th Aug if you will like to endorse this statement) > Why global governance of the Internet? Internet governance is seen largely in terms of national sovereignty and security or as pertaining to free speech and privacy. We are of the view that there exist many other equally important issues for global Internet governance that arise from the whole gamut of rights and aspirations of people – social, economic, cultural, political and developmental. The relationship of the global Internet to cultural diversity is one example. The Internet increasingly determines not only the global flows of information but also of cultures, and their commodification. No social process is exempt from the influence of the Internet – from education to health and governance. Social systems at national and local levels are being transformed under the influence of the global Internet. Instead of decentralizing power, the current structure of the global Internet tends to centralize control in the hands of a small number of companies. Some of these companies have near-monopoly power over key areas of economic and social significance. Therefore, regulation of global Internet business through pertinent competition law, consumer law, open interoperability standards, etc, is becoming a pressing need. Increasing statist controls need to be similarly resisted. With the emergent paradigm of cloud computing presenting the looming prospect of remote management of our digital lives from different 'power centres' across the world, it is inconceivable that we can do without appropriate democratic governance of the global Internet. Post-Snowden, as many countries have begun to contemplate and even embark upon measures for 'digital sovereignty', the only way to preserve a global Internet is through formulating appropriate global norms, principles and rules that will underpin its governance. Background of this civil society input A group of over 60 civil society organizations and several individuals, made a statement on 'Democratizing the global governance of the Internet' to the open consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'1 called by the Chair of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) on May 18th, 2012, in Geneva. The statement inter alia sought the setting up of a CSTD Working Group to address this issue. We are happy to note that such a Working Group has been set up and has now called for public inputs to make its recommendations. This document is an input to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) on the behalf of the undersigned . In the aforementioned statement of May 2012, the civil society signatories had called for the following institutional developments to take place in the global Internet governance architecture: Our demands with respect to 'global' Internet Governance espouse a simple and obvious democratic logic. On the technical governance side, the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure, at present with the US government, should be transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative, multi-lateral body, without disturbing the existing distributed architecture of technical governance of the Internet in any significant way. (However, improvements in the technical governance systems are certainly needed.) On the side of larger Internet related public policy-making on global social, economic, cultural and political issues, the OECD-based model of global policy making, as well as the default application of US laws, should be replaced by a new UN-based democratic mechanism. Any such new arrangement should be based on the principle of subsidiarity, and be innovative in terms of its mandate, structure, and functions, to be adequate to the unique requirements of global Internet governance. It must be fully participative of all stakeholders, promoting the democratic and innovative potential of the Internet. As the WGEC deliberates on concrete ways to move forward, the time is ripe to propose clear and specific institutional mechanisms for democratizing the global governance of the Internet. We have, therefore, expanded the above demands into specific mechanisms that should be set in place for this purpose. New global governance mechanisms are needed We are of the view that it would be useful to have two distinct mechanisms – one that looks at the global Internet-related public policy issues in various social, economic, cultural and political domains, and another that should undertake oversight of the technical and operational functions related to the Internet (basically, replacing the current unilateral oversight of the ICANN2 by the US government). This will require setting up appropriate new global governance bodies as well as a framework of international law to facilitate their work, as follows. A new UN body for Internet-related public policy issues: An anchor global institution for taking up and addressing various public policy issues pertaining to the Internet in an ongoing manner is urgently required. It can be a committee attached to the UN General Assembly or a more elaborate and relatively autonomous set up linked loosely to the UN (as a specialized UN body). It should have a very strong and institutionalized public consultative mechanism, in the form of stakeholder advisory groups that are selected through formal processes by different stakeholder constituencies, ensuring adequate representativeness. (OECD's Committee on Computer, Information and Communication Policy and India's recent proposal for a UNCommittee on Internet-related Policiesare two useful, and somewhat similar, models that can be looked at.) This 'new body' will stay abreast of global Internet-related issues; where necessary, develop international level public policies in the concerned areas; seek appropriate harmonization of national level policies, and; facilitate required treaties, conventions and agreements. It will also have the necessary means to undertake studies and present analyses in different policy areas. Most Internet-related public policy issues are of a cross-cutting nature, and involve overlaps with mandates of other existing global governance bodies, like WIPO, UNESCO, WTO, UNDP, UNCTAD, ITU and so on. Due to this reason, the proposed new 'body' will establish appropriate relationships with all these other existing bodies, including directing relevant public policy issues to them, receiving their inputs and comments, and itself contributing specific Internet-related perspectives to issues under the purview of these other bodies. A new 'Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Board': This board will replace the US government's current oversight role over the technical and operational functions performed by ICANN. The membership of this oversight board can be of a techno-political nature, i.e. consisting of people with specialized expertise but who also have appropriate political backing, ascertained through a democratic process. For instance, the board can be made of 10/15 members, with 2/3 members each from five geographic regions (as understood in the UN system). These members can perhaps be selected through an appropriate process by the relevant technical standards bodies and/or country domain name bodies of all the countries of the respective region. (Other mechanisms for constituting the techno-political membership of this board can also be considered.) The Internet technical oversight and advisory board will seek to ensure that the various technical and operational functions related to the global Internet are undertaken by the relevant organizations as per international law and public policy principles developed by the concerned international bodies. With regard to ICANN, the role of this board will more or less be exactly the same as exercised by the US government in its oversight over ICANN. As for the decentralized Internet standards development mechanisms, like the Internet Engineering Task Force, these self organizing systems based on voluntary adoption of standards will continue to work as at present. The new board will have a very light touch and non-binding role with regard to them. It will bring in imperatives from, and advise these technical standards bodies on, international public policies, international law and norms being developed by various relevant bodies. For this board to be able to fulfill its oversight mandate, ICANN must become an international organization, without changing its existing multistakeholder character in any substantial manner. It would enter into a host country agreement with the US government (if ICANN has to continue to be headquartered in the US). It would have full immunity from US law and executive authority, and be guided solely by international law, and be incorporated under it. Supervision of the authoritative root zone server must also be transferred to this oversight broad. The board will exercise this role with the help of an internationalized ICANN. This board will also advise the afore-mentioned new public policy body on technical matters pertaining to the Internet policy making, as well as take public policy inputs from it. Framework Convention on the Internet: An appropriate international legal framework will be required sooner than later for the above bodies to function properly. Accordingly, one of the early tasks of the proposed 'new body' dealing with Internet-related public policy issues, discussed above, will be to help negotiate a 'Framework Convention on the Internet' (somewhat like the Framework Convention on Climate Change). Governance of the Internet concerns different kinds of issues that are ever-evolving. It is, therefore, preferable to formulate an enabling legal structure as a 'framework convention' rather than as a specific treaty or convention that addresses only a bounded set of issues. It may also be easier to initially agree to a series of principles, protocols and processes that can then frame further agreements, treaties etc on more specific issues. Such a Framework Convention will thus enable appropriate and ongoing global policy responses to various opportunities and challenges that the fast-evolving phenomenon of the Internet throws up. It will also formalize the basic architecture of the global governance of the Internet; inter alia recognizing and legitimizing the existing role and functions of the various bodies currently involved with managing the technical and logical infrastructure of the Internet, including the ICANN, Regional Internet Registries, Internet technical standards bodies and so on. Appropriate mechanisms for crisis response and dispute resolution in relation to the global Internet, and the social activity dependent on it, will also be required to be set up. Relationship with the IGF The UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was established as a multistakeholder 'policy dialogue forum' by the World Summit on the Information Society. The proposed global Internet policy mechanism, especially the new UN based body, will maintain a close relationship with the IGF. IGF affords a very new kind of participative mechanism for policy making, whereby the participation realm is institutionalized, and relatively independent of the policy making structures. The IGF should preferably pre-discuss issues that are taken up by this new policy body and present diverse perspectives for its consideration. A good part of the agenda for this new body can emerge from the IGF. Whenever possible, draft proposals to be adopted by this new body should be shared with the IGF. To perform such a participation enhancing role, the IGF must be adequately strengthened and reformed, especially to address the dominance of Northern corporatist interests in its current working. It must be supported with public funds, and insulated from any funding system that can bring in perverse influences on its agenda and outcomes. Other required processes must also be put in place to ensure that the IGF indeed brings in constituencies that are typically under-represented, rather than provide further political clout to the already dominant. A participative body is only as good as the policy making mechanisms that feed off it. To that extent, the meaningfulness and effectiveness of the IGF itself requires a strong policy development mechanism, as suggested in this document, to be linked to it. Investing in the IGF is useful only if its outputs and contributions lead to something concrete. Funding An innovative way to fund the proposed new global Internet policy mechanisms, and also the IGF, is to tap into the collections made by the relevant bodies from allocation of names and numbers resources pertaining to the global Internet (like the fee that ICANN collects annually from each domain name owner). These accruals now run into millions of dollars every year and could be adequate to fund a large part of the needed mechanisms for democratic governance of the global Internet. In the end, we may add that there is nothing really very novel in the above proposal for setting up new mechanisms for global governance of the Internet. Similar models, for instance, were proposed in the report of the Working Group on Internet Governance that was set up during the World Summit on the Information Society, back in 2004. We hope that the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will fulfill its high mandate to lead the world towards the path of democratic governance of the global commons of the Internet. > > 1The outcome documents of the World Summit on the Information Society, held in 2005, employed this as a placeholder term giving the mandate for further exploration of the necessary mechanisms for global governance of the Internet. 2Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the US based non-profit that manages much of technical and logical infrastructural functions related to the Internet. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 28 07:44:23 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 17:14:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <1637502051.10943.1377689702956.JavaMail.www@wwinf1p16> References: <521DD692.700@itforchange.net> <1637502051.10943.1377689702956.JavaMail.www@wwinf1p16> Message-ID: <521DE297.8060703@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 28 August 2013 05:05 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > Dear Parminder and all > > I agree in general to the terms of this covering letter to the UN > Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. I' d just suggest to complete > the sentence > > countries, other than the US, with the manner in which the global > Internet is run and is evolving.> > > by adding China to the US, for instance as follows : > > In a post-Snowden world, there is deep discomfort among almost all > countries, other than the US and China to some extent, with the manner > in which the global Internet is run and is evolving. . > Yes, that can be added... Although since we are talking about the '/*global Internet'*/ - China too isnt too happy with how it is developing, but yes it is very happy with the manner in which it has been able to 'manage' the /domestic Internet/, and holds it out as a model for many other countries. And among these other countries that find some attraction towards the Chinese domestic Internet model, there are two kinds, (and among some, two kinds of different but mixed motives) (1) those who really want a Chinese kind of control and (2) those who are simply dissatisfied with the current global model and are looking for alternatives..... regards, parminder > > Best regards > > Jean-Louios Fullsack > > > > Message du 28/08/13 12:53 > > De : "parminder" > > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" > > Copie à : > > Objet : [governance] Position by IT for Change and some other > NGOs on enhanced cooperation > > > >Dear All > > > > IT for Change and some other NGOs plan to forward the following > position to the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. > Preceding the position statement is a covering letter seeking > support. You are /*welcome to support this position any time > before 12 noon GMT on 31st Aug*/. We are happy to provide any > additional information/ clarification etc. Also happy to otherwise > discuss this position, and its different elements. We are > motivated by the need to come up with precise and clear > institutional options at this stage. Politics of inertia and not > doing anything just serves the status quo. These may not be the > best institutional options, and we are ready to enter into > discussion with other groups on what instead would be the better > options. But, again, not doing anything is, in our opinion, would > be detrimental to global public interest. > > > > The web link to this position is at > http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_input_to_the_UN_Working_Group_for_global_governance_of_the_Internet > . > > > > parminder > > > > > > /*Covering letter / Background > > */ > > In May 2012, more than 60 civil society organisations and > several individuals participated in a campaign for 'democratising > the global governance of the Internet > '. > A joint letter signed by the participants of this campaign /inter > alia/ asked for setting up a UN Working Group towards this > objective. Such a Working Group was set up and has now asked for > public inputs to formulate its recommendations. > > > > In our joint letter, we had proposed some outlines for reforming > the current global governance architecture of the Internet. Time > has come now to make more clear and specific recommendations of > the actual institutional mechanism that we need. With most > governments more worried about their narrow geopolitical interests > and relationships with individual countries, it falls upon the > civil society to be bold and forward looking and put precise > proposals on the table that can then be taken forward by state > actors. > > > > In a post-Snowden world, there is deep discomfort among almost > all countries, other than the US, with the manner in which the > global Internet is run and is evolving. The need for some global > norms, principles, rules, and necessary governance mechanisms for > the global Internet is being felt now as never before. The > Internet can no longer remain anchored to the political and > business interests of one country, or to serving global capital, > as it is at present. As a global commons, it is our collective > democratic right and responsibility to participate in the > governance of the Internet, so that it can become a vehicle for > greater prosperity, equity and social justice for all. > > > > We seek your support to join us in proposing the enclosed > document as an input to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. > The Working Group has sought public inputs through a questionnaire > which can be seen at http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx . The > most important question is at number 8, which seeks input with > regard to precise mechanism(s) that are required. Our response > will mostly address this all-important question. (You are also > encouraged to, separately, give a fuller response to the > questionnaire on your behalf or on behalf of your organization.) > We will also like to give wide media publicity to this civil > society statement . > > > > We will be glad if you can send your response to us /*before the > 30th of August*/. We are of course happy to respond to any > clarification or additional information that you may want to seek > in the above regard. Please also circulate this to others who you > think may want to participate in this initiative. The global > Internet governance space seems to be dominated by those who push > for neoliberal models of governance. We must therefore have as > many voices heard as possible. > > > > (The statement is cut pasted below this email and may also be > seen here > > ) > > > > With best regard, > > > > Parminder > > > > > > *Parminder Jeet Singh* > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > IT for Change > In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC > > www.ITforChange.net > > T: 00-91-80-26654134| T: 00-91-80-26536890| Fax: 00-91-80-41461055 > > > > /*A civil society input to the UN Working Group looking at */ > > /*institutional mechanisms for global governance of the Internet */ > > /(Please write to itfc > @itforchange.net > before 29th Aug if you will like > to endorse this statement)**/ > > /* > > Why global governance of the Internet?*/ > > Internet governance is seen largely in terms of national > sovereignty and security or as pertaining to free speech and > privacy. We are of the view that there exist many other equally > important issues for global Internet governance that arise from > the whole gamut of rights and aspirations of people – social, > economic, cultural, political and developmental. The relationship > of the global Internet to cultural diversity is one example. The > Internet increasingly determines not only the global flows of > information but also of cultures, and their commodification. No > social process is exempt from the influence of the Internet – > from education to health and governance. Social systems at > national and local levels are being transformed under the > influence of the global Internet. > > Instead of decentralizing power, the current structure of the > global Internet tends to centralize control in the hands of a > small number of companies. Some of these companies have > near-monopoly power over key areas of economic and social > significance. Therefore, regulation of global Internet business > through pertinent competition law, consumer law, open > interoperability standards, etc, is becoming a pressing need. > Increasing statist controls need to be similarly resisted. With > the emergent paradigm of cloud computing presenting the looming > prospect of remote management of our digital lives from different > 'power centres' across the world, it is inconceivable that we can > do without appropriate democratic governance of the global > Internet. Post-Snowden, as many countries have begun to > contemplate and even embark upon measures for 'digital > sovereignty', the only way to preserve a /global//**/Internet is > through formulating appropriate /global/ norms, principles and > rules that will underpin its governance. > > /*Background of this civil society input*/ > > A group of over 60 civil society organizations and several > individuals, made a statement on /'Democratizing the global > governance of the Internet > '/ > to the open consultations on 'enhanced > cooperation'^1 > called by the Chair of the UN Commission on Science and Technology > for Development (CSTD) on May 18th, 2012, in Geneva. The statement > /inter alia/ sought the setting up of a CSTD Working Group to > address this issue. We are happy to note that such a Working Group > has been set up and has now called for public inputs to make its > recommendations. This document is an input to the Working Group on > Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) on the behalf of the undersigned . > > In the aforementioned statement > > of May 2012, the civil society signatories had called for the > following institutional developments to take place in the global > Internet governance architecture: > > /Our demands with respect to 'global' Internet Governance espouse > a simple and obvious democratic logic. On the technical governance > side, the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and > logical infrastructure, at present with the US government, should > be transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative, > multi-lateral body, without disturbing the existing distributed > architecture of technical governance of the Internet in any > significant way. (However, improvements in the technical > governance systems are certainly needed.) On the side of larger > Internet related public policy-making on global social, economic, > cultural and political issues, the OECD-based model of global > policy making, as well as the default application of US laws, > should be replaced by a new UN-based democratic mechanism. Any > such new arrangement should be based on the principle of > subsidiarity, and be innovative in terms of its mandate, > structure, and functions, to be adequate to the unique > requirements of global Internet governance. It must be fully > participative of all stakeholders, promoting the democratic and > innovative potential of the//Internet. / > > As the WGEC deliberates on concrete ways to move forward, the time > is ripe to propose clear and specific institutional mechanisms for > democratizing the global governance of the Internet. We have, > therefore, expanded the above demands into specific mechanisms > that should be set in place for this purpose. > > /*New global governance mechanisms are needed*/ > > We are of the view that it would be useful to have two distinct > mechanisms – one that looks at the global Internet-related > public policy issues in various social, economic, cultural and > political domains, and another that should undertake oversight of > the technical and operational functions related to the Internet > (basically, replacing the current unilateral oversight of the > ICANN^2 > by the US government). This will require setting up appropriate > new global governance bodies as well as a framework of > international law to facilitate their work, as follows. > > /*A new UN body for Internet-related public policy issues:*//**/An > anchor global institution for taking up and addressing various > public policy issues pertaining to the Internet in an ongoing > manner is urgently required. It can be a committee attached to the > UN General Assemblyor a more elaborate and relatively autonomous > set up linked loosely to the UN (as a specialized UN body). It > should have a very strong and institutionalized public > consultative mechanism, in the form of stakeholder advisory groups > that are selected through formal processes by different > stakeholder constituencies, ensuring adequate representativeness. > (OECD's /Committee on Computer, Information and Communication > Policy/ and > India's recent proposal for a /UN/ > /Committee on > Internet-related Policies/ > are two useful, > and somewhat similar, models that can be looked at.) > > This 'new body' will stay abreast of global Internet-related > issues; where necessary, develop international level public > policies in the concerned areas; seek appropriate harmonization of > national level policies, and; facilitate required treaties, > conventions and agreements. It will also have the necessary means > to undertake studies and present analyses in different policy areas. > > Most Internet-related public policy issues are of a cross-cutting > nature, and involve overlaps with mandates of other existing > global governance bodies, like WIPO, UNESCO, WTO, UNDP, UNCTAD, > ITU and so on. Due to this reason, the proposed new 'body' will > establish appropriate relationships with all these other existing > bodies, including directing relevant public policy issues to them, > receiving their inputs and comments, and itself contributing > specific Internet-related perspectives to issues under the purview > of these other bodies. > > /*A new 'Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Board':*/ This > board will replace the US government's current oversight role over > the technical and operational functions performed by ICANN. The > membership of this oversight board can be of a techno-political > nature, /i.e./consisting of people with specialized expertise but > who also have appropriate political backing, ascertained through a > democratic process. For instance, the board can be made of 10/15 > members, with 2/3 members each from five geographic regions (as > understood in the UN system). These members can perhaps be > selected through an appropriate process by the relevant technical > standards bodies and/or country domain name bodies of all the > countries of the respective region. (Other mechanisms for > constituting the techno-political membership of this board can > also be considered.) > > The Internet technical oversight and advisory board will seek to > ensure that the various technical and operational functions > related to the global Internet are undertaken by the relevant > organizations as per international law and public policy > principles developed by the concerned international bodies. With > regard to ICANN, the role of this board will more or less be > exactly the same as exercised by the US government in its > oversight over ICANN. As for the decentralized Internet standards > development mechanisms, like the Internet Engineering Task Force, > these self organizing systems based on voluntary adoption of > standards will continue to work as at present. The new board will > have a very light touch and non-binding role with regard to them. > It will bring in imperatives from, and advise these technical > standards bodies on, international public policies, international > law and norms being developed by various relevant bodies. > > For this board to be able to fulfill its oversight mandate, ICANN > must become an international organization, without changing its > existing multistakeholder character in any substantial manner. It > would enter into a host country agreement with the US government > (if ICANN has to continue to be headquartered in the US). It would > have full immunity from US law and executive authority, and be > guided solely by international law, and be incorporated under it. > Supervision of the authoritative root zone server must also be > transferred to this oversight broad. The board will exercise this > role with the help of an internationalized ICANN. > > This board will also advise the afore-mentioned new public policy > body on technical matters pertaining to the Internet policy > making, as well as take public policy inputs from it. > > /*Framework Convention on the Internet:*//**/An appropriate > international legal framework will be required sooner than later > for the above bodies to function properly. Accordingly, one of the > early tasks of the proposed 'new body' dealing with > Internet-related public policy issues, discussed above, will be to > help negotiate a 'Framework Convention on the Internet' (somewhat > like the /Framework Convention on Climate Change > )/. > Governance of the Internet concerns different kinds of issues that > are ever-evolving. It is, therefore, preferable to formulate an > enabling legal structure as a 'framework convention' rather than > as a specific treaty or convention that addresses only a bounded > set of issues. It may also be easier to initially agree to a > series of principles, protocols and processes that can then frame > further agreements, treaties etc on more specific issues. > > Such a Framework Convention will thus enable appropriate and > ongoing global policy responses to various opportunities and > challenges that the fast-evolving phenomenon of the Internet > throws up. It will also formalize the basic architecture of the > global governance of the Internet; /inter alia/ recognizing and > legitimizing the existing role and functions of the various bodies > currently involved with managing the technical and logical > infrastructure of the Internet, including the ICANN, Regional > Internet Registries, Internet technical standards bodies and so on. > > Appropriate mechanisms for crisis response and dispute resolution > in relation to the global Internet, and the social activity > dependent on it, will also be required to be set up. > > /*Relationship with the IGF*/ > > The UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was established as a > multistakeholder 'policy dialogue forum' by the World Summit on > the Information Society. The proposed global Internet policy > mechanism, especially the new UN based body, will maintain a close > relationship with the IGF. IGF affords a very new kind of > participative mechanism for policy making, whereby the > participation realm is institutionalized, and relatively > independent of the policy making structures. The IGF should > preferably pre-discuss issues that are taken up by this new policy > body and present diverse perspectives for its consideration. A > good part of the agenda for this new body can emerge from the IGF. > Whenever possible, draft proposals to be adopted by this new body > should be shared with the IGF. > > To perform such a participation enhancing role, the IGF must be > adequately strengthened and reformed, especially to address the > dominance of Northern corporatist interests in its current > working. It must be supported with public funds, and insulated > from any funding system that can bring in perverse influences on > its agenda and outcomes. Other required processes must also be put > in place to ensure that the IGF indeed brings in constituencies > that are typically under-represented, rather than provide further > political clout to the already dominant. > > A participative body is only as good as the policy making > mechanisms that feed off it. To that extent, the meaningfulness > and effectiveness of the IGF itself requires a strong policy > development mechanism, as suggested in this document, to be linked > to it. Investing in the IGF is useful only if its outputs and > contributions lead to something concrete. > > /*Funding*/ > > An innovative way to fund the proposed new global Internet policy > mechanisms, and also the IGF, is to tap into the collections made > by the relevant bodies from allocation of names and numbers > resources pertaining to the global Internet (like the fee that > ICANN collects annually from each domain name owner). These > accruals now run into millions of dollars every year and could be > adequate to fund a large part of the needed mechanisms for > democratic governance of the global Internet. > > In the end, we may add that there is nothing really very novel in > the above proposal for setting up new mechanisms for global > governance of the Internet. Similar models, for instance, were > proposed in the report of the Working Group on Internet Governance > that was set up during the World Summit on the Information > Society, back in 2004. > > We hope that the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will > fulfill its high mandate to lead the world towards the path of > democratic governance of the global commons of the Internet. > > > > > > 1The > outcome documents of the World Summit on the Information Society, > held in 2005, employed this as a placeholder term giving the > mandate for further exploration of the necessary mechanisms for > global governance of the Internet. > > 2Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the US based > non-profit that manages much of technical and logical > infrastructural functions related to the Internet. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 28 08:02:49 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 09:02:49 -0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] A long time IPer -- Michael Kende Joins Internet Society as Chief Economist In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BB237@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <6B5EFF6B-46C5-435D-A2EC-D0DDCA0E5AF9@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BB237@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <521DE6E9.501@cafonso.ca> Since it is now worrying about an interplanetary network, I guess anything can happen :) --c.a. On 08/28/2013 12:14 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > ISOC badly needs an economist. > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Suresh > Ramasubramanian > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:05 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* [governance] Fwd: [IP] A long time IPer -- Michael Kende > Joins Internet Society as Chief Economist > > congratulations > > --srs (iPad) > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From:* David Farber > > *Date:* 27 August 2013 20:27:32 IST > *To:* "ip" > > *Subject:* *[IP] A long time IPer -- Michael Kende Joins Internet > Society as Chief Economist* > *Reply-To:* dave at farber.net > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Wende Cover > > > *Subject: [Chapter-delegates] NEWS RELEASE: Michael Kende Joins > Internet Society as Chief Economist* > > *Date: *August 27, 2013 8:58:29 AM EDT > > *To: *"chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org > " > > > > Michael Kende Joins Internet Society as Chief Economist > > Veteran Economist Brings Deep Knowledge of Internet Economics and > Emerging Global Trends to Internet Society > > [Washington, D.C. and Geneva, Switzerland – 27 August 2013] – As the > first Chief Economist of the Internet Society, Michael Kende has > joined the organization to provide strategic insights into the > economic dynamics of Internet issues, as well as current and > emerging trends impacting the Internet. Based in Geneva, > Switzerland, Mr. Kende will be responsible for leading economic > research and analyses and providing leadership on key Internet > development, policy, market, and technology issues. > > “We’ve worked with Michael over the years on numerous reports and > studies, and we are delighted to bring his expertise into our > organization,” said Karen Rose, Senior Director of Strategic > Development and Business Planning at the Internet Society. > “Michael’s extensive background working on Internet issues in > academic, government, and consulting markets makes him the ideal > candidate for this role. His experience working on regulatory, > operational, and market issues in all regions of the world spans a > broad range of topics, including Internet governance, > interconnection, Internet exchange points, and mobile and fixed > broadband deployment.” > > Mr. Kende was previously a partner at Analysys Mason, a global > consulting firm, where he led the Policy and Regulatory sector and > was responsible for developing its Internet practice. During the > past several years, Mr. Kende authored a number of papers for the > Internet Society, including astudy of the impact of IXPs in Kenya > and Nigeria andimproving > Internet connectivity in Africa > . > > Kende commented, “The Internet Society is well known and highly > respected for advocating for the fundamental principles of the open > Internet. I am excited to add a new dimension to the organization > and to support its important work in advancing issues focused on the > growth and sustainability of the Internet.” > > Mr. Kende has a Ph.D. in Economics from MIT. After MIT, he spent > five years as a professor of Economics at INSEAD in Paris before > joining the Federal Communications Commission. At the FCC, Kende was > the Director of Internet Policy Analysis, where he was responsible > for managing a wide range of policy analyses and regulatory > decisions on Internet policy, broadband deployment, and mergers. > Mr. Kende is a dual Swiss and U.S. national and speaks English, > French, and German. > > _______________________________________________ > As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed > to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society > Chapter Portal (AMS):https://portal.isoc.org > > Archives > | > Modify > > Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aminou20022001 at yahoo.com Wed Aug 28 10:34:41 2013 From: aminou20022001 at yahoo.com (Aminou Ndala TITA) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 07:34:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Cameroon IGF underway In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1377700481.89371.YahooMailNeo@web124906.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> find on the site below the various presentations being delivered at the 1st ever National Internet Governance Forum at the Conference Centre Yaounde- Cameroon; http://www.igf.cm/index.php/component/content/article/13-l-igf/42-premier-forum-national-sur-la-gouvernance-de-l-internet Forum National sur la Gouvernance de l’Internet (IGF Cameroon) du 27 au 29 août 2013 au Palais des Congès de Yaoundé. Forum National sur la Gouvernance de l’Internet (IGF Cameroon) du 27 au 29 août 2013 au Palais des Congès de Yaoundé. Sous le patronage du Ministre des Postes et Télécommunications, l’Agence Nationale des Technologies de l’Information et de la Communication (ANTIC), organise avec la collaboration des autres parties prenantes (secteur public, secteur privé, société civile), le Forum National sur la gouvernance de l’Internet, (IGF Cameroon), du 27 au 29 août 2013 au Palais des Congrès de Yaoundé.  Il va réunir toutes les parties prenantes pour échanger et imaginer le meilleur schéma de notre écosystème Internet National. Nous espérons voir une large participation de la communauté Internet society Cameroun et souhaitons que l’esprit du message de Koffi Annan délivré lors du Forum Mondial de la Gouvernance de l’Internet le 24 mars 2004 guide les travaux :  « …En quelques années seulement, l’Internet a révolutionné le Commerce, la santé, l’éducation, et plus encore, le tissu même de la communication et des échanges. De surcroît, son potentiel est bien plus puissant que ce que nous avons pu entrevoir dans le laps de temps relativement court depuis sa création. Pour gérer, promouvoir et protéger sa présence dans notre vie quotidienne, nous devons faire preuve d’une créativité tout aussi grande que celle de ses inventeurs. De toute évidence, une forme de gouvernance s’impose, mais  rien ne dit que cette gouvernance doit intervenir de manière classique, puisque nous avons à faire à quelque chose de radicalement différent. » Plus d’info et inscription sur: http://www.igf.cm/ Télécharge l’agenda provisoire: Projet_Agenda_de_IGF-Cameroon                  ________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr Wed Aug 28 11:51:09 2013 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 16:51:09 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Cameroon IGF underway In-Reply-To: <1377700481.89371.YahooMailNeo@web124906.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1377700481.89371.YahooMailNeo@web124906.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1377705069.29901.YahooMailNeo@web133206.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Bonjour Aminou. Bien merci pour cette nouvelle.   Je souhaite plen succès à ce forum. Cordialement   NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général Skype : jpnkurunziz Facebook :  http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza Tel : +257 79 981459 ________________________________ De : Aminou Ndala TITA À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Envoyé le : Mercredi 28 août 2013 17h34 Objet : [governance] Cameroon IGF underway find on the site below the various presentations being delivered at the 1st ever National Internet Governance Forum at the Conference Centre Yaounde- Cameroon; http://www.igf.cm/index.php/component/content/article/13-l-igf/42-premier-forum-national-sur-la-gouvernance-de-l-internet Forum National sur la Gouvernance de l’Internet (IGF Cameroon) du 27 au 29 août 2013 au Palais des Congès de Yaoundé. Forum National sur la Gouvernance de l’Internet (IGF Cameroon) du 27 au 29 août 2013 au Palais des Congès de Yaoundé. Sous le patronage du Ministre des Postes et Télécommunications, l’Agence Nationale des Technologies de l’Information et de la Communication (ANTIC), organise avec la collaboration des autres parties prenantes (secteur public, secteur privé, société civile), le Forum National sur la gouvernance de l’Internet, (IGF Cameroon), du 27 au 29 août 2013 au Palais des Congrès de Yaoundé.  Il va réunir toutes les parties prenantes pour échanger et imaginer le meilleur schéma de notre écosystème Internet National. Nous espérons voir une large participation de la communauté Internet society Cameroun et souhaitons que l’esprit du message de Koffi Annan délivré lors du Forum Mondial de la Gouvernance de l’Internet le 24 mars 2004 guide les travaux :  « …En quelques années seulement, l’Internet a révolutionné le Commerce, la santé, l’éducation, et plus encore, le tissu même de la communication et des échanges. De surcroît, son potentiel est bien plus puissant que ce que nous avons pu entrevoir dans le laps de temps relativement court depuis sa création. Pour gérer, promouvoir et protéger sa présence dans notre vie quotidienne, nous devons faire preuve d’une créativité tout aussi grande que celle de ses inventeurs. De toute évidence, une forme de gouvernance s’impose, mais  rien ne dit que cette gouvernance doit intervenir de manière classique, puisque nous avons à faire à quelque chose de radicalement différent. » Plus d’info et inscription sur: http://www.igf.cm/ Télécharge l’agenda provisoire: Projet_Agenda_de_IGF-Cameroon                  ________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 28 18:16:36 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 10:16:36 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [civic] Invitation to the Caribbean ICT Roadshow and 9th CIGF in Curacao, 9-11 Sep 2013 References: Message-ID: <755F9DDF-59EA-4E5C-ABAB-82477A53DC7D@gmail.com> Dear All, FYI and FYR Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: > From: "nigel.cassimire at ctu.int" > Date: August 28, 2013, 7:19:57 PM GMT+12:00 > To: "Caribbean ICT stakeholders Virtual Community (CIVIC)" > Subject: [civic] Invitation to the Caribbean ICT Roadshow and 9th CIGF in Curacao, 9-11 Sep 2013 > Reply-To: "Caribbean ICT stakeholders Virtual Community (CIVIC)" > > Dear Internet Governance Stakeholder, > > Please accept the attached invitation to the Caribbean ICT Roadshow and 9th Caribbean Internet Governance Forum (CIGF) upcoming in Curacao. Do visit and keep an eye on the CTU web site http://ctu.int for additional information, online registration and updates as well. > > In addition, we would still welcome your comments on the draft Issue 2.0 of the Caribbean Internet Governance Policy Framework, also downloadable from the CTU web site at http://www.ctu.int/internet-governance. These comments may be e-mailed to CTU-CIGF at ctu.int and also made at the 9th CIGF in Curacao on 11th September. > > We look forward to seeing you in Curacao. > > > Nigel Cassimire > Consulting Telecommunications Specialist > Caribbean Telecommunications Union > Tel: +1-868-627-0347 Ext 235 > or +1-868-627-0281 Ext 235 > Fax: +1-868-623-1523 > Victoria Park Suites, 3rd Floor > 14 - 17 Victoria Square > Port of Spain > Trinidad and Tobago, W.I. > http://ctu.int > > > You are receiving this message because you are a member of the community Caribbean ICT stakeholders Virtual Community (CIVIC). > > A reply to this message will be sent to all members of Caribbean ICT stakeholders Virtual Community (CIVIC). > > Reply to sender | Unsubscribe > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: General Invitation.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 509683 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Aug 29 04:57:39 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:27:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] Spanish - Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <521DD692.700@itforchange.net> References: <521DD692.700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <521F0D03.5060403@itforchange.net> For friends more comfortable in Spanish, below is a Spanish translation of the proposed joined statement and also enclosed..... parminder ***Urgente! Se necesita su apoyo para impulsar una visión progresista de la sociedad civil en el Grupo de Trabajo de la ONU que formulará recomendaciones para la democratización de la gobernanza global de Internet.* /_*Una contribución de la sociedad civil al Grupo de Trabajo de la ONU sobre mecanismos institucionales para la gobernanza global de Internet*_/ /(Por favor escriba a //*itfc at itforchange.net*/ /antes de las 12 horas GMT el 31 de agosto, si usted desea refrendar esta afirmación)/ /*¿Por qué importa la gobernanza global de Internet?*/ La gobernanza de Internet es vista por unos en términos de soberanía y seguridad nacional y por otros como relativa a la libertad de expresión y la privacidad. Somos de la opinión de que existen muchas otras cuestiones igualmente importantes para la gobernanza global de Internet que surgen de toda la gama de los derechos y las aspiraciones de la gente: derechos sociales, económicos, culturales, políticos y al desarrollo. La relación de la Internet global con la diversidad cultural es un ejemplo. La Internet determina cada vez más no sólo los flujos globales de información, sino también las culturas, y su mercantilización. Ningún proceso social está exento de la influencia de Internet, desde la educación a la salud y la gobernanza. Los sistemas sociales a nivel nacional y local, se están transformando bajo la influencia de la Internet global. En vez de descentralizar el poder, la estructura actual de la Internet global tiende a centralizar el control en manos de un pequeño número de empresas. Algunas de estas empresas tienen un poder casi monopolio sobre áreas clave de importancia económica y social. Por lo tanto, la regulación de los negocios globales de Internet a través de legislación sobre competencia (contra los monopolios), de protección a los consumidores, normas abiertas de interoperabilidad y otras, se está convirtiendo en una necesidad apremiante. El aumento de los controles estatistas tiene que ser resistido de manera similar. Con el paradigma emergente de la computación “en la nube” (“cloud computing”) se presenta la perspectiva inminente de una administración remota de nuestras vidas digitales por parte de diferentes "centros de poder" en todo el mundo. Es inconcebible que podamos prescindir de la gobernanza democrática apropiada de la Internet global. En el mundo post-Snowden, cuando muchos países han comenzado a contemplar e incluso emprender medidas para afirmar su "soberanía digital", la única manera de preservar una Internet global es a través de la formulación de las normas /mundiales /pertinentes. Estos principios y normas servirán de base a su gobernanza. /*Antecedentes de la contribución de la sociedad civil,*/ Un grupo de más de 60 organizaciones de la sociedad civil y muchos individuos, hizo una declaración sobre “La democratización de la gobernanza global de Internet ”^1 <#sdfootnote1sym>, dirigida a las consultas abiertas sobre 'cooperación reforzada'^2 <#sdfootnote2sym>convocadas por el Presidente de la Comisión de Ciencia y Tecnología para el Desarrollo (CSTD) el 18 de mayo de 2012, en Ginebra. Esta declaración reclamaba, entre otras cosas, la creación de un Grupo de Trabajo sobre CSTD para abordar esta cuestión. Nos complace observar que dicho grupo de trabajo se ha creado y ha solicitado insumos del público para formular sus recomendaciones. Este documento es un aporte al Grupo de Trabajo sobre Cooperación Ampliada (GTCE), respaldado por los abajo firmantes. En la mencionada declaración , en mayo de 2012, los firmantes de la sociedad civil pedían que los siguientes cambios institucionales en la arquitectura global de la gobernanza de Internet: /Nuestras demandas con respecto a la gobernanza “global” de Internet se basan en una lógica democrática simple y obvia. En el aspecto técnico, la supervisión de la infraestructura crítica, técnica y lógica, de la Internet, que en la actualidad es realizada por el gobierno de Estados Unidos, debe ser transferida a un órgano multilateral apropiado, democrático y participativo, sin alterar la arquitectura distribuida existente de gobernanza técnica de Internet de manera significativa. (Sin embargo, son sin duda necesarias mejoras en los sistemas de gobernanza técnica.) Por el lado de los temas mayores de Internet, relacionados con la formulación de políticas públicas en materia social, económica, cultural y política global, el modelo de toma de decisiones basado en la OCDE, así como la aplicación por defecto de las leyes de los Estados Unidos, debe ser sustituido por un nuevo mecanismo democrático basado en la ONU. Cualquier nuevo acuerdo debería basarse en el principio de subsidiariedad, y ser innovador en términos de su mandato, la estructura y funciones, para ser adecuado a las necesidades específicas de la gobernanza global de Internet. Debe ser plenamente participativo de todos los interesados, promoviendo el potencial democrático e innovador de la//Internet./ Ahora que la GTCE delibera sobre formas concretas para avanzar, ha llegado el momento de proponer mecanismos institucionales claros y específicos para la democratización de la gobernanza global de Internet. Hemos ampliado, por lo tanto, las demandas arriba citadas para sugerir mecanismos específicos que se deben establecer en su lugar para este fin. /*Se necesitan nuevos mecanismos de gobernanza mundial*/ Creemos que sería útil disponer de dos mecanismos diferentes: uno dirigido a las cuestiones de política pública relacionadas con la Internet global en distintos ámbitos sociales, económicos, culturales y políticos, y otro que supervise los aspectos técnicos y operativos relacionadas con la Internet (básicamente, en sustitución de la actual supervisión unilateral de la ICANN^3 <#sdfootnote3sym>por el gobierno de los Estados Unidos). Para ello será necesario la creación de nuevos órganos de gobernanza global adecuadas, así como un marco de derecho internacional para facilitar su trabajo, como exponemos a continuación. /*Un nuevo organismo de la ONU para cuestiones de política pública relacionadas con Internet:*/ Se requiere con urgencia una institución global que se ocupe de diversas cuestiones de política pública relacionadas con Internet de una manera continua. Puede ser un comité adjunto a la Asamblea General de la ONU o una entidad relativamente autónoma (como, por ejemplo, un organismo especializado de las Naciones Unidas). Esta entidad debe contar con un mecanismo muy fuerte e institucionalizada de consultas públicas, en la forma de un grupo de asesores de las partes interesadas, seleccionados a través de procesos formales por los distintos grupos de partes interesadas, garantizando la representatividad adecuada. (El Comité de Informática, Información y Comunicación Política de la OCDE y la reciente propuesta de la India sobre un Comité de Políticas relacionadas con Internet de la ONU son dos útiles, y en cierto modo similares, modelos que se pueden seguir). Esta nueva entidad se mantendrá al tanto de los problemas mundiales relacionados con Internet, y cuando necesario desarrollorá políticas públicas a nivel internacional en las áreas de interés, buscará la adecuada armonización de las políticas nacionales y facilitará los tratados, convenios y acuerdos necesarios. Deberá contar con los medios adecuados para llevar a cabo estudios y presentar análisis en sus diferentes ámbitos de actuación. La mayoría de las cuestiones de política pública relacionadas con Internet son de carácter intersectorial, e involucran superposiciones con los mandatos de otros órganos de gobernanza mundial existentes, como la OMPI, la UNESCO, la OMC, el PNUD, la UNCTAD, la UIT y así sucesivamente. Por ello, esta entidad nueva deberá establecer relaciones adecuadas con todos estos organismos existentes, incluyendo el redireccionamiento hacia éstos de las cuestiones de política pública relacionadas con ellos, recibir sus aportes y comentarios, y a su vez contribuir con sus perspectivas específicas a los temas relacionados con Internet que son de competencia de estos otros organismos. /*Un nuevo Consejo *//*Asesor*//*y de Supervisión Técnica de Internet: */ Este Consejo sustituirá la supervisión actual del gobierno de los Estados Unidos sobre las funciones técnicas y operativas a cargo de ICANN. Los miembros de este comité de supervisión puede ser de carácter técnico-político, es decir, personas con conocimientos especializados, pero que además cuentan con respaldo político adecuado, demostrado mediante un proceso democrático. Por ejemplo, el consejo puede tener de 10 a 15 miembros, con 2/3 miembros por cada una de las cinco regiones geográficas (como las define el sistema de las Naciones Unidas). Estos miembros se pueden seleccionar a través de un proceso adecuado por los órganos pertinentes de normas técnicas o los organismos de nombres de dominio de todos los países de la región respectiva. (Otros mecanismos para la constitución de los miembros técnico-políticos de este ámbito también se pueden considerar.) Este Consejo Asesor y de supervisión técnica de Internet procurará que las diversas funciones técnicas y operativas relacionadas con la Internet mundial se lleven a cabo por las organizaciones pertinentes de acuerdo a la ley internacional y los principios de política pública desarrollada por los organismos internacionales competentes. Con relación a la ICANN, el papel de este foro será más o menos el mismo que ejerce el gobierno de los Estados Unidos en su supervisión actual de ICANN. Los mecanismos descentralizados de desarrollo de estándares de Internet, como el Grupo de Trabajo de Ingeniería de Internet, y otros sistemas de organización autónoma que promueven la adopción voluntaria de normas seguirán funcionando como hasta ahora. El nuevo Consejo tendrá un papel no vinculante con respecto a ellos y los asesorará sobre estándares técnicos derivados de las políticas públicas internacionales, el derecho internacional y las normas desarrolladas por los diferentes organismos pertinentes. Para que este Consejo pueda cumplir su mandato de supervisión, ICANN debe convertirse en una organización internacional, sin cambiar su actual carácter multisectorial de manera sustancial. Para continuar teniendo su sede en Estados Unidos, ICANN debe obtener de este país un acuerdo de país sede que le garantice plena inmunidad con respecto a la ley de Estados Unidos y su poder ejecutivo, y se guiará exclusivamente por el derecho internacional en virtud del cual estará constituída. La supervisión del servidor de zona raíz (root zone server) autorizado también debe ser transferida a este Consejo, que ejercerá este rol con la ayuda de una ICANN internacionalizada. El Consejo asesorará además al nuevo organismo de política pública antes mencionado sobre cuestiones técnicas relativas a la formulación de políticas de Internet y recibirá de éste orientaciones sobre políticas públicas. /*Convención Marco sobre Internet: */Un marco jurídico internacional adecuado es necesario, más temprano que tarde, para que los organismos descriptos arriba funcionen correctamente. En consecuencia, una de las primeras tareas de la "nueva entidad” sobre cuestiones de política pública relacionadas con Internet, descripta anteriormente, será la asistencia a la negociación de "Convenio Marco para Internet" (similar a la Convención Marco sobre el Cambio Climático ). La Gobernanza de Internet implica diferentes tipos de problemas que están en constante evolución. Es, por tanto, preferible formular una estructura legal habilitante como "convenio marco" y no como un tratado o convención detallados, que aborden sólo un conjunto predeterminado de cuestiones. También puede ser más fácil llegar a un acuerdo inicial sobre una serie de principios, protocolos y procesos que pueden enmarcar nuevos acuerdos, tratados, etcétera, sobre temas más específicos. Dicha Convención Marco permitirá respuestas políticas globales adecuadas y permanentes a las diversas oportunidades y desafíos que el fenómeno de rápida evolución de Internet plantea. También formalizará la arquitectura básica de la gobernanza global de Internet; reconociendo y legitimando el papel y las funciones actuales de los distintos organismos que participan actualmente en la gestión de la infraestructura técnica y lógica de Internet, incluida la ICANN, los Registros Regionales de Internet, los organismos de estándares técnicos, etc. También se necesitará crear mecanismos adecuados para responder a eventuales crisis y para la resolución de conflictos en relación con la Internet global y la actividad social dependientes de ella. /*Relación con el IGF*/ El Foro de Gobernanza de Internet de las Naciones Unidas (IGF) se estableció como un “foro de diálogo político” multisectorial por la Cumbre Mundial sobre la Sociedad de la Información. El mecanismo propuesto de gobernanza de la Internet global, sobre todo la nueva entidad de la ONU, mantendrá una estrecha relación con el IGF. El IGF ofrece un nuevo tipo de mecanismo participativo para la elaboración de políticas, que institucionaliza la participación y es relativamente independiente de los organismos de toma de decisiones. El IGF debe, preferentemente, tratar con antelación los temas que serán luego decididos por la nueva entidad y presentar diversas perspectivas para su consideración. Una buena parte de la agenda de este nuevo organismo puede surgir de la IGF. Siempre que sea posible, los proyectos de propuestas a ser adoptadas por la nueva entidad deben ser compartidos con el IGF. Para llevar a cabo su papel de promover la participación, el IGF debe reforzarse y reformarse adecuadamente, sobre todo para hacer frente al predominio de los intereses empresariales del Norte en su trabajo actual. Debe ser apoyado con fondos públicos, y aislado de cualquier sistema de financiación que pueda ejercer influencias indebidas en su programa y sus resultados. Otras medidas serán necesarias, Además, para garantizar la participación en el IGF de grupos que suelen estar poco representados, en lugar de dar más peso político a los ya dominantes. Un órgano de participación existe en función de los mecanismos de toma de decisión que se alimentan de él. En ese sentido, la relevancia y efectividad del IGF dependerán de la fortaleza de la entidad de desarrollo de políticas a la que estará conectado. Invertir en el IGF solo será útil si sus resultados y contribuciones conducen a algo concreto. /*Financiamiento*/ Una forma innovadora de financiar los nuevos mecanismos propuestos de gobernanza de la Internet global, así como al IGF, es la de aprovechar las recaudaciones de los órganos pertinentes de asignación de nombres y números en la Internet global (tal como la tasa que ICANN recibe anualmente de cada propietario de un nombre de dominio). Estas recaudaciones son actualmente de varios millones de dólares cada año y podrían ser suficientes para financiar una gran parte de los mecanismos necesarios para la gobernanza democrática de la Internet global. Para terminar, podemos añadir que no hay nada realmente muy novedoso en esta propuesta para la creación de nuevos mecanismos para la gobernanza global de Internet. Modelos similares fueron propuestos, por ejemplo, en el informe del Grupo de Trabajo sobre Gobernanza de Internet que se creó durante la Cumbre Mundial sobre la Sociedad de la Información, en el año 2004. Esperamos que el Grupo de Trabajo sobre Cooperación reforzada cumplirá su importante cometido de conducir al mundo hacia el camino de la gobernanza democrática de los bienes comunes globales de la Internet. 1 <#sdfootnote1anc>Disponible en _http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_statement_on_democratic_internet_ 2 <#sdfootnote2anc>“Enhanced cooperation”. Este término fue utilizado en Los documentos finales de la Cumbre Mundial sobre la Sociedad de la Información, celebrada en 2005, para referirse al cometido de continuar explorando los mecanismos necesarios para la gobernanza global de Internet. 3 <#sdfootnote3anc>ICANN es la sigla en inglés de la Corporación para la Asignación de Nombres y Números de Internet, la institución sin fines de lucro, con sede en Estados Unidos, que administra la mayor parte de las funciones de infraestructura técnica y lógica relacionados con Internet. On Wednesday 28 August 2013 04:23 PM, parminder wrote: > Dear All > > IT for Change and some other NGOs plan to forward the following > position to the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Preceding > the position statement is a covering letter seeking support. You are > /*welcome to support this position any time before 12 noon GMT on 31st > Aug*/. We are happy to provide any additional information/ > clarification etc. Also happy to otherwise discuss this position, and > its different elements. We are motivated by the need to come up with > precise and clear institutional options at this stage. Politics of > inertia and not doing anything just serves the status quo. These may > not be the best institutional options, and we are ready to enter into > discussion with other groups on what instead would be the better > options. But, again, not doing anything is, in our opinion, would be > detrimental to global public interest. > > The web link to this position is at > http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_input_to_the_UN_Working_Group_for_global_governance_of_the_Internet > . > > parminder > > > /*Covering letter / Background > */ > In May 2012, more than 60 civil society organisations and several > individuals participated in a campaign for 'democratising the global > governance of the Internet > '. > A joint letter signed by the participants of this campaign /inter > alia/ asked for setting up a UN Working Group towards this objective. > Such a Working Group was set up and has now asked for public inputs to > formulate its recommendations. > > In our joint letter, we had proposed some outlines for reforming the > current global governance architecture of the Internet. Time has come > now to make more clear and specific recommendations of the actual > institutional mechanism that we need. With most governments more > worried about their narrow geopolitical interests and relationships > with individual countries, it falls upon the civil society to be bold > and forward looking and put precise proposals on the table that can > then be taken forward by state actors. > > In a post-Snowden world, there is deep discomfort among almost all > countries, other than the US, with the manner in which the global > Internet is run and is evolving. The need for some global norms, > principles, rules, and necessary governance mechanisms for the global > Internet is being felt now as never before. The Internet can no longer > remain anchored to the political and business interests of one > country, or to serving global capital, as it is at present. As a > global commons, it is our collective democratic right and > responsibility to participate in the governance of the Internet, so > that it can become a vehicle for greater prosperity, equity and social > justice for all. > > We seek your support to join us in proposing the enclosed document as > an input to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. The Working > Group has sought public inputs through a questionnaire which can be > seen at http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx . The most important > question is at number 8, which seeks input with regard to precise > mechanism(s) that are required. Our response will mostly address this > all-important question. (You are also encouraged to, separately, give > a fuller response to the questionnaire on your behalf or on behalf of > your organization.) We will also like to give wide media publicity to > this civil society statement . > > We will be glad if you can send your response to us /*before the 30th > of August*/. We are of course happy to respond to any clarification or > additional information that you may want to seek in the above regard. > Please also circulate this to others who you think may want to > participate in this initiative. The global Internet governance space > seems to be dominated by those who push for neoliberal models of > governance. We must therefore have as many voices heard as possible. > > (The statement is cut pasted below this email and may also be seen > here > > ) > > With best regard, > > Parminder > > > *Parminder Jeet Singh* > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > IT for Change > In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC > www.ITforChange.net > T: 00-91-80-26654134| T: 00-91-80-26536890| Fax: 00-91-80-41461055 > > /_*A civil society input to the UN Working Group looking at *_/ > > /_*institutional mechanisms for global governance of the Internet *_/ > > /(Please write to itfc @itforchange.net > before 29th Aug if you will like to > endorse this statement)**/ > > /* > Why global governance of the Internet?*/ > > Internet governance is seen largely in terms of national sovereignty > and security or as pertaining to free speech and privacy. We are of > the view that there exist many other equally important issues for > global Internet governance that arise from the whole gamut of rights > and aspirations of people – social, economic, cultural, political > and developmental. The relationship of the global Internet to cultural > diversity is one example. The Internet increasingly determines not > only the global flows of information but also of cultures, and their > commodification. No social process is exempt from the influence of the > Internet – from education to health and governance. Social systems > at national and local levels are being transformed under the influence > of the global Internet. > > Instead of decentralizing power, the current structure of the global > Internet tends to centralize control in the hands of a small number of > companies. Some of these companies have near-monopoly power over key > areas of economic and social significance. Therefore, regulation of > global Internet business through pertinent competition law, consumer > law, open interoperability standards, etc, is becoming a pressing > need. Increasing statist controls need to be similarly resisted. With > the emergent paradigm of cloud computing presenting the looming > prospect of remote management of our digital lives from different > 'power centres' across the world, it is inconceivable that we can do > without appropriate democratic governance of the global Internet. > Post-Snowden, as many countries have begun to contemplate and even > embark upon measures for 'digital sovereignty', the only way to > preserve a /global//**/Internet is through formulating appropriate > /global/ norms, principles and rules that will underpin its governance. > > /*Background of this civil society input*/ > > A group of over 60 civil society organizations and several > individuals, made a statement on /'Democratizing the global governance > of the Internet > '/ > to the open consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'^1 > > called by the Chair of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for > Development (CSTD) on May 18th, 2012, in Geneva. The statement /inter > alia/ sought the setting up of a CSTD Working Group to address this > issue. We are happy to note that such a Working Group has been set up > and has now called for public inputs to make its recommendations. This > document is an input to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation > (WGEC) on the behalf of the undersigned . > > In the aforementioned statement > > of May 2012, the civil society signatories had called for the > following institutional developments to take place in the global > Internet governance architecture: > > /Our demands with respect to 'global' Internet Governance espouse a > simple and obvious democratic logic. On the technical governance side, > the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical > infrastructure, at present with the US government, should be > transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative, > multi-lateral body, without disturbing the existing distributed > architecture of technical governance of the Internet in any > significant way. (However, improvements in the technical governance > systems are certainly needed.) On the side of larger Internet related > public policy-making on global social, economic, cultural and > political issues, the OECD-based model of global policy making, as > well as the default application of US laws, should be replaced by a > new UN-based democratic mechanism. Any such new arrangement should be > based on the principle of subsidiarity, and be innovative in terms of > its mandate, structure, and functions, to be adequate to the unique > requirements of global Internet governance. It must be fully > participative of all stakeholders, promoting the democratic and > innovative potential of the//Internet. / > > As the WGEC deliberates on concrete ways to move forward, the time is > ripe to propose clear and specific institutional mechanisms for > democratizing the global governance of the Internet. We have, > therefore, expanded the above demands into specific mechanisms that > should be set in place for this purpose. > > /*New global governance mechanisms are needed*/ > > We are of the view that it would be useful to have two distinct > mechanisms – one that looks at the global Internet-related public > policy issues in various social, economic, cultural and political > domains, and another that should undertake oversight of the technical > and operational functions related to the Internet (basically, > replacing the current unilateral oversight of the ICANN^2 > > by the US government). This will require setting up appropriate new > global governance bodies as well as a framework of international law > to facilitate their work, as follows. > > /*A new UN body for Internet-related public policy issues:*//**/ An > anchor global institution for taking up and addressing various public > policy issues pertaining to the Internet in an ongoing manner is > urgently required. It can be a committee attached to the UN General > Assemblyor a more elaborate and relatively autonomous set up linked > loosely to the UN (as a specialized UN body). It should have a very > strong and institutionalized public consultative mechanism, in the > form of stakeholder advisory groups that are selected through formal > processes by different stakeholder constituencies, ensuring adequate > representativeness. (OECD's /Committee on Computer, Information and > Communication Policy/ > and India's recent > proposal for a /UN/ > /Committee > on Internet-related Policies/ > are > two useful, and somewhat similar, models that can be looked at.) > > This 'new body' will stay abreast of global Internet-related issues; > where necessary, develop international level public policies in the > concerned areas; seek appropriate harmonization of national level > policies, and; facilitate required treaties, conventions and > agreements. It will also have the necessary means to undertake studies > and present analyses in different policy areas. > > Most Internet-related public policy issues are of a cross-cutting > nature, and involve overlaps with mandates of other existing global > governance bodies, like WIPO, UNESCO, WTO, UNDP, UNCTAD, ITU and so > on. Due to this reason, the proposed new 'body' will establish > appropriate relationships with all these other existing bodies, > including directing relevant public policy issues to them, receiving > their inputs and comments, and itself contributing specific > Internet-related perspectives to issues under the purview of these > other bodies. > > /*A new 'Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Board':*/ This > board will replace the US government's current oversight role over the > technical and operational functions performed by ICANN. The membership > of this oversight board can be of a techno-political nature, > /i.e./consisting of people with specialized expertise but who also > have appropriate political backing, ascertained through a democratic > process. For instance, the board can be made of 10/15 members, with > 2/3 members each from five geographic regions (as understood in the UN > system). These members can perhaps be selected through an appropriate > process by the relevant technical standards bodies and/or country > domain name bodies of all the countries of the respective region. > (Other mechanisms for constituting the techno-political membership of > this board can also be considered.) > > The Internet technical oversight and advisory board will seek to > ensure that the various technical and operational functions related to > the global Internet are undertaken by the relevant organizations as > per international law and public policy principles developed by the > concerned international bodies. With regard to ICANN, the role of this > board will more or less be exactly the same as exercised by the US > government in its oversight over ICANN. As for the decentralized > Internet standards development mechanisms, like the Internet > Engineering Task Force, these self organizing systems based on > voluntary adoption of standards will continue to work as at present. > The new board will have a very light touch and non-binding role with > regard to them. It will bring in imperatives from, and advise these > technical standards bodies on, international public policies, > international law and norms being developed by various relevant bodies. > > For this board to be able to fulfill its oversight mandate, ICANN must > become an international organization, without changing its existing > multistakeholder character in any substantial manner. It would enter > into a host country agreement with the US government (if ICANN has to > continue to be headquartered in the US). It would have full immunity > from US law and executive authority, and be guided solely by > international law, and be incorporated under it. Supervision of the > authoritative root zone server must also be transferred to this > oversight broad. The board will exercise this role with the help of an > internationalized ICANN. > > This board will also advise the afore-mentioned new public policy body > on technical matters pertaining to the Internet policy making, as well > as take public policy inputs from it. > > /*Framework Convention on the Internet:*//**/An appropriate > international legal framework will be required sooner than later for > the above bodies to function properly. Accordingly, one of the early > tasks of the proposed 'new body' dealing with Internet-related public > policy issues, discussed above, will be to help negotiate a 'Framework > Convention on the Internet' (somewhat like the /Framework Convention > on Climate Change > )/. > Governance of the Internet concerns different kinds of issues that are > ever-evolving. It is, therefore, preferable to formulate an enabling > legal structure as a 'framework convention' rather than as a specific > treaty or convention that addresses only a bounded set of issues. It > may also be easier to initially agree to a series of principles, > protocols and processes that can then frame further agreements, > treaties etc on more specific issues. > > Such a Framework Convention will thus enable appropriate and ongoing > global policy responses to various opportunities and challenges that > the fast-evolving phenomenon of the Internet throws up. It will also > formalize the basic architecture of the global governance of the > Internet; /inter alia/ recognizing and legitimizing the existing role > and functions of the various bodies currently involved with managing > the technical and logical infrastructure of the Internet, including > the ICANN, Regional Internet Registries, Internet technical standards > bodies and so on. > > Appropriate mechanisms for crisis response and dispute resolution in > relation to the global Internet, and the social activity dependent on > it, will also be required to be set up. > > /*Relationship with the IGF*/ > > The UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was established as a > multistakeholder 'policy dialogue forum' by the World Summit on the > Information Society. The proposed global Internet policy mechanism, > especially the new UN based body, will maintain a close relationship > with the IGF. IGF affords a very new kind of participative mechanism > for policy making, whereby the participation realm is > institutionalized, and relatively independent of the policy making > structures. The IGF should preferably pre-discuss issues that are > taken up by this new policy body and present diverse perspectives for > its consideration. A good part of the agenda for this new body can > emerge from the IGF. Whenever possible, draft proposals to be adopted > by this new body should be shared with the IGF. > > To perform such a participation enhancing role, the IGF must be > adequately strengthened and reformed, especially to address the > dominance of Northern corporatist interests in its current working. It > must be supported with public funds, and insulated from any funding > system that can bring in perverse influences on its agenda and > outcomes. Other required processes must also be put in place to ensure > that the IGF indeed brings in constituencies that are typically > under-represented, rather than provide further political clout to the > already dominant. > > A participative body is only as good as the policy making mechanisms > that feed off it. To that extent, the meaningfulness and effectiveness > of the IGF itself requires a strong policy development mechanism, as > suggested in this document, to be linked to it. Investing in the IGF > is useful only if its outputs and contributions lead to something > concrete. > > /*Funding*/ > > An innovative way to fund the proposed new global Internet policy > mechanisms, and also the IGF, is to tap into the collections made by > the relevant bodies from allocation of names and numbers resources > pertaining to the global Internet (like the fee that ICANN collects > annually from each domain name owner). These accruals now run into > millions of dollars every year and could be adequate to fund a large > part of the needed mechanisms for democratic governance of the global > Internet. > > In the end, we may add that there is nothing really very novel in the > above proposal for setting up new mechanisms for global governance of > the Internet. Similar models, for instance, were proposed in the > report of the Working Group on Internet Governance that was set up > during the World Summit on the Information Society, back in 2004. > > We hope that the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will fulfill > its high mandate to lead the world towards the path of democratic > governance of the global commons of the Internet. > > 1 > The > outcome documents of the World Summit on the Information Society, held > in 2005, employed this as a placeholder term giving the mandate for > further exploration of the necessary mechanisms for global governance > of the Internet. > > 2 > Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the US based non-profit > that manages much of technical and logical infrastructural functions > related to the Internet. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Democraticing Internet governance - sp.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 94812 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Aug 28 06:57:18 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 20:57:18 +1000 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <5208605C.8080101@apc.org> Message-ID: On 27/08/2013, at 12:13 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > On 27-Aug-2013, at 7:21, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> Although the Caucus is a little fractured at the moment, Norbert and Sala might nevertheless wish to gauge the feeling of the Caucus towards signing on corporately. >> > > It would help gain broader consensus if the worst bits of that statement were removed. > > Bringing ICANN under UN oversight, really? Since there is nothing in the submission that suggests that, I have to ask, did you read it? -- 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 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From angelacdaly at gmail.com Thu Aug 29 06:07:52 2013 From: angelacdaly at gmail.com (Angela Daly) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 20:07:52 +1000 Subject: [governance] expressions of interest for the Dynamic Coalition on Freedom of Expression 2013 IGF meeting Message-ID: Dear all, The Dynamic Coalition on Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Media on the Internet will be meeting at the 2013 Internet Governance Forum on Monday 21 October (Day 0 of the proceedings) from 1600 to 1800 in room Uluwatu 5 at the Bali Nusa Dua Convention Center. The call is now open for expressions of interest from stakeholders for participation in the event. The format will be a few (maximum 3) presentations on the theme, 'Global perspectives on online free expression' followed by general discussion and debate involving all participants. For those unable to make the event and/or who want to contribute something of greater substance, we are also planning to issue a written report soon after the meeting in Bali containing details of the meeting itself as well as written contributions on aspects of the theme of the meeting from different stakeholders. So, please contact me (angelacdaly at gmail.com) if you: 1. want to participate generally in the meeting on 20 Oct 2. want to participate by giving a short presentation at the meeting on 20 Oct 3. want to contribute a written piece on 'global perspectives on online free expression' to the report which will be issued soon after the meeting Please feel free to get in touch with any questions. Looking forward to meeting many of you in Bali. Angela Daly Researcher, Swinburne Institute for Social Research, Melbourne, Australia & European University Institute, Florence, Italy Board member, Electronic Frontiers Australia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Aug 29 06:09:23 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:09:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] Spanish - Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <521F0D03.5060403@itforchange.net> References: <521DD692.700@itforchange.net> <521F0D03.5060403@itforchange.net> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Aug 29 06:17:12 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:47:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Spanish - Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <521DD692.700@itforchange.net> <521F0D03.5060403@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <521F1FA8.7020008@itforchange.net> On Thursday 29 August 2013 03:39 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: > At 10:57 29/08/2013, parminder wrote: >> For friends more comfortable in Spanish, below is a Spanish >> translation of the proposed joined statement and also enclosed..... >> parminder > > Thank you for this. Very helpful for some people in my surrounding. > I send on this list too the comment I made on the cover letter of this > key contribution. > jfc Thanks jfc, comments and suggestions are most welcome.... BTW, the cover letter is not part of the statement for which support is sought. Though comments noted. parminder > > ---- > > Dear Parminder, > > I am very sorry, but this time I will disagree. > > 1. "there is deep discomfort among almost all countries, other than > the US" is inappropriate if you do not define in MSist terms what is a > country. The sentence makes sense only if the meaning is not the same > (governement, or corporates, or people, or activists, or press, etc.) > for the US and for the other States. > > 2. The internet is a public road. Some are walking on it, and others > are driving on it. This is ruled by the Internet Traffic code, which > gathers protocols, governance agreements, national statutes, > regulations, ordinances, and rules that have been adopted by the > stakeholders and that they can enforce. If you want to be a dominant > in this game of the road, you must start by building yourself a truck > and start bumping some bumpers. > > What I want to make clear is that the governance of the internet has > nothing to do with the data the internet transports, which users > partner together, and who goes to bed with who. I totally understand > that you feel betrayed in the picture that you have painted yourself > of what the internet should be. The internet is NOT and has never been > a democratic dream. It is an imperfect technology that everyone and > every organization may use the way he/she/it can. Snowden revealed > nothing that we had ignored, and nothing worse than what banks do, and > that the press publishes on people. > > The only thing you can do is: > > - either ethitechnically redesign parts of the digital technology for > simultaneously making it so that: > - what you want costs far less/is safer, so that everyone wants and > uses it > - what you dislike costs more to get once it is used by everyone > than the benefits one can obtain from it (like some did with the IPv6 > they disliked :-)) > > - or to get yourself strong enough to be able to deter those who do > things you dislike. Maybe you can call the AFL-CIO and discuss with > the UTU as to how to make it legal. Or the Majors. > > Making "the internet a vehicle for greater prosperity, fairness, and > social justice for all" is the elected politicians’ job. Our own job > is to decide which one to support and vote for, and give them ideas > and surely prove these ideas good. > > For the time being, I support “an Open-Prism for all”. Not just for > the NSA (NB: a technical note, tapping paid internet operators only > means that ARPA have not yet reached a top intellition technology. > Once they have it, they will infer private information from the > available data and help you correct your typos in your personal mails. > There is nothing which can be hidden, this is in the Gospel). > > Enjoy! We live in an exciting world ruled by a new paradigm, the > OpenStand RFC 6852 paradigm. > If you want to know what is actually happening inside (and not > through) the internet: > http://iucg.org/wiki/OpenStand_context_vs._standardizing_IDNA2003. > Commercial sponsors are again trying to control languages, and thereby > the people and cultures along the roadside. That is for real. > > Anyway, politicians and corporates love we spend time sending them > letters instead of working on people centered operational protocols. > > Cheers! > jfc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 29 06:17:40 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 06:17:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <5208605C.8080101@apc.org> Message-ID: <3E1CC149-8E3F-449E-AA93-D87D5B392445@acm.org> Hi, Perhaps he was referring to the statement Parminder is sending around looking for support. It is perhaps confusing having two statements in circulation: one by the Best Bits and one by Parminder who is a participant in both the Best Bits collective and a member of the WGEC. avri On 28 Aug 2013, at 06:57, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 27/08/2013, at 12:13 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> On 27-Aug-2013, at 7:21, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> Although the Caucus is a little fractured at the moment, Norbert and Sala might nevertheless wish to gauge the feeling of the Caucus towards signing on corporately. >>> >> >> It would help gain broader consensus if the worst bits of that statement were removed. >> >> Bringing ICANN under UN oversight, really? > > Since there is nothing in the submission that suggests that, I have to ask, did you read it? > > -- > 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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Aug 29 06:25:27 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:55:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: <3E1CC149-8E3F-449E-AA93-D87D5B392445@acm.org> References: <5208605C.8080101@apc.org> <3E1CC149-8E3F-449E-AA93-D87D5B392445@acm.org> Message-ID: <968B9030-7875-41ED-85F7-6EE9350ECBAC@hserus.net> I seem to have both mixed up here. However Jeremy - there's some parts of your response to question 8 on appropriate mechanisms which are a bit strange. ICANN to get oversight from a "techno political" board drawn from different geographies - to replace the DoC mandate - and effectively become an agency by itself (under the vienna convention? that's the typical framework where a host country agreement for an international organization would be defined) There isn't much rationale presented here for how this becomes different from bringing ICANN under UN control, to be honest. "Practical likelihood of it being at least loosely linked with the UN" is kind of a massive understatement if you ask me. --srs (iPad) On 29-Aug-2013, at 15:47, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Perhaps he was referring to the statement Parminder is sending around looking for support. It is perhaps confusing having two statements in circulation: one by the Best Bits and one by Parminder who is a participant in both the Best Bits collective and a member of the WGEC. > > avri > > On 28 Aug 2013, at 06:57, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 27/08/2013, at 12:13 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >>> On 27-Aug-2013, at 7:21, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>>> Although the Caucus is a little fractured at the moment, Norbert and Sala might nevertheless wish to gauge the feeling of the Caucus towards signing on corporately. >>> >>> It would help gain broader consensus if the worst bits of that statement were removed. >>> >>> Bringing ICANN under UN oversight, really? >> >> Since there is nothing in the submission that suggests that, I have to ask, did you read it? >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Aug 29 06:55:20 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 12:55:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: <968B9030-7875-41ED-85F7-6EE9350ECBAC@hserus.net> References: <5208605C.8080101@apc.org> <3E1CC149-8E3F-449E-AA93-D87D5B392445@acm.org> <968B9030-7875-41ED-85F7-6EE9350ECBAC@hserus.net> Message-ID: At 12:25 29/08/2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >I seem to have both mixed up here. BTW, I also have mine to send! However, I looked around on their documents and site: they do not give any email address. Would someone knows the proprer one to use? Thank you! jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Aug 29 06:58:54 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 19:58:54 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Interesting comments. Adam ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Carlton Samuels Date: Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:25 AM Subject: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead To: "lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org" < lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide < at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org> The CEO of CIRA shares some thoughts on the future of the Internet http://blog.cira.ca/2013/08/the-internet-as-we-know-it-is-dead/?goback=%2Egde_110405_member_268692395#%21 -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Aug 29 07:07:27 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 20:07:27 +0900 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: <3E1CC149-8E3F-449E-AA93-D87D5B392445@acm.org> References: <5208605C.8080101@apc.org> <3E1CC149-8E3F-449E-AA93-D87D5B392445@acm.org> Message-ID: On Aug 29, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Perhaps he was referring to the statement Parminder is sending around looking for support. It is perhaps confusing having two statements in circulation: one by the Best Bits and one by Parminder who is a participant in both the Best Bits collective and a member of the WGEC. > Yes, not so good when working group members are advising themselves in this way, multiple ways. The IT for Change position makes many unsubstantiated claims, and again repeats that the Internet is a global commons, which it clearly is not (what's the point of engaging in honest debate on this list if ignored for the sake of some political doctrine?) And bestbits, which I personally disagree with enough not to be able to support, but it much more thoughtful, but is also somewhat undermined by having WG members as authors. Poor process. Adam > avri > > On 28 Aug 2013, at 06:57, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 27/08/2013, at 12:13 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >>> On 27-Aug-2013, at 7:21, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>>> Although the Caucus is a little fractured at the moment, Norbert and Sala might nevertheless wish to gauge the feeling of the Caucus towards signing on corporately. >>>> >>> >>> It would help gain broader consensus if the worst bits of that statement were removed. >>> >>> Bringing ICANN under UN oversight, really? >> >> Since there is nothing in the submission that suggests that, I have to ask, did you read it? >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 gpaque at gmail.com Thu Aug 29 07:09:39 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 06:09:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] Spanish - Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <521F0D03.5060403@itforchange.net> References: <521DD692.700@itforchange.net> <521F0D03.5060403@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder: Great to see a Spanish version offered. This is very important. Gracias! Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* ** ** On 29 August 2013 03:57, parminder wrote: > > For friends more comfortable in Spanish, below is a Spanish translation of > the proposed joined statement and also enclosed..... parminder > > > * **Urgente! Se necesita su apoyo para impulsar una visión progresista > de la sociedad civil en el Grupo de Trabajo de la ONU que formulará > recomendaciones para la democratización de la gobernanza global de Internet. > * > > > *Una contribución de la sociedad civil al Grupo de Trabajo de la ONU > sobre mecanismos institucionales para la gobernanza global de Internet* > > > *(Por favor escriba a **itfc at itforchange.net* *antes > de las 12 horas GMT el 31 de agosto, si usted desea refrendar esta > afirmación)* > > > *¿Por qué importa la gobernanza global de Internet?* > > > La gobernanza de Internet es vista por unos en términos de soberanía y > seguridad nacional y por otros como relativa a la libertad de expresión y > la privacidad. Somos de la opinión de que existen muchas otras cuestiones > igualmente importantes para la gobernanza global de Internet que surgen de > toda la gama de los derechos y las aspiraciones de la gente: derechos > sociales, económicos, culturales, políticos y al desarrollo. La relación de > la Internet global con la diversidad cultural es un ejemplo. La Internet > determina cada vez más no sólo los flujos globales de información, sino > también las culturas, y su mercantilización. Ningún proceso social está > exento de la influencia de Internet, desde la educación a la salud y la > gobernanza. Los sistemas sociales a nivel nacional y local, se están > transformando bajo la influencia de la Internet global. > > En vez de descentralizar el poder, la estructura actual de la Internet > global tiende a centralizar el control en manos de un pequeño número de > empresas. Algunas de estas empresas tienen un poder casi monopolio sobre > áreas clave de importancia económica y social. Por lo tanto, la regulación > de los negocios globales de Internet a través de legislación sobre > competencia (contra los monopolios), de protección a los consumidores, > normas abiertas de interoperabilidad y otras, se está convirtiendo en una > necesidad apremiante. El aumento de los controles estatistas tiene que ser > resistido de manera similar. Con el paradigma emergente de la computación > “en la nube” (“cloud computing”) se presenta la perspectiva inminente de > una administración remota de nuestras vidas digitales por parte de > diferentes "centros de poder" en todo el mundo. Es inconcebible que podamos > prescindir de la gobernanza democrática apropiada de la Internet global. En > el mundo post-Snowden, cuando muchos países han comenzado a contemplar e > incluso emprender medidas para afirmar su "soberanía digital", la única > manera de preservar una Internet global es a través de la formulación de > las normas *mundiales *pertinentes. Estos principios y normas servirán de > base a su gobernanza. > > > *Antecedentes de la contribución de la sociedad civil,* > > > Un grupo de más de 60 organizaciones de la sociedad civil y muchos > individuos, hizo una declaración sobre “La democratización de la > gobernanza global de Internet > ”1 <#140c94ccee9cd41a_sdfootnote1sym>, dirigida a las consultas abiertas > sobre 'cooperación reforzada'2 <#140c94ccee9cd41a_sdfootnote2sym>convocadas por el Presidente de la Comisión de Ciencia y Tecnología para el > Desarrollo (CSTD) el 18 de mayo de 2012, en Ginebra. Esta declaración > reclamaba, entre otras cosas, la creación de un Grupo de Trabajo sobre CSTD > para abordar esta cuestión. Nos complace observar que dicho grupo de > trabajo se ha creado y ha solicitado insumos del público para formular sus > recomendaciones. Este documento es un aporte al Grupo de Trabajo sobre > Cooperación Ampliada (GTCE), respaldado por los abajo firmantes. > > En la mencionada declaración, > en mayo de 2012, los firmantes de la sociedad civil pedían que los > siguientes cambios institucionales en la arquitectura global de la > gobernanza de Internet: > > > *Nuestras demandas con respecto a la gobernanza “global” de Internet se > basan en una lógica democrática simple y obvia. En el aspecto técnico, la > supervisión de la infraestructura crítica, técnica y lógica, de la > Internet, que en la actualidad es realizada por el gobierno de Estados > Unidos, debe ser transferida a un órgano multilateral apropiado, > democrático y participativo, sin alterar la arquitectura distribuida > existente de gobernanza técnica de Internet de manera significativa. (Sin > embargo, son sin duda necesarias mejoras en los sistemas de gobernanza > técnica.) Por el lado de los temas mayores de Internet, relacionados con la > formulación de políticas públicas en materia social, económica, cultural y > política global, el modelo de toma de decisiones basado en la OCDE, así > como la aplicación por defecto de las leyes de los Estados Unidos, debe ser > sustituido por un nuevo mecanismo democrático basado en la ONU. Cualquier > nuevo acuerdo debería basarse en el principio de subsidiariedad, y ser > innovador en términos de su mandato, la estructura y funciones, para ser > adecuado a las necesidades específicas de la gobernanza global de Internet. > Debe ser plenamente participativo de todos los interesados, promoviendo el > potencial democrático e innovador de la* *Internet.* > > > Ahora que la GTCE delibera sobre formas concretas para avanzar, ha > llegado el momento de proponer mecanismos institucionales claros y > específicos para la democratización de la gobernanza global de Internet. > Hemos ampliado, por lo tanto, las demandas arriba citadas para sugerir > mecanismos específicos que se deben establecer en su lugar para este fin. > > > *Se necesitan nuevos mecanismos de gobernanza mundial* > > > Creemos que sería útil disponer de dos mecanismos diferentes: uno > dirigido a las cuestiones de política pública relacionadas con la Internet > global en distintos ámbitos sociales, económicos, culturales y políticos, y > otro que supervise los aspectos técnicos y operativos relacionadas con la > Internet (básicamente, en sustitución de la actual supervisión unilateral > de la ICANN3 <#140c94ccee9cd41a_sdfootnote3sym> por el gobierno de los > Estados Unidos). Para ello será necesario la creación de nuevos órganos de > gobernanza global adecuadas, así como un marco de derecho internacional > para facilitar su trabajo, como exponemos a continuación. > > > *Un nuevo organismo de la ONU para cuestiones de política pública > relacionadas con Internet:* > > Se requiere con urgencia una institución global que se ocupe de diversas > cuestiones de política pública relacionadas con Internet de una manera > continua. Puede ser un comité adjunto a la Asamblea General de la ONU o una > entidad relativamente autónoma (como, por ejemplo, un organismo > especializado de las Naciones Unidas). Esta entidad debe contar con un > mecanismo muy fuerte e institucionalizada de consultas públicas, en la > forma de un grupo de asesores de las partes interesadas, seleccionados a > través de procesos formales por los distintos grupos de partes interesadas, > garantizando la representatividad adecuada. (El Comité de Informática, > Información y Comunicación Políticade la OCDE y > la reciente propuesta de la India sobre un Comité de Políticas > relacionadas con Internetde la ONU son > dos útiles, y en cierto modo similares, modelos que se pueden seguir). > > Esta nueva entidad se mantendrá al tanto de los problemas mundiales > relacionados con Internet, y cuando necesario desarrollorá políticas > públicas a nivel internacional en las áreas de interés, buscará la adecuada > armonización de las políticas nacionales y facilitará los tratados, > convenios y acuerdos necesarios. Deberá contar con los medios adecuados > para llevar a cabo estudios y presentar análisis en sus diferentes ámbitos > de actuación. > > La mayoría de las cuestiones de política pública relacionadas con Internet > son de carácter intersectorial, e involucran superposiciones con los > mandatos de otros órganos de gobernanza mundial existentes, como la OMPI, > la UNESCO, la OMC, el PNUD, la UNCTAD, la UIT y así sucesivamente. Por > ello, esta entidad nueva deberá establecer relaciones adecuadas con todos > estos organismos existentes, incluyendo el redireccionamiento hacia éstos > de las cuestiones de política pública relacionadas con ellos, recibir sus > aportes y comentarios, y a su vez contribuir con sus perspectivas > específicas a los temas relacionados con Internet que son de competencia de > estos otros organismos. > > > *Un nuevo Consejo **Asesor** y de Supervisión Técnica de Internet: * > > Este Consejo sustituirá la supervisión actual del gobierno de los Estados > Unidos sobre las funciones técnicas y operativas a cargo de ICANN. Los > miembros de este comité de supervisión puede ser de carácter > técnico-político, es decir, personas con conocimientos especializados, pero > que además cuentan con respaldo político adecuado, demostrado mediante un > proceso democrático. Por ejemplo, el consejo puede tener de 10 a 15 > miembros, con 2/3 miembros por cada una de las cinco regiones geográficas > (como las define el sistema de las Naciones Unidas). Estos miembros se > pueden seleccionar a través de un proceso adecuado por los órganos > pertinentes de normas técnicas o los organismos de nombres de dominio de > todos los países de la región respectiva. (Otros mecanismos para la > constitución de los miembros técnico-políticos de este ámbito también se > pueden considerar.) > > Este Consejo Asesor y de supervisión técnica de Internet procurará que las > diversas funciones técnicas y operativas relacionadas con la Internet > mundial se lleven a cabo por las organizaciones pertinentes de acuerdo a la > ley internacional y los principios de política pública desarrollada por los > organismos internacionales competentes. Con relación a la ICANN, el papel > de este foro será más o menos el mismo que ejerce el gobierno de los > Estados Unidos en su supervisión actual de ICANN. Los mecanismos > descentralizados de desarrollo de estándares de Internet, como el Grupo de > Trabajo de Ingeniería de Internet, y otros sistemas de organización > autónoma que promueven la adopción voluntaria de normas seguirán > funcionando como hasta ahora. El nuevo Consejo tendrá un papel no > vinculante con respecto a ellos y los asesorará sobre estándares técnicos > derivados de las políticas públicas internacionales, el derecho > internacional y las normas desarrolladas por los diferentes organismos > pertinentes. > > Para que este Consejo pueda cumplir su mandato de supervisión, ICANN debe > convertirse en una organización internacional, sin cambiar su actual > carácter multisectorial de manera sustancial. Para continuar teniendo su > sede en Estados Unidos, ICANN debe obtener de este país un acuerdo de país > sede que le garantice plena inmunidad con respecto a la ley de Estados > Unidos y su poder ejecutivo, y se guiará exclusivamente por el derecho > internacional en virtud del cual estará constituída. La supervisión del > servidor de zona raíz (root zone server) autorizado también debe ser > transferida a este Consejo, que ejercerá este rol con la ayuda de una ICANN > internacionalizada. > > El Consejo asesorará además al nuevo organismo de política pública antes > mencionado sobre cuestiones técnicas relativas a la formulación de > políticas de Internet y recibirá de éste orientaciones sobre políticas > públicas. > > > *Convención Marco sobre Internet: *Un marco jurídico internacional > adecuado es necesario, más temprano que tarde, para que los organismos > descriptos arriba funcionen correctamente. En consecuencia, una de las > primeras tareas de la "nueva entidad” sobre cuestiones de política pública > relacionadas con Internet, descripta anteriormente, será la asistencia a la > negociación de "Convenio Marco para Internet" (similar a la Convención > Marco sobre el Cambio Climático). > La Gobernanza de Internet implica diferentes tipos de problemas que están > en constante evolución. Es, por tanto, preferible formular una estructura > legal habilitante como "convenio marco" y no como un tratado o convención > detallados, que aborden sólo un conjunto predeterminado de cuestiones. > También puede ser más fácil llegar a un acuerdo inicial sobre una serie de > principios, protocolos y procesos que pueden enmarcar nuevos acuerdos, > tratados, etcétera, sobre temas más específicos. > > Dicha Convención Marco permitirá respuestas políticas globales adecuadas y > permanentes a las diversas oportunidades y desafíos que el fenómeno de > rápida evolución de Internet plantea. También formalizará la arquitectura > básica de la gobernanza global de Internet; reconociendo y legitimando el > papel y las funciones actuales de los distintos organismos que participan > actualmente en la gestión de la infraestructura técnica y lógica de > Internet, incluida la ICANN, los Registros Regionales de Internet, los > organismos de estándares técnicos, etc. > > También se necesitará crear mecanismos adecuados para responder a > eventuales crisis y para la resolución de conflictos en relación con la > Internet global y la actividad social dependientes de ella. > > > *Relación con el IGF* > > > El Foro de Gobernanza de Internet de las Naciones Unidas (IGF) se > estableció como un “foro de diálogo político” multisectorial por la Cumbre > Mundial sobre la Sociedad de la Información. El mecanismo propuesto de > gobernanza de la Internet global, sobre todo la nueva entidad de la ONU, > mantendrá una estrecha relación con el IGF. El IGF ofrece un nuevo tipo de > mecanismo participativo para la elaboración de políticas, que > institucionaliza la participación y es relativamente independiente de los > organismos de toma de decisiones. El IGF debe, preferentemente, tratar con > antelación los temas que serán luego decididos por la nueva entidad y > presentar diversas perspectivas para su consideración. Una buena parte de > la agenda de este nuevo organismo puede surgir de la IGF. Siempre que sea > posible, los proyectos de propuestas a ser adoptadas por la nueva entidad > deben ser compartidos con el IGF. > > Para llevar a cabo su papel de promover la participación, el IGF debe > reforzarse y reformarse adecuadamente, sobre todo para hacer frente al > predominio de los intereses empresariales del Norte en su trabajo actual. > Debe ser apoyado con fondos públicos, y aislado de cualquier sistema de > financiación que pueda ejercer influencias indebidas en su programa y sus > resultados. Otras medidas serán necesarias, Además, para garantizar la > participación en el IGF de grupos que suelen estar poco representados, en > lugar de dar más peso político a los ya dominantes. > > Un órgano de participación existe en función de los mecanismos de toma de > decisión que se alimentan de él. En ese sentido, la relevancia y > efectividad del IGF dependerán de la fortaleza de la entidad de desarrollo > de políticas a la que estará conectado. Invertir en el IGF solo será útil > si sus resultados y contribuciones conducen a algo concreto. > > > *Financiamiento* > > Una forma innovadora de financiar los nuevos mecanismos propuestos de > gobernanza de la Internet global, así como al IGF, es la de aprovechar las > recaudaciones de los órganos pertinentes de asignación de nombres y números > en la Internet global (tal como la tasa que ICANN recibe anualmente de cada > propietario de un nombre de dominio). Estas recaudaciones son actualmente > de varios millones de dólares cada año y podrían ser suficientes para > financiar una gran parte de los mecanismos necesarios para la gobernanza > democrática de la Internet global. > > > Para terminar, podemos añadir que no hay nada realmente muy novedoso en > esta propuesta para la creación de nuevos mecanismos para la gobernanza > global de Internet. Modelos similares fueron propuestos, por ejemplo, en el > informe del Grupo de Trabajo sobre Gobernanza de Internet que se creó > durante la Cumbre Mundial sobre la Sociedad de la Información, en el año > 2004. > > Esperamos que el Grupo de Trabajo sobre Cooperación reforzada cumplirá su > importante cometido de conducir al mundo hacia el camino de la gobernanza > democrática de los bienes comunes globales de la Internet. > > > 1 <#140c94ccee9cd41a_sdfootnote1anc> Disponible en * > http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_statement_on_democratic_internet* > > 2 <#140c94ccee9cd41a_sdfootnote2anc> “Enhanced cooperation”. Este término > fue utilizado en Los documentos finales de la Cumbre Mundial sobre la > Sociedad de la Información, celebrada en 2005, para referirse al cometido > de continuar explorando los mecanismos necesarios para la gobernanza global > de Internet. > > 3 <#140c94ccee9cd41a_sdfootnote3anc> ICANN es la sigla en inglés de la > Corporación para la Asignación de Nombres y Números de Internet, la > institución sin fines de lucro, con sede en Estados Unidos, que administra > la mayor parte de las funciones de infraestructura técnica y lógica > relacionados con Internet. > > > > > On Wednesday 28 August 2013 04:23 PM, parminder wrote: > > Dear All > > IT for Change and some other NGOs plan to forward the following position > to the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Preceding the position > statement is a covering letter seeking support. You are *welcome to > support this position any time before 12 noon GMT on 31st Aug*. We are > happy to provide any additional information/ clarification etc. Also happy > to otherwise discuss this position, and its different elements. We are > motivated by the need to come up with precise and clear institutional > options at this stage. Politics of inertia and not doing anything just > serves the status quo. These may not be the best institutional options, and > we are ready to enter into discussion with other groups on what instead > would be the better options. But, again, not doing anything is, in our > opinion, would be detrimental to global public interest. > > The web link to this position is at > http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_input_to_the_UN_Working_Group_for_global_governance_of_the_Internet. > > parminder > > > *Covering letter / Background > * > In May 2012, more than 60 civil society organisations and several > individuals participated in a campaign for 'democratising the global > governance of the Internet'. > A joint letter signed by the participants of this campaign *inter alia*asked for setting up a UN Working Group towards this objective. Such a > Working Group was set up and has now asked for public inputs to formulate > its recommendations. > > In our joint letter, we had proposed some outlines for reforming the > current global governance architecture of the Internet. Time has come now > to make more clear and specific recommendations of the actual institutional > mechanism that we need. With most governments more worried about their > narrow geopolitical interests and relationships with individual countries, > it falls upon the civil society to be bold and forward looking and put > precise proposals on the table that can then be taken forward by state > actors. > > In a post-Snowden world, there is deep discomfort among almost all > countries, other than the US, with the manner in which the global Internet > is run and is evolving. The need for some global norms, principles, rules, > and necessary governance mechanisms for the global Internet is being felt > now as never before. The Internet can no longer remain anchored to the > political and business interests of one country, or to serving global > capital, as it is at present. As a global commons, it is our collective > democratic right and responsibility to participate in the governance of the > Internet, so that it can become a vehicle for greater prosperity, equity > and social justice for all. > > We seek your support to join us in proposing the enclosed document as an > input to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. The Working Group has > sought public inputs through a questionnaire which can be seen at > http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx . The most important question is at > number 8, which seeks input with regard to precise mechanism(s) that are > required. Our response will mostly address this all-important question. > (You are also encouraged to, separately, give a fuller response to the > questionnaire on your behalf or on behalf of your organization.) We will > also like to give wide media publicity to this civil society statement . > > We will be glad if you can send your response to us *before the 30th of > August*. We are of course happy to respond to any clarification or > additional information that you may want to seek in the above regard. > Please also circulate this to others who you think may want to participate > in this initiative. The global Internet governance space seems to be > dominated by those who push for neoliberal models of governance. We must > therefore have as many voices heard as possible. > > (The statement is cut pasted below this email and may also be seen here) > > With best regard, > > Parminder > > > *Parminder Jeet Singh* > ------------------------------ > IT for Change > In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC > www.ITforChange.net > T: 00-91-80-26654134 | T: 00-91-80-26536890 | Fax: 00-91-80-41461055 > > *A civil society input to the UN Working Group looking at * > > *institutional mechanisms for global governance of the Internet * > > *(Please write to itfc @itforchange.netbefore 29th Aug if you will like to endorse this statement) > * > > * > Why global governance of the Internet?* > > Internet governance is seen largely in terms of national sovereignty and > security or as pertaining to free speech and privacy. We are of the view > that there exist many other equally important issues for global Internet > governance that arise from the whole gamut of rights and aspirations of > people – social, economic, cultural, political and developmental. The > relationship of the global Internet to cultural diversity is one example. > The Internet increasingly determines not only the global flows of > information but also of cultures, and their commodification. No social > process is exempt from the influence of the Internet – from education to > health and governance. Social systems at national and local levels are > being transformed under the influence of the global Internet. > > Instead of decentralizing power, the current structure of the global > Internet tends to centralize control in the hands of a small number of > companies. Some of these companies have near-monopoly power over key areas > of economic and social significance. Therefore, regulation of global > Internet business through pertinent competition law, consumer law, open > interoperability standards, etc, is becoming a pressing need. Increasing > statist controls need to be similarly resisted. With the emergent paradigm > of cloud computing presenting the looming prospect of remote management of > our digital lives from different 'power centres' across the world, it is > inconceivable that we can do without appropriate democratic governance of > the global Internet. Post-Snowden, as many countries have begun to > contemplate and even embark upon measures for 'digital sovereignty', the > only way to preserve a *global** *Internet is through formulating > appropriate *global* norms, principles and rules that will underpin its > governance. > > *Background of this civil society input* > > A group of over 60 civil society organizations and several individuals, > made a statement on *'Democratizing the global governance of the Internet > '* to the open consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'1 called by the > Chair of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) > on May 18th, 2012, in Geneva. The statement *inter alia* sought the > setting up of a CSTD Working Group to address this issue. We are happy to > note that such a Working Group has been set up and has now called for > public inputs to make its recommendations. This document is an input to the > Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) on the behalf of the > undersigned . > > In the aforementioned statementof May 2012, the civil society signatories had called for the following > institutional developments to take place in the global Internet governance > architecture: > > *Our demands with respect to 'global' Internet Governance espouse a > simple and obvious democratic logic. On the technical governance side, the > oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure, > at present with the US government, should be transferred to an appropriate, > democratic and participative, multi-lateral body, without disturbing the > existing distributed architecture of technical governance of the Internet > in any significant way. (However, improvements in the technical governance > systems are certainly needed.) On the side of larger Internet related > public policy-making on global social, economic, cultural and political > issues, the OECD-based model of global policy making, as well as the > default application of US laws, should be replaced by a new UN-based > democratic mechanism. Any such new arrangement should be based on the > principle of subsidiarity, and be innovative in terms of its mandate, > structure, and functions, to be adequate to the unique requirements of > global Internet governance. It must be fully participative of all > stakeholders, promoting the democratic and innovative potential of the* *Internet. > * > > As the WGEC deliberates on concrete ways to move forward, the time is ripe > to propose clear and specific institutional mechanisms for democratizing > the global governance of the Internet. We have, therefore, expanded the > above demands into specific mechanisms that should be set in place for this > purpose. > > *New global governance mechanisms are needed* > > We are of the view that it would be useful to have two distinct mechanisms > – one that looks at the global Internet-related public policy issues in > various social, economic, cultural and political domains, and another that > should undertake oversight of the technical and operational functions > related to the Internet (basically, replacing the current unilateral > oversight of the ICANN2 by the US government). This will require setting > up appropriate new global governance bodies as well as a framework of > international law to facilitate their work, as follows. > > *A new UN body for Internet-related public policy issues:** * An anchor > global institution for taking up and addressing various public policy > issues pertaining to the Internet in an ongoing manner is urgently > required. It can be a committee attached to the UN General Assembly or a > more elaborate and relatively autonomous set up linked loosely to the UN > (as a specialized UN body). It should have a very strong and > institutionalized public consultative mechanism, in the form of > stakeholder advisory groups that are selected through formal processes by > different stakeholder constituencies, ensuring adequate representativeness. > (OECD's *Committee on Computer, Information and Communication Policy*and India's recent proposal for a > *UN* > *Committee on > Internet-related Policies* > are two useful, and > somewhat similar, models that can be looked at.) > > This 'new body' will stay abreast of global Internet-related issues; where > necessary, develop international level public policies in the concerned > areas; seek appropriate harmonization of national level policies, and; > facilitate required treaties, conventions and agreements. It will also have > the necessary means to undertake studies and present analyses in different > policy areas. > > Most Internet-related public policy issues are of a cross-cutting nature, > and involve overlaps with mandates of other existing global governance > bodies, like WIPO, UNESCO, WTO, UNDP, UNCTAD, ITU and so on. Due to this > reason, the proposed new 'body' will establish appropriate relationships > with all these other existing bodies, including directing relevant public > policy issues to them, receiving their inputs and comments, and itself > contributing specific Internet-related perspectives to issues under the > purview of these other bodies. > > *A new 'Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Board':* This board > will replace the US government's current oversight role over the technical > and operational functions performed by ICANN. The membership of this > oversight board can be of a techno-political nature, *i.e.* consisting of > people with specialized expertise but who also have appropriate political > backing, ascertained through a democratic process. For instance, the board > can be made of 10/15 members, with 2/3 members each from five geographic > regions (as understood in the UN system). These members can perhaps be > selected through an appropriate process by the relevant technical standards > bodies and/or country domain name bodies of all the countries of the > respective region. (Other mechanisms for constituting the techno-political > membership of this board can also be considered.) > > The Internet technical oversight and advisory board will seek to ensure > that the various technical and operational functions related to the global > Internet are undertaken by the relevant organizations as per international > law and public policy principles developed by the concerned international > bodies. With regard to ICANN, the role of this board will more or less be > exactly the same as exercised by the US government in its oversight over > ICANN. As for the decentralized Internet standards development mechanisms, > like the Internet Engineering Task Force, these self organizing systems > based on voluntary adoption of standards will continue to work as at > present. The new board will have a very light touch and non-binding role > with regard to them. It will bring in imperatives from, and advise these > technical standards bodies on, international public policies, international > law and norms being developed by various relevant bodies. > > For this board to be able to fulfill its oversight mandate, ICANN must > become an international organization, without changing its existing > multistakeholder character in any substantial manner. It would enter into a > host country agreement with the US government (if ICANN has to continue to > be headquartered in the US). It would have full immunity from US law and > executive authority, and be guided solely by international law, and be > incorporated under it. Supervision of the authoritative root zone server > must also be transferred to this oversight broad. The board will exercise > this role with the help of an internationalized ICANN. > > This board will also advise the afore-mentioned new public policy body on > technical matters pertaining to the Internet policy making, as well as take > public policy inputs from it. > > *Framework Convention on the Internet:** *An appropriate international > legal framework will be required sooner than later for the above bodies to > function properly. Accordingly, one of the early tasks of the proposed 'new > body' dealing with Internet-related public policy issues, discussed above, > will be to help negotiate a 'Framework Convention on the Internet' > (somewhat like the *Framework Convention on Climate Change > )*. Governance of the Internet concerns different kinds of issues that > are ever-evolving. It is, therefore, preferable to formulate an enabling > legal structure as a 'framework convention' rather than as a specific > treaty or convention that addresses only a bounded set of issues. It may > also be easier to initially agree to a series of principles, protocols and > processes that can then frame further agreements, treaties etc on more > specific issues. > > Such a Framework Convention will thus enable appropriate and ongoing > global policy responses to various opportunities and challenges that the > fast-evolving phenomenon of the Internet throws up. It will also formalize > the basic architecture of the global governance of the Internet; * inter > alia* recognizing and legitimizing the existing role and functions of the > various bodies currently involved with managing the technical and logical > infrastructure of the Internet, including the ICANN, Regional Internet > Registries, Internet technical standards bodies and so on. > > Appropriate mechanisms for crisis response and dispute resolution in > relation to the global Internet, and the social activity dependent on it, > will also be required to be set up. > > *Relationship with the IGF* > > The UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was established as a > multistakeholder 'policy dialogue forum' by the World Summit on the > Information Society. The proposed global Internet policy mechanism, > especially the new UN based body, will maintain a close relationship with > the IGF. IGF affords a very new kind of participative mechanism for policy > making, whereby the participation realm is institutionalized, and > relatively independent of the policy making structures. The IGF should > preferably pre-discuss issues that are taken up by this new policy body and > present diverse perspectives for its consideration. A good part of the > agenda for this new body can emerge from the IGF. Whenever possible, draft > proposals to be adopted by this new body should be shared with the IGF. > > To perform such a participation enhancing role, the IGF must be adequately > strengthened and reformed, especially to address the dominance of Northern > corporatist interests in its current working. It must be supported with > public funds, and insulated from any funding system that can bring in > perverse influences on its agenda and outcomes. Other required processes > must also be put in place to ensure that the IGF indeed brings in > constituencies that are typically under-represented, rather than provide > further political clout to the already dominant. > > A participative body is only as good as the policy making mechanisms that > feed off it. To that extent, the meaningfulness and effectiveness of the > IGF itself requires a strong policy development mechanism, as suggested in > this document, to be linked to it. Investing in the IGF is useful only if > its outputs and contributions lead to something concrete. > > *Funding* > > An innovative way to fund the proposed new global Internet policy > mechanisms, and also the IGF, is to tap into the collections made by the > relevant bodies from allocation of names and numbers resources pertaining > to the global Internet (like the fee that ICANN collects annually from each > domain name owner). These accruals now run into millions of dollars every > year and could be adequate to fund a large part of the needed mechanisms > for democratic governance of the global Internet. > > In the end, we may add that there is nothing really very novel in the > above proposal for setting up new mechanisms for global governance of the > Internet. Similar models, for instance, were proposed in the report of the > Working Group on Internet Governance that was set up during the World > Summit on the Information Society, back in 2004. > > We hope that the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will fulfill its > high mandate to lead the world towards the path of democratic governance of > the global commons of the Internet. > > 1The outcome documents of the World Summit on the Information Society, > held in 2005, employed this as a placeholder term giving the mandate for > further exploration of the necessary mechanisms for global governance of > the Internet. > > 2Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the US based > non-profit that manages much of technical and logical infrastructural > functions related to the Internet. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From amedinagomez at gmail.com Thu Aug 29 07:15:21 2013 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 06:15:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] Spanish - Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <521DD692.700@itforchange.net> <521F0D03.5060403@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder muchas gracias por esta información que compartes (en Español) Cordial saludo Antonio Medina Gómez Presidente Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet 2013/8/29 Ginger Paque > Dear Parminder: > Great to see a Spanish version offered. This is very important. > Gracias! > Ginger > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet > governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance > specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy > and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read > more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* > ** > ** > > > On 29 August 2013 03:57, parminder wrote: > >> >> For friends more comfortable in Spanish, below is a Spanish translation >> of the proposed joined statement and also enclosed..... parminder >> >> >> * **Urgente! Se necesita su apoyo para impulsar una visión progresista >> de la sociedad civil en el Grupo de Trabajo de la ONU que formulará >> recomendaciones para la democratización de la gobernanza global de Internet. >> * >> >> >> *Una contribución de la sociedad civil al Grupo de Trabajo de la ONU >> sobre mecanismos institucionales para la gobernanza global de Internet* >> >> >> *(Por favor escriba a **itfc at itforchange.net* *antes >> de las 12 horas GMT el 31 de agosto, si usted desea refrendar esta >> afirmación)* >> >> >> *¿Por qué importa la gobernanza global de Internet?* >> >> >> La gobernanza de Internet es vista por unos en términos de soberanía y >> seguridad nacional y por otros como relativa a la libertad de expresión y >> la privacidad. Somos de la opinión de que existen muchas otras cuestiones >> igualmente importantes para la gobernanza global de Internet que surgen de >> toda la gama de los derechos y las aspiraciones de la gente: derechos >> sociales, económicos, culturales, políticos y al desarrollo. La relación de >> la Internet global con la diversidad cultural es un ejemplo. La Internet >> determina cada vez más no sólo los flujos globales de información, sino >> también las culturas, y su mercantilización. Ningún proceso social está >> exento de la influencia de Internet, desde la educación a la salud y la >> gobernanza. Los sistemas sociales a nivel nacional y local, se están >> transformando bajo la influencia de la Internet global. >> >> En vez de descentralizar el poder, la estructura actual de la Internet >> global tiende a centralizar el control en manos de un pequeño número de >> empresas. Algunas de estas empresas tienen un poder casi monopolio sobre >> áreas clave de importancia económica y social. Por lo tanto, la regulación >> de los negocios globales de Internet a través de legislación sobre >> competencia (contra los monopolios), de protección a los consumidores, >> normas abiertas de interoperabilidad y otras, se está convirtiendo en una >> necesidad apremiante. El aumento de los controles estatistas tiene que ser >> resistido de manera similar. Con el paradigma emergente de la computación >> “en la nube” (“cloud computing”) se presenta la perspectiva inminente de >> una administración remota de nuestras vidas digitales por parte de >> diferentes "centros de poder" en todo el mundo. Es inconcebible que podamos >> prescindir de la gobernanza democrática apropiada de la Internet global. En >> el mundo post-Snowden, cuando muchos países han comenzado a contemplar e >> incluso emprender medidas para afirmar su "soberanía digital", la única >> manera de preservar una Internet global es a través de la formulación de >> las normas *mundiales *pertinentes. Estos principios y normas servirán >> de base a su gobernanza. >> >> >> *Antecedentes de la contribución de la sociedad civil,* >> >> >> Un grupo de más de 60 organizaciones de la sociedad civil y muchos >> individuos, hizo una declaración sobre “La democratización de la >> gobernanza global de Internet >> ”1 <#140c9c4bc3c8885a_140c94ccee9cd41a_sdfootnote1sym>, dirigida a las >> consultas abiertas sobre 'cooperación reforzada'2<#140c9c4bc3c8885a_140c94ccee9cd41a_sdfootnote2sym>convocadas por el Presidente de la Comisión de Ciencia y Tecnología para el >> Desarrollo (CSTD) el 18 de mayo de 2012, en Ginebra. Esta declaración >> reclamaba, entre otras cosas, la creación de un Grupo de Trabajo sobre CSTD >> para abordar esta cuestión. Nos complace observar que dicho grupo de >> trabajo se ha creado y ha solicitado insumos del público para formular sus >> recomendaciones. Este documento es un aporte al Grupo de Trabajo sobre >> Cooperación Ampliada (GTCE), respaldado por los abajo firmantes. >> >> En la mencionada declaración, >> en mayo de 2012, los firmantes de la sociedad civil pedían que los >> siguientes cambios institucionales en la arquitectura global de la >> gobernanza de Internet: >> >> >> *Nuestras demandas con respecto a la gobernanza “global” de Internet se >> basan en una lógica democrática simple y obvia. En el aspecto técnico, la >> supervisión de la infraestructura crítica, técnica y lógica, de la >> Internet, que en la actualidad es realizada por el gobierno de Estados >> Unidos, debe ser transferida a un órgano multilateral apropiado, >> democrático y participativo, sin alterar la arquitectura distribuida >> existente de gobernanza técnica de Internet de manera significativa. (Sin >> embargo, son sin duda necesarias mejoras en los sistemas de gobernanza >> técnica.) Por el lado de los temas mayores de Internet, relacionados con la >> formulación de políticas públicas en materia social, económica, cultural y >> política global, el modelo de toma de decisiones basado en la OCDE, así >> como la aplicación por defecto de las leyes de los Estados Unidos, debe ser >> sustituido por un nuevo mecanismo democrático basado en la ONU. Cualquier >> nuevo acuerdo debería basarse en el principio de subsidiariedad, y ser >> innovador en términos de su mandato, la estructura y funciones, para ser >> adecuado a las necesidades específicas de la gobernanza global de Internet. >> Debe ser plenamente participativo de todos los interesados, promoviendo el >> potencial democrático e innovador de la* *Internet.* >> >> >> Ahora que la GTCE delibera sobre formas concretas para avanzar, ha >> llegado el momento de proponer mecanismos institucionales claros y >> específicos para la democratización de la gobernanza global de Internet. >> Hemos ampliado, por lo tanto, las demandas arriba citadas para sugerir >> mecanismos específicos que se deben establecer en su lugar para este fin. >> >> >> *Se necesitan nuevos mecanismos de gobernanza mundial* >> >> >> Creemos que sería útil disponer de dos mecanismos diferentes: uno >> dirigido a las cuestiones de política pública relacionadas con la Internet >> global en distintos ámbitos sociales, económicos, culturales y políticos, y >> otro que supervise los aspectos técnicos y operativos relacionadas con la >> Internet (básicamente, en sustitución de la actual supervisión unilateral >> de la ICANN3 <#140c9c4bc3c8885a_140c94ccee9cd41a_sdfootnote3sym> por el >> gobierno de los Estados Unidos). Para ello será necesario la creación de >> nuevos órganos de gobernanza global adecuadas, así como un marco de derecho >> internacional para facilitar su trabajo, como exponemos a continuación. >> >> >> *Un nuevo organismo de la ONU para cuestiones de política pública >> relacionadas con Internet:* >> >> Se requiere con urgencia una institución global que se ocupe de diversas >> cuestiones de política pública relacionadas con Internet de una manera >> continua. Puede ser un comité adjunto a la Asamblea General de la ONU o una >> entidad relativamente autónoma (como, por ejemplo, un organismo >> especializado de las Naciones Unidas). Esta entidad debe contar con un >> mecanismo muy fuerte e institucionalizada de consultas públicas, en la >> forma de un grupo de asesores de las partes interesadas, seleccionados a >> través de procesos formales por los distintos grupos de partes interesadas, >> garantizando la representatividad adecuada. (El Comité de Informática, >> Información y Comunicación Políticade la OCDE y >> la reciente propuesta de la India sobre un Comité de Políticas >> relacionadas con Internetde la ONU son >> dos útiles, y en cierto modo similares, modelos que se pueden seguir). >> >> Esta nueva entidad se mantendrá al tanto de los problemas mundiales >> relacionados con Internet, y cuando necesario desarrollorá políticas >> públicas a nivel internacional en las áreas de interés, buscará la adecuada >> armonización de las políticas nacionales y facilitará los tratados, >> convenios y acuerdos necesarios. Deberá contar con los medios adecuados >> para llevar a cabo estudios y presentar análisis en sus diferentes ámbitos >> de actuación. >> >> La mayoría de las cuestiones de política pública relacionadas con >> Internet son de carácter intersectorial, e involucran superposiciones con >> los mandatos de otros órganos de gobernanza mundial existentes, como la >> OMPI, la UNESCO, la OMC, el PNUD, la UNCTAD, la UIT y así sucesivamente. >> Por ello, esta entidad nueva deberá establecer relaciones adecuadas con >> todos estos organismos existentes, incluyendo el redireccionamiento hacia >> éstos de las cuestiones de política pública relacionadas con ellos, recibir >> sus aportes y comentarios, y a su vez contribuir con sus perspectivas >> específicas a los temas relacionados con Internet que son de competencia de >> estos otros organismos. >> >> >> *Un nuevo Consejo **Asesor** y de Supervisión Técnica de Internet: * >> >> Este Consejo sustituirá la supervisión actual del gobierno de los Estados >> Unidos sobre las funciones técnicas y operativas a cargo de ICANN. Los >> miembros de este comité de supervisión puede ser de carácter >> técnico-político, es decir, personas con conocimientos especializados, pero >> que además cuentan con respaldo político adecuado, demostrado mediante un >> proceso democrático. Por ejemplo, el consejo puede tener de 10 a 15 >> miembros, con 2/3 miembros por cada una de las cinco regiones geográficas >> (como las define el sistema de las Naciones Unidas). Estos miembros se >> pueden seleccionar a través de un proceso adecuado por los órganos >> pertinentes de normas técnicas o los organismos de nombres de dominio de >> todos los países de la región respectiva. (Otros mecanismos para la >> constitución de los miembros técnico-políticos de este ámbito también se >> pueden considerar.) >> >> Este Consejo Asesor y de supervisión técnica de Internet procurará que >> las diversas funciones técnicas y operativas relacionadas con la Internet >> mundial se lleven a cabo por las organizaciones pertinentes de acuerdo a la >> ley internacional y los principios de política pública desarrollada por los >> organismos internacionales competentes. Con relación a la ICANN, el papel >> de este foro será más o menos el mismo que ejerce el gobierno de los >> Estados Unidos en su supervisión actual de ICANN. Los mecanismos >> descentralizados de desarrollo de estándares de Internet, como el Grupo de >> Trabajo de Ingeniería de Internet, y otros sistemas de organización >> autónoma que promueven la adopción voluntaria de normas seguirán >> funcionando como hasta ahora. El nuevo Consejo tendrá un papel no >> vinculante con respecto a ellos y los asesorará sobre estándares técnicos >> derivados de las políticas públicas internacionales, el derecho >> internacional y las normas desarrolladas por los diferentes organismos >> pertinentes. >> >> Para que este Consejo pueda cumplir su mandato de supervisión, ICANN debe >> convertirse en una organización internacional, sin cambiar su actual >> carácter multisectorial de manera sustancial. Para continuar teniendo su >> sede en Estados Unidos, ICANN debe obtener de este país un acuerdo de país >> sede que le garantice plena inmunidad con respecto a la ley de Estados >> Unidos y su poder ejecutivo, y se guiará exclusivamente por el derecho >> internacional en virtud del cual estará constituída. La supervisión del >> servidor de zona raíz (root zone server) autorizado también debe ser >> transferida a este Consejo, que ejercerá este rol con la ayuda de una ICANN >> internacionalizada. >> >> El Consejo asesorará además al nuevo organismo de política pública antes >> mencionado sobre cuestiones técnicas relativas a la formulación de >> políticas de Internet y recibirá de éste orientaciones sobre políticas >> públicas. >> >> >> *Convención Marco sobre Internet: *Un marco jurídico internacional >> adecuado es necesario, más temprano que tarde, para que los organismos >> descriptos arriba funcionen correctamente. En consecuencia, una de las >> primeras tareas de la "nueva entidad” sobre cuestiones de política pública >> relacionadas con Internet, descripta anteriormente, será la asistencia a la >> negociación de "Convenio Marco para Internet" (similar a la Convención >> Marco sobre el Cambio Climático). >> La Gobernanza de Internet implica diferentes tipos de problemas que están >> en constante evolución. Es, por tanto, preferible formular una estructura >> legal habilitante como "convenio marco" y no como un tratado o convención >> detallados, que aborden sólo un conjunto predeterminado de cuestiones. >> También puede ser más fácil llegar a un acuerdo inicial sobre una serie de >> principios, protocolos y procesos que pueden enmarcar nuevos acuerdos, >> tratados, etcétera, sobre temas más específicos. >> >> Dicha Convención Marco permitirá respuestas políticas globales adecuadas >> y permanentes a las diversas oportunidades y desafíos que el fenómeno de >> rápida evolución de Internet plantea. También formalizará la arquitectura >> básica de la gobernanza global de Internet; reconociendo y legitimando el >> papel y las funciones actuales de los distintos organismos que participan >> actualmente en la gestión de la infraestructura técnica y lógica de >> Internet, incluida la ICANN, los Registros Regionales de Internet, los >> organismos de estándares técnicos, etc. >> >> También se necesitará crear mecanismos adecuados para responder a >> eventuales crisis y para la resolución de conflictos en relación con la >> Internet global y la actividad social dependientes de ella. >> >> >> *Relación con el IGF* >> >> >> El Foro de Gobernanza de Internet de las Naciones Unidas (IGF) se >> estableció como un “foro de diálogo político” multisectorial por la Cumbre >> Mundial sobre la Sociedad de la Información. El mecanismo propuesto de >> gobernanza de la Internet global, sobre todo la nueva entidad de la ONU, >> mantendrá una estrecha relación con el IGF. El IGF ofrece un nuevo tipo de >> mecanismo participativo para la elaboración de políticas, que >> institucionaliza la participación y es relativamente independiente de los >> organismos de toma de decisiones. El IGF debe, preferentemente, tratar con >> antelación los temas que serán luego decididos por la nueva entidad y >> presentar diversas perspectivas para su consideración. Una buena parte de >> la agenda de este nuevo organismo puede surgir de la IGF. Siempre que sea >> posible, los proyectos de propuestas a ser adoptadas por la nueva entidad >> deben ser compartidos con el IGF. >> >> Para llevar a cabo su papel de promover la participación, el IGF debe >> reforzarse y reformarse adecuadamente, sobre todo para hacer frente al >> predominio de los intereses empresariales del Norte en su trabajo actual. >> Debe ser apoyado con fondos públicos, y aislado de cualquier sistema de >> financiación que pueda ejercer influencias indebidas en su programa y sus >> resultados. Otras medidas serán necesarias, Además, para garantizar la >> participación en el IGF de grupos que suelen estar poco representados, en >> lugar de dar más peso político a los ya dominantes. >> >> Un órgano de participación existe en función de los mecanismos de toma de >> decisión que se alimentan de él. En ese sentido, la relevancia y >> efectividad del IGF dependerán de la fortaleza de la entidad de desarrollo >> de políticas a la que estará conectado. Invertir en el IGF solo será útil >> si sus resultados y contribuciones conducen a algo concreto. >> >> >> *Financiamiento* >> >> Una forma innovadora de financiar los nuevos mecanismos propuestos de >> gobernanza de la Internet global, así como al IGF, es la de aprovechar las >> recaudaciones de los órganos pertinentes de asignación de nombres y números >> en la Internet global (tal como la tasa que ICANN recibe anualmente de cada >> propietario de un nombre de dominio). Estas recaudaciones son actualmente >> de varios millones de dólares cada año y podrían ser suficientes para >> financiar una gran parte de los mecanismos necesarios para la gobernanza >> democrática de la Internet global. >> >> >> Para terminar, podemos añadir que no hay nada realmente muy novedoso en >> esta propuesta para la creación de nuevos mecanismos para la gobernanza >> global de Internet. Modelos similares fueron propuestos, por ejemplo, en el >> informe del Grupo de Trabajo sobre Gobernanza de Internet que se creó >> durante la Cumbre Mundial sobre la Sociedad de la Información, en el año >> 2004. >> >> Esperamos que el Grupo de Trabajo sobre Cooperación reforzada cumplirá su >> importante cometido de conducir al mundo hacia el camino de la gobernanza >> democrática de los bienes comunes globales de la Internet. >> >> >> 1 <#140c9c4bc3c8885a_140c94ccee9cd41a_sdfootnote1anc> Disponible en * >> http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_statement_on_democratic_internet >> * >> >> 2 <#140c9c4bc3c8885a_140c94ccee9cd41a_sdfootnote2anc> “Enhanced >> cooperation”. Este término fue utilizado en Los documentos finales de la >> Cumbre Mundial sobre la Sociedad de la Información, celebrada en 2005, para >> referirse al cometido de continuar explorando los mecanismos necesarios >> para la gobernanza global de Internet. >> >> 3 <#140c9c4bc3c8885a_140c94ccee9cd41a_sdfootnote3anc> ICANN es la sigla >> en inglés de la Corporación para la Asignación de Nombres y Números de >> Internet, la institución sin fines de lucro, con sede en Estados Unidos, >> que administra la mayor parte de las funciones de infraestructura técnica y >> lógica relacionados con Internet. >> >> >> >> >> On Wednesday 28 August 2013 04:23 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> Dear All >> >> IT for Change and some other NGOs plan to forward the following position >> to the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Preceding the position >> statement is a covering letter seeking support. You are *welcome to >> support this position any time before 12 noon GMT on 31st Aug*. We are >> happy to provide any additional information/ clarification etc. Also happy >> to otherwise discuss this position, and its different elements. We are >> motivated by the need to come up with precise and clear institutional >> options at this stage. Politics of inertia and not doing anything just >> serves the status quo. These may not be the best institutional options, and >> we are ready to enter into discussion with other groups on what instead >> would be the better options. But, again, not doing anything is, in our >> opinion, would be detrimental to global public interest. >> >> The web link to this position is at >> http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_input_to_the_UN_Working_Group_for_global_governance_of_the_Internet. >> >> parminder >> >> >> *Covering letter / Background >> * >> In May 2012, more than 60 civil society organisations and several >> individuals participated in a campaign for 'democratising the global >> governance of the Internet'. >> A joint letter signed by the participants of this campaign *inter alia*asked for setting up a UN Working Group towards this objective. Such a >> Working Group was set up and has now asked for public inputs to formulate >> its recommendations. >> >> In our joint letter, we had proposed some outlines for reforming the >> current global governance architecture of the Internet. Time has come now >> to make more clear and specific recommendations of the actual institutional >> mechanism that we need. With most governments more worried about their >> narrow geopolitical interests and relationships with individual countries, >> it falls upon the civil society to be bold and forward looking and put >> precise proposals on the table that can then be taken forward by state >> actors. >> >> In a post-Snowden world, there is deep discomfort among almost all >> countries, other than the US, with the manner in which the global Internet >> is run and is evolving. The need for some global norms, principles, rules, >> and necessary governance mechanisms for the global Internet is being felt >> now as never before. The Internet can no longer remain anchored to the >> political and business interests of one country, or to serving global >> capital, as it is at present. As a global commons, it is our collective >> democratic right and responsibility to participate in the governance of the >> Internet, so that it can become a vehicle for greater prosperity, equity >> and social justice for all. >> >> We seek your support to join us in proposing the enclosed document as an >> input to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. The Working Group has >> sought public inputs through a questionnaire which can be seen at >> http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx . The most important question is at >> number 8, which seeks input with regard to precise mechanism(s) that are >> required. Our response will mostly address this all-important question. >> (You are also encouraged to, separately, give a fuller response to the >> questionnaire on your behalf or on behalf of your organization.) We will >> also like to give wide media publicity to this civil society statement . >> >> We will be glad if you can send your response to us *before the 30th of >> August*. We are of course happy to respond to any clarification or >> additional information that you may want to seek in the above regard. >> Please also circulate this to others who you think may want to participate >> in this initiative. The global Internet governance space seems to be >> dominated by those who push for neoliberal models of governance. We must >> therefore have as many voices heard as possible. >> >> (The statement is cut pasted below this email and may also be seen here) >> >> With best regard, >> >> Parminder >> >> >> *Parminder Jeet Singh* >> ------------------------------ >> IT for Change >> In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC >> www.ITforChange.net >> T: 00-91-80-26654134 | T: 00-91-80-26536890 | Fax: 00-91-80-41461055 >> >> *A civil society input to the UN Working Group looking at * >> >> *institutional mechanisms for global governance of the Internet * >> >> *(Please write to itfc @itforchange.netbefore 29th Aug if you will like to endorse this statement) >> * >> >> * >> Why global governance of the Internet?* >> >> Internet governance is seen largely in terms of national sovereignty and >> security or as pertaining to free speech and privacy. We are of the view >> that there exist many other equally important issues for global Internet >> governance that arise from the whole gamut of rights and aspirations of >> people – social, economic, cultural, political and developmental. The >> relationship of the global Internet to cultural diversity is one example. >> The Internet increasingly determines not only the global flows of >> information but also of cultures, and their commodification. No social >> process is exempt from the influence of the Internet – from education to >> health and governance. Social systems at national and local levels are >> being transformed under the influence of the global Internet. >> >> Instead of decentralizing power, the current structure of the global >> Internet tends to centralize control in the hands of a small number of >> companies. Some of these companies have near-monopoly power over key areas >> of economic and social significance. Therefore, regulation of global >> Internet business through pertinent competition law, consumer law, open >> interoperability standards, etc, is becoming a pressing need. Increasing >> statist controls need to be similarly resisted. With the emergent paradigm >> of cloud computing presenting the looming prospect of remote management of >> our digital lives from different 'power centres' across the world, it is >> inconceivable that we can do without appropriate democratic governance of >> the global Internet. Post-Snowden, as many countries have begun to >> contemplate and even embark upon measures for 'digital sovereignty', the >> only way to preserve a *global** *Internet is through formulating >> appropriate *global* norms, principles and rules that will underpin its >> governance. >> >> *Background of this civil society input* >> >> A group of over 60 civil society organizations and several individuals, >> made a statement on *'Democratizing the global governance of the Internet >> '* to the open consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'1 called by the >> Chair of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) >> on May 18th, 2012, in Geneva. The statement *inter alia* sought the >> setting up of a CSTD Working Group to address this issue. We are happy to >> note that such a Working Group has been set up and has now called for >> public inputs to make its recommendations. This document is an input to the >> Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) on the behalf of the >> undersigned . >> >> In the aforementioned statementof May 2012, the civil society signatories had called for the following >> institutional developments to take place in the global Internet governance >> architecture: >> >> *Our demands with respect to 'global' Internet Governance espouse a >> simple and obvious democratic logic. On the technical governance side, the >> oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure, >> at present with the US government, should be transferred to an appropriate, >> democratic and participative, multi-lateral body, without disturbing the >> existing distributed architecture of technical governance of the Internet >> in any significant way. (However, improvements in the technical governance >> systems are certainly needed.) On the side of larger Internet related >> public policy-making on global social, economic, cultural and political >> issues, the OECD-based model of global policy making, as well as the >> default application of US laws, should be replaced by a new UN-based >> democratic mechanism. Any such new arrangement should be based on the >> principle of subsidiarity, and be innovative in terms of its mandate, >> structure, and functions, to be adequate to the unique requirements of >> global Internet governance. It must be fully participative of all >> stakeholders, promoting the democratic and innovative potential of the* *Internet. >> * >> >> As the WGEC deliberates on concrete ways to move forward, the time is >> ripe to propose clear and specific institutional mechanisms for >> democratizing the global governance of the Internet. We have, therefore, >> expanded the above demands into specific mechanisms that should be set in >> place for this purpose. >> >> *New global governance mechanisms are needed* >> >> We are of the view that it would be useful to have two distinct >> mechanisms – one that looks at the global Internet-related public policy >> issues in various social, economic, cultural and political domains, and >> another that should undertake oversight of the technical and operational >> functions related to the Internet (basically, replacing the current >> unilateral oversight of the ICANN2 by the US government). This will >> require setting up appropriate new global governance bodies as well as a >> framework of international law to facilitate their work, as follows. >> >> *A new UN body for Internet-related public policy issues:** * An anchor >> global institution for taking up and addressing various public policy >> issues pertaining to the Internet in an ongoing manner is urgently >> required. It can be a committee attached to the UN General Assembly or a >> more elaborate and relatively autonomous set up linked loosely to the UN >> (as a specialized UN body). It should have a very strong and >> institutionalized public consultative mechanism, in the form of >> stakeholder advisory groups that are selected through formal processes by >> different stakeholder constituencies, ensuring adequate representativeness. >> (OECD's *Committee on Computer, Information and Communication Policy*and India's recent proposal for a >> *UN* >> *Committee on >> Internet-related Policies* >> are two useful, and >> somewhat similar, models that can be looked at.) >> >> This 'new body' will stay abreast of global Internet-related issues; >> where necessary, develop international level public policies in the >> concerned areas; seek appropriate harmonization of national level policies, >> and; facilitate required treaties, conventions and agreements. It will also >> have the necessary means to undertake studies and present analyses in >> different policy areas. >> >> Most Internet-related public policy issues are of a cross-cutting nature, >> and involve overlaps with mandates of other existing global governance >> bodies, like WIPO, UNESCO, WTO, UNDP, UNCTAD, ITU and so on. Due to this >> reason, the proposed new 'body' will establish appropriate relationships >> with all these other existing bodies, including directing relevant public >> policy issues to them, receiving their inputs and comments, and itself >> contributing specific Internet-related perspectives to issues under the >> purview of these other bodies. >> >> *A new 'Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Board':* This board >> will replace the US government's current oversight role over the technical >> and operational functions performed by ICANN. The membership of this >> oversight board can be of a techno-political nature, *i.e.* consisting >> of people with specialized expertise but who also have appropriate >> political backing, ascertained through a democratic process. For instance, >> the board can be made of 10/15 members, with 2/3 members each from five >> geographic regions (as understood in the UN system). These members can >> perhaps be selected through an appropriate process by the relevant >> technical standards bodies and/or country domain name bodies of all the >> countries of the respective region. (Other mechanisms for constituting the >> techno-political membership of this board can also be considered.) >> >> The Internet technical oversight and advisory board will seek to ensure >> that the various technical and operational functions related to the global >> Internet are undertaken by the relevant organizations as per international >> law and public policy principles developed by the concerned international >> bodies. With regard to ICANN, the role of this board will more or less be >> exactly the same as exercised by the US government in its oversight over >> ICANN. As for the decentralized Internet standards development mechanisms, >> like the Internet Engineering Task Force, these self organizing systems >> based on voluntary adoption of standards will continue to work as at >> present. The new board will have a very light touch and non-binding role >> with regard to them. It will bring in imperatives from, and advise these >> technical standards bodies on, international public policies, international >> law and norms being developed by various relevant bodies. >> >> For this board to be able to fulfill its oversight mandate, ICANN must >> become an international organization, without changing its existing >> multistakeholder character in any substantial manner. It would enter into a >> host country agreement with the US government (if ICANN has to continue to >> be headquartered in the US). It would have full immunity from US law and >> executive authority, and be guided solely by international law, and be >> incorporated under it. Supervision of the authoritative root zone server >> must also be transferred to this oversight broad. The board will exercise >> this role with the help of an internationalized ICANN. >> >> This board will also advise the afore-mentioned new public policy body on >> technical matters pertaining to the Internet policy making, as well as take >> public policy inputs from it. >> >> *Framework Convention on the Internet:** *An appropriate international >> legal framework will be required sooner than later for the above bodies to >> function properly. Accordingly, one of the early tasks of the proposed 'new >> body' dealing with Internet-related public policy issues, discussed above, >> will be to help negotiate a 'Framework Convention on the Internet' >> (somewhat like the *Framework Convention on Climate Change >> )*. Governance of the Internet concerns different kinds of issues that >> are ever-evolving. It is, therefore, preferable to formulate an enabling >> legal structure as a 'framework convention' rather than as a specific >> treaty or convention that addresses only a bounded set of issues. It may >> also be easier to initially agree to a series of principles, protocols and >> processes that can then frame further agreements, treaties etc on more >> specific issues. >> >> Such a Framework Convention will thus enable appropriate and ongoing >> global policy responses to various opportunities and challenges that the >> fast-evolving phenomenon of the Internet throws up. It will also formalize >> the basic architecture of the global governance of the Internet; * inter >> alia* recognizing and legitimizing the existing role and functions of >> the various bodies currently involved with managing the technical and >> logical infrastructure of the Internet, including the ICANN, Regional >> Internet Registries, Internet technical standards bodies and so on. >> >> Appropriate mechanisms for crisis response and dispute resolution in >> relation to the global Internet, and the social activity dependent on it, >> will also be required to be set up. >> >> *Relationship with the IGF* >> >> The UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was established as a >> multistakeholder 'policy dialogue forum' by the World Summit on the >> Information Society. The proposed global Internet policy mechanism, >> especially the new UN based body, will maintain a close relationship with >> the IGF. IGF affords a very new kind of participative mechanism for policy >> making, whereby the participation realm is institutionalized, and >> relatively independent of the policy making structures. The IGF should >> preferably pre-discuss issues that are taken up by this new policy body and >> present diverse perspectives for its consideration. A good part of the >> agenda for this new body can emerge from the IGF. Whenever possible, draft >> proposals to be adopted by this new body should be shared with the IGF. >> >> To perform such a participation enhancing role, the IGF must be >> adequately strengthened and reformed, especially to address the dominance >> of Northern corporatist interests in its current working. It must be >> supported with public funds, and insulated from any funding system that can >> bring in perverse influences on its agenda and outcomes. Other required >> processes must also be put in place to ensure that the IGF indeed brings in >> constituencies that are typically under-represented, rather than provide >> further political clout to the already dominant. >> >> A participative body is only as good as the policy making mechanisms that >> feed off it. To that extent, the meaningfulness and effectiveness of the >> IGF itself requires a strong policy development mechanism, as suggested in >> this document, to be linked to it. Investing in the IGF is useful only if >> its outputs and contributions lead to something concrete. >> >> *Funding* >> >> An innovative way to fund the proposed new global Internet policy >> mechanisms, and also the IGF, is to tap into the collections made by the >> relevant bodies from allocation of names and numbers resources pertaining >> to the global Internet (like the fee that ICANN collects annually from each >> domain name owner). These accruals now run into millions of dollars every >> year and could be adequate to fund a large part of the needed mechanisms >> for democratic governance of the global Internet. >> >> In the end, we may add that there is nothing really very novel in the >> above proposal for setting up new mechanisms for global governance of the >> Internet. Similar models, for instance, were proposed in the report of the >> Working Group on Internet Governance that was set up during the World >> Summit on the Information Society, back in 2004. >> >> We hope that the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will fulfill its >> high mandate to lead the world towards the path of democratic governance of >> the global commons of the Internet. >> >> 1The outcome documents of the World Summit on the Information Society, >> held in 2005, employed this as a placeholder term giving the mandate for >> further exploration of the necessary mechanisms for global governance of >> the Internet. >> >> 2Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the US based >> non-profit that manages much of technical and logical infrastructural >> functions related to the Internet. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 29 07:18:41 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:48:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <5208605C.8080101@apc.org> <3E1CC149-8E3F-449E-AA93-D87D5B392445@acm.org> Message-ID: <675893C2-FAE6-4418-B801-0C3078591851@hserus.net> I do agree the bestbits statement is more nuanced - but its actual recommendations might need considerable tuning. I still look for actual participation in the existing icann governance structures rather than starting off with an attempt to reject them and produce something that will end up functionally identical to bringing ICANN under UN control. The IT for change responses are as adam says. --srs (iPad) On 29-Aug-2013, at 16:37, Adam Peake wrote: > > > On Aug 29, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Perhaps he was referring to the statement Parminder is sending around looking for support. It is perhaps confusing having two statements in circulation: one by the Best Bits and one by Parminder who is a participant in both the Best Bits collective and a member of the WGEC. >> > > Yes, not so good when working group members are advising themselves in this way, multiple ways. The IT for Change position makes many unsubstantiated claims, and again repeats that the Internet is a global commons, which it clearly is not (what's the point of engaging in honest debate on this list if ignored for the sake of some political doctrine?) And bestbits, which I personally disagree with enough not to be able to support, but it much more thoughtful, but is also somewhat undermined by having WG members as authors. Poor process. > > Adam > > > >> avri >> >> On 28 Aug 2013, at 06:57, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> On 27/08/2013, at 12:13 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> >>>> On 27-Aug-2013, at 7:21, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> >>>>> Although the Caucus is a little fractured at the moment, Norbert and Sala might nevertheless wish to gauge the feeling of the Caucus towards signing on corporately. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It would help gain broader consensus if the worst bits of that statement were removed. >>>> >>>> Bringing ICANN under UN oversight, really? >>> >>> Since there is nothing in the submission that suggests that, I have to ask, did you read it? >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >>> >>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Aug 29 07:30:16 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 18:30:16 +0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006a01cea4ab$2cd56af0$868040d0$@gmail.com> Thanks for pointing us in this direction Adam. I'll give this one an "A" for covering all the areas requested and even extra marks for clarity and honesty :) M From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 5:59 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead Interesting comments. Adam ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Carlton Samuels Date: Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:25 AM Subject: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead To: "lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org" , At-Large Worldwide The CEO of CIRA shares some thoughts on the future of the Internet http://blog.cira.ca/2013/08/the-internet-as-we-know-it-is-dead/?goback=%2Egd e_110405_member_268692395#%21 -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.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 Aug 29 09:05:55 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 18:35:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: <3E1CC149-8E3F-449E-AA93-D87D5B392445@acm.org> References: <5208605C.8080101@apc.org> <3E1CC149-8E3F-449E-AA93-D87D5B392445@acm.org> Message-ID: <521F4733.2090209@itforchange.net> On Thursday 29 August 2013 03:47 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Perhaps he was referring to the statement Parminder is sending around looking for support. Can you point out where does IT for Change's position seek to bring ICANN under UN oversight. > It is perhaps confusing having two statements in circulation: one by the Best Bits and one by Parminder who is a participant in both the Best Bits collective and a member of the WGEC. > > avri > > On 28 Aug 2013, at 06:57, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 27/08/2013, at 12:13 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >>> On 27-Aug-2013, at 7:21, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>>> Although the Caucus is a little fractured at the moment, Norbert and Sala might nevertheless wish to gauge the feeling of the Caucus towards signing on corporately. >>>> >>> It would help gain broader consensus if the worst bits of that statement were removed. >>> >>> Bringing ICANN under UN oversight, really? >> Since there is nothing in the submission that suggests that, I have to ask, did you read it? >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >> >> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >> >> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >> >> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Aug 29 13:44:56 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 02:44:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <5208605C.8080101@apc.org> <3E1CC149-8E3F-449E-AA93-D87D5B392445@acm.org> Message-ID: <8404D0BF-B5EE-4065-9226-D512200F377D@glocom.ac.jp> Another problem with this kind of sign-up statement was eloquently expressed by Parminder on another list: "As you know, I really do not like simple sign on offers :). Also, as i wrote to you privately, it would have been good if these principles were discussed much more extensively at their formation stage. And in an open format." Ironic really. Adam On Aug 29, 2013, at 8:07 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > On Aug 29, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Perhaps he was referring to the statement Parminder is sending around looking for support. It is perhaps confusing having two statements in circulation: one by the Best Bits and one by Parminder who is a participant in both the Best Bits collective and a member of the WGEC. >> > > Yes, not so good when working group members are advising themselves in this way, multiple ways. The IT for Change position makes many unsubstantiated claims, and again repeats that the Internet is a global commons, which it clearly is not (what's the point of engaging in honest debate on this list if ignored for the sake of some political doctrine?) And bestbits, which I personally disagree with enough not to be able to support, but it much more thoughtful, but is also somewhat undermined by having WG members as authors. Poor process. > > Adam > > > >> avri >> >> On 28 Aug 2013, at 06:57, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> On 27/08/2013, at 12:13 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> >>>> On 27-Aug-2013, at 7:21, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> >>>>> Although the Caucus is a little fractured at the moment, Norbert and Sala might nevertheless wish to gauge the feeling of the Caucus towards signing on corporately. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It would help gain broader consensus if the worst bits of that statement were removed. >>>> >>>> Bringing ICANN under UN oversight, really? >>> >>> Since there is nothing in the submission that suggests that, I have to ask, did you read it? >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >>> >>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Thu Aug 29 13:57:19 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:57:19 -0300 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <5208605C.8080101@apc.org> <3E1CC149-8E3F-449E-AA93-D87D5B392445@acm.org> Message-ID: <521F8B7F.7060906@cafonso.ca> Hi people, as a member of WGEC, I do not recall any decision that would preclude its members' organizations from presenting their responses to the questionnaire. As is well known, WGEC (like the MAG) members are there in their personal capacities as members of stakeholder groups, not as reps or "ambassadors" of their respective organizations. Where did you get this from, Adam? fraternal regards --c.a. On 08/29/2013 08:07 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > On Aug 29, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Perhaps he was referring to the statement Parminder is sending around looking for support. It is perhaps confusing having two statements in circulation: one by the Best Bits and one by Parminder who is a participant in both the Best Bits collective and a member of the WGEC. >> > > Yes, not so good when working group members are advising themselves in this way, multiple ways. The IT for Change position makes many unsubstantiated claims, and again repeats that the Internet is a global commons, which it clearly is not (what's the point of engaging in honest debate on this list if ignored for the sake of some political doctrine?) And bestbits, which I personally disagree with enough not to be able to support, but it much more thoughtful, but is also somewhat undermined by having WG members as authors. Poor process. > > Adam > > > >> avri >> >> On 28 Aug 2013, at 06:57, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> On 27/08/2013, at 12:13 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> >>>> On 27-Aug-2013, at 7:21, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> >>>>> Although the Caucus is a little fractured at the moment, Norbert and Sala might nevertheless wish to gauge the feeling of the Caucus towards signing on corporately. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It would help gain broader consensus if the worst bits of that statement were removed. >>>> >>>> Bringing ICANN under UN oversight, really? >>> >>> Since there is nothing in the submission that suggests that, I have to ask, did you read it? >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >>> >>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 Thu Aug 29 15:17:43 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:17:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: <521F8B7F.7060906@cafonso.ca> References: <5208605C.8080101@apc.org> <3E1CC149-8E3F-449E-AA93-D87D5B392445@acm.org> <521F8B7F.7060906@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Hi, I do not know Adam's reasons. I know my own reasons for not doing so. I think that in order to the job in WGEC as I feel I should do it, I should not be arguing for responses I have crafted, but rather should be taking the input from others who are commenting, and from the respective and understanding I bring, do the analysis. For myself I beleive that if I contributed to the writing of several proposals I would risk my objectivity in taking the work of others and treating it fairly in the context of WGEC. I also beleive that my contributions in the WGEC might be colored, as if arguments I would make in the WGEC were just a bolstering of opinions I had put before the group in many other ways. I am speaking only for myself and the way I think such appointments should be handled. This is why I avoided active participation in any of the several efforts I might have engaged in. You are right, there was no rule. I am just doing the job in the best way I know how. I have followed this process many time before and find it works for me. avri On 29 Aug 2013, at 13:57, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi people, as a member of WGEC, I do not recall any decision that would > preclude its members' organizations from presenting their responses to > the questionnaire. As is well known, WGEC (like the MAG) members are > there in their personal capacities as members of stakeholder groups, not > as reps or "ambassadors" of their respective organizations. Where did > you get this from, Adam? > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 08/29/2013 08:07 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> >> On Aug 29, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Perhaps he was referring to the statement Parminder is sending around looking for support. It is perhaps confusing having two statements in circulation: one by the Best Bits and one by Parminder who is a participant in both the Best Bits collective and a member of the WGEC. >>> >> >> Yes, not so good when working group members are advising themselves in this way, multiple ways. The IT for Change position makes many unsubstantiated claims, and again repeats that the Internet is a global commons, which it clearly is not (what's the point of engaging in honest debate on this list if ignored for the sake of some political doctrine?) And bestbits, which I personally disagree with enough not to be able to support, but it much more thoughtful, but is also somewhat undermined by having WG members as authors. Poor process. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> avri >>> >>> On 28 Aug 2013, at 06:57, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>>> On 27/08/2013, at 12:13 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 27-Aug-2013, at 7:21, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Although the Caucus is a little fractured at the moment, Norbert and Sala might nevertheless wish to gauge the feeling of the Caucus towards signing on corporately. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It would help gain broader consensus if the worst bits of that statement were removed. >>>>> >>>>> Bringing ICANN under UN oversight, really? >>>> >>>> Since there is nothing in the submission that suggests that, I have to ask, did you read it? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >>>> >>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>> >>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>> >>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your 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 Aug 29 16:15:43 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 20:15:43 +0000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> One of many expressions of (justified) concern at the implications of the NSA revelations, particularly when everyone was so paranoid about how a mere mention of unsolicited bulk email in the ITRs would have (allegedly) cleared the way for systematic surveillance. Well, it turns out systematic surveillance was already happening... And this was quite predictable. We need to take more seriously now the 'realist' argument I have been advancing regarding the role of states in Internet governance: The biggest threats to Internet freedom today do not come from intergovernmental organizations. They come from national governments with the institutional mechanisms to regulate, restrict, surveil, censor and license Internet suppliers and users. National governments have police forces, armies - and armies of regulators. This includes, especially, our own government, which has greater global reach than any other state. (from http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Greatest-threat-to-Internet-governments-3723621.php#page-2 ) This was written before the Snowden revelations, btw. States exist in a state of anarchy, when it comes to national security and military affairs. Thus it should be The choice is not "the multistakeholder model" vs. the ITU. It is the denationalization of Internet governance vs. the international anarchy of governance by 190 nation-states. From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 6:59 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead Interesting comments. Adam ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Carlton Samuels > Date: Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:25 AM Subject: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead To: "lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org" >, At-Large Worldwide > The CEO of CIRA shares some thoughts on the future of the Internet http://blog.cira.ca/2013/08/the-internet-as-we-know-it-is-dead/?goback=%2Egde_110405_member_268692395#%21 -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Aug 29 16:33:01 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 06:33:01 +1000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> Well stated Milton! “The choice is not "the multistakeholder model" vs. the ITU. It is the denationalization of Internet governance vs. the international anarchy of governance by 190 nation-states.” From: Milton L Mueller Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 6:15 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; 'Adam Peake' Subject: RE: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead One of many expressions of (justified) concern at the implications of the NSA revelations, particularly when everyone was so paranoid about how a mere mention of unsolicited bulk email in the ITRs would have (allegedly) cleared the way for systematic surveillance. Well, it turns out systematic surveillance was already happening… And this was quite predictable. We need to take more seriously now the 'realist' argument I have been advancing regarding the role of states in Internet governance: The biggest threats to Internet freedom today do not come from intergovernmental organizations. They come from national governments with the institutional mechanisms to regulate, restrict, surveil, censor and license Internet suppliers and users. National governments have police forces, armies - and armies of regulators. This includes, especially, our own government, which has greater global reach than any other state. (from http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Greatest-threat-to-Internet-governments-3723621.php#page-2 ) This was written before the Snowden revelations, btw. States exist in a state of anarchy, when it comes to national security and military affairs. Thus it should be The choice is not "the multistakeholder model" vs. the ITU. It is the denationalization of Internet governance vs. the international anarchy of governance by 190 nation-states. From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 6:59 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead Interesting comments. Adam ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Carlton Samuels Date: Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:25 AM Subject: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead To: "lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org" , At-Large Worldwide The CEO of CIRA shares some thoughts on the future of the Internet http://blog.cira.ca/2013/08/the-internet-as-we-know-it-is-dead/?goback=%2Egde_110405_member_268692395#%21 -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.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 diegocanabarro at gmail.com Thu Aug 29 16:55:49 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 17:55:49 -0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> Message-ID: The "denationalized model" proposed in Networks and States intentionally puts asymmetries aside. And for the larger part of those 190 or so states (and their societies), asymmetries (especially socioeconomic ones) are high priority in their international affairs. It doesn't seem to be something easy to overcome, does it? Regards Diego On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Well stated Milton! > > “The choice is not "the multistakeholder model" vs. the ITU. It is the > denationalization of Internet governance vs. the international anarchy of > governance by 190 nation-states.” > > *From:* Milton L Mueller > *Sent:* Friday, August 30, 2013 6:15 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; 'Adam Peake' > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is > dead > > > One of many expressions of (justified) concern at the implications of the > NSA revelations, particularly when everyone was so paranoid about how a > mere mention of unsolicited bulk email in the ITRs would have (allegedly) > cleared the way for systematic surveillance. Well, it turns out systematic > surveillance was already happening… And this was quite predictable. We need > to take more seriously now the 'realist' argument I have been advancing > regarding the role of states in Internet governance: **** > > **** > > The biggest threats to Internet freedom today do not come from > intergovernmental organizations. They come from national governments with > the institutional mechanisms to regulate, restrict, surveil, censor and > license Internet suppliers and users. National governments have police > forces, armies - and armies of regulators. This includes, especially, our > own government, which has greater global reach than any other state. (from > http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Greatest-threat-to-Internet-governments-3723621.php#page-2) > **** > > **** > > This was written before the Snowden revelations, btw. States exist in a > state of anarchy, when it comes to national security and military affairs. > Thus it should be**** > > The choice is not "the multistakeholder model" vs. the ITU. It is the > denationalization of Internet governance vs. the international anarchy of > governance by 190 nation-states.**** > > **** > > *From:* apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Adam > Peake > *Sent:* Thursday, August 29, 2013 6:59 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead > **** > > **** > > Interesting comments. **** > > **** > > Adam**** > > **** > > **** > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Carlton Samuels* > Date: Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:25 AM > Subject: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead > To: "lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org" < > lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide < > at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > The CEO of CIRA shares some thoughts on the future of the Internet > > > http://blog.cira.ca/2013/08/the-internet-as-we-know-it-is-dead/?goback=%2Egde_110405_member_268692395#%21 > > -Carlton > > ============================== > Carlton A Samuels > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > ============================= > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org**** > > **** > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- 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 ca at cafonso.ca Thu Aug 29 16:59:35 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 17:59:35 -0300 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <5208605C.8080101@apc.org> <3E1CC149-8E3F-449E-AA93-D87D5B392445@acm.org> <521F8B7F.7060906@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <521FB637.2020501@cafonso.ca> Dear Avri, I respect your position, of course. My understanding is that we are in the WGEC (like some of us were in the WGIG) because we are expected to bring to the dialogue what we think are the views of the stakeholders we are supposed to represent, and I think the questionnaire is a good (although imperfect) instrument to help convey these views. So, even if WGEC members themselves decided to respond and provide their views, I would welcome it. Thus, I do not agree we should exclude the organizations we are related to from this survey, and this is the position of several other participants who are helping to build institutional responses to the questionnaire. fraternal regards --c.a. On 08/29/2013 04:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I do not know Adam's reasons. > > I know my own reasons for not doing so. > > I think that in order to the job in WGEC as I feel I should do it, I should not be arguing for responses I have crafted, but rather should be taking the input from others who are commenting, and from the respective and understanding I bring, do the analysis. For myself I beleive that if I contributed to the writing of several proposals I would risk my objectivity in taking the work of others and treating it fairly in the context of WGEC. I also beleive that my contributions in the WGEC might be colored, as if arguments I would make in the WGEC were just a bolstering of opinions I had put before the group in many other ways. > > I am speaking only for myself and the way I think such appointments should be handled. This is why I avoided active participation in any of the several efforts I might have engaged in. > > You are right, there was no rule. I am just doing the job in the best way I know how. I have followed this process many time before and find it works for me. > > avri > > > > On 29 Aug 2013, at 13:57, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Hi people, as a member of WGEC, I do not recall any decision that would >> preclude its members' organizations from presenting their responses to >> the questionnaire. As is well known, WGEC (like the MAG) members are >> there in their personal capacities as members of stakeholder groups, not >> as reps or "ambassadors" of their respective organizations. Where did >> you get this from, Adam? >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 08/29/2013 08:07 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Aug 29, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Perhaps he was referring to the statement Parminder is sending around looking for support. It is perhaps confusing having two statements in circulation: one by the Best Bits and one by Parminder who is a participant in both the Best Bits collective and a member of the WGEC. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, not so good when working group members are advising themselves in this way, multiple ways. The IT for Change position makes many unsubstantiated claims, and again repeats that the Internet is a global commons, which it clearly is not (what's the point of engaging in honest debate on this list if ignored for the sake of some political doctrine?) And bestbits, which I personally disagree with enough not to be able to support, but it much more thoughtful, but is also somewhat undermined by having WG members as authors. Poor process. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> On 28 Aug 2013, at 06:57, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 27/08/2013, at 12:13 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 27-Aug-2013, at 7:21, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Although the Caucus is a little fractured at the moment, Norbert and Sala might nevertheless wish to gauge the feeling of the Caucus towards signing on corporately. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It would help gain broader consensus if the worst bits of that statement were removed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bringing ICANN under UN oversight, really? >>>>> >>>>> Since there is nothing in the submission that suggests that, I have to ask, did you read it? >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >>>>> >>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>> >>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>>> >>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your 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 Aug 29 17:46:32 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 21:46:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> I would have to reject the way you presume that the society = the state. That is the whole point of my argument - they are not the same, _especially_ in cyberspace. I also would have to question your assumption that "asymmetries" (not entirely clear what you mean by this, but I assume you mean inequalities) are overcome or mitigated via the existence of states. Wow, what an assumption. So in the world of states, there is no asymmetry between USA and Uruguay, or between China and Laos. Hmmmm. But of course, such problems are not easy to overcome. No one said they were. From: Diego Rafael Canabarro [mailto:diegocanabarro at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:56 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter Cc: Milton L Mueller; Adam Peake Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead The "denationalized model" proposed in Networks and States intentionally puts asymmetries aside. And for the larger part of those 190 or so states (and their societies), asymmetries (especially socioeconomic ones) are high priority in their international affairs. It doesn't seem to be something easy to overcome, does it? Regards Diego On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Ian Peter > wrote: Well stated Milton! "The choice is not "the multistakeholder model" vs. the ITU. It is the denationalization of Internet governance vs. the international anarchy of governance by 190 nation-states." From: Milton L Mueller Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 6:15 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; 'Adam Peake' Subject: RE: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead One of many expressions of (justified) concern at the implications of the NSA revelations, particularly when everyone was so paranoid about how a mere mention of unsolicited bulk email in the ITRs would have (allegedly) cleared the way for systematic surveillance. Well, it turns out systematic surveillance was already happening... And this was quite predictable. We need to take more seriously now the 'realist' argument I have been advancing regarding the role of states in Internet governance: The biggest threats to Internet freedom today do not come from intergovernmental organizations. They come from national governments with the institutional mechanisms to regulate, restrict, surveil, censor and license Internet suppliers and users. National governments have police forces, armies - and armies of regulators. This includes, especially, our own government, which has greater global reach than any other state. (from http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Greatest-threat-to-Internet-governments-3723621.php#page-2 ) This was written before the Snowden revelations, btw. States exist in a state of anarchy, when it comes to national security and military affairs. Thus it should be The choice is not "the multistakeholder model" vs. the ITU. It is the denationalization of Internet governance vs. the international anarchy of governance by 190 nation-states. From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 6:59 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead Interesting comments. Adam ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Carlton Samuels > Date: Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:25 AM Subject: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead To: "lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org" >, At-Large Worldwide > The CEO of CIRA shares some thoughts on the future of the Internet http://blog.cira.ca/2013/08/the-internet-as-we-know-it-is-dead/?goback=%2Egde_110405_member_268692395#%21 -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org ________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- 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 nb at bollow.ch Thu Aug 29 17:57:12 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 23:57:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> I read Diego's posting not as expressing that presumption, but as questioning the feasibility of “denationalization of Internet governance”. Are there reasons to believe that this “denationalization” is feasible? Greetings, Norbert Am Thu, 29 Aug 2013 21:46:32 +0000 schrieb Milton L Mueller : > I would have to reject the way you presume that the society = the > state. That is the whole point of my argument - they are not the > same, _especially_ in cyberspace. I also would have to question your > assumption that "asymmetries" (not entirely clear what you mean by > this, but I assume you mean inequalities) are overcome or mitigated > via the existence of states. Wow, what an assumption. So in the > world of states, there is no asymmetry between USA and Uruguay, or > between China and Laos. Hmmmm. > > But of course, such problems are not easy to overcome. No one said > they were. > > > From: Diego Rafael Canabarro [mailto:diegocanabarro at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:56 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter > Cc: Milton L Mueller; Adam Peake > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it > is dead > > The "denationalized model" proposed in Networks and States > intentionally puts asymmetries aside. And for the larger part of > those 190 or so states (and their societies), asymmetries (especially > socioeconomic ones) are high priority in their international affairs. > It doesn't seem to be something easy to overcome, does it? > > Regards > Diego > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Ian Peter > > wrote: Well > stated Milton! > > "The choice is not "the multistakeholder model" vs. the ITU. It is > the denationalization of Internet governance vs. the international > anarchy of governance by 190 nation-states." -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Aug 29 17:59:41 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:59:41 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <10E9C7AC-548D-47DD-8E8D-53E6B852B5D4@gmail.com> On Aug 30, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > One of many expressions of (justified) concern at the implications of the NSA revelations, particularly when everyone was so paranoid about how a mere mention of unsolicited bulk email in the ITRs would have (allegedly) cleared the way for systematic surveillance. Well, it turns out systematic surveillance was already happening… And this was quite predictable. We need to take more seriously now the 'realist' argument I have been advancing regarding the role of states in Internet governance: > > The biggest threats to Internet freedom today do not come from intergovernmental organizations. They come from national governments with the institutional mechanisms to regulate, restrict, surveil, censor and license Internet suppliers and users. National governments have police forces, armies - and armies of regulators. This includes, especially, our own government, which has greater global reach than any other state. (from http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Greatest-threat-to-Internet-governments-3723621.php#page-2 ) > +1 I would also add that where states a use the exceptions under Article 19 of the ICCPR. There are a significant no. of countries that have not ratified the ICCPR so it adds to the challenge. > This was written before the Snowden revelations, btw. States exist in a state of anarchy, when it comes to national security and military affairs. Thus it should be > The choice is not "the multistakeholder model" vs. the ITU. It is the denationalization of Internet governance vs. the international anarchy of governance by 190 nation > > From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 6:59 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead > > Interesting comments. > > Adam > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Carlton Samuels > Date: Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:25 AM > Subject: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead > To: "lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org" , At-Large Worldwide > > > The CEO of CIRA shares some thoughts on the future of the Internet > > http://blog.cira.ca/2013/08/the-internet-as-we-know-it-is-dead/?goback=%2Egde_110405_member_268692395#%21 > > -Carlton > > ============================== > Carlton A Samuels > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > ============================= > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.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 diegocanabarro at gmail.com Thu Aug 29 18:00:29 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 19:00:29 -0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Exactly, Norbert. *MM: I would have to reject the way you presume that the society = the state. * When I said state (and their societies) there was no assumption (nor any equation) that those societies can only speak through the voice of the State. *MM: I also would have to question your assumption that "asymmetries" (not entirely clear what you mean by this, but I assume you mean inequalities) are overcome or mitigated via the existence of states. * Again, no assumption. Asymmetries (inequalities being just a form of them) are generally overcome by public policy (foreign policy, be it autocratic or multistakeholder or whatever). Which tends to be fragmented and very conflictive according to several factors (power struggles, social and economic injustices, etc., etc. etc., which tend to divide social actors according to many other different lines). Which leads us to the point of agreement: tough stuff to overcome. But once again: no sort of assumption here. Only a bit of skepticism related to the idea of giving social justice a secondary place. Best wishes Diego On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I would have to reject the way you presume that the society = the state. > That is the whole point of my argument - they are not the same, _* > especially*_ in cyberspace.**** > > I also would have to question your assumption that "asymmetries" (not > entirely clear what you mean by this, but I assume you mean inequalities) > are overcome or mitigated via the existence of states. Wow, what an > assumption. So in the world of states, there is no asymmetry between USA > and Uruguay, or between China and Laos. Hmmmm.**** > > ** ** > > But of course, such problems are not easy to overcome. No one said they > were. **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* Diego Rafael Canabarro [mailto:diegocanabarro at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:56 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter > *Cc:* Milton L Mueller; Adam Peake > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is > dead**** > > ** ** > > The "denationalized model" proposed in Networks and States intentionally > puts asymmetries aside. And for the larger part of those 190 or so states > (and their societies), asymmetries (especially socioeconomic ones) are high > priority in their international affairs. It doesn't seem to be something > easy to overcome, does it?**** > > ** ** > > Regards**** > > Diego **** > > ** ** > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > **** > > Well stated Milton!**** > > **** > > “The choice is not "the multistakeholder model" vs. the ITU. It is the > denationalization of Internet governance vs. the international anarchy of > governance by 190 nation-states.”**** > > **** > > *From:* Milton L Mueller **** > > *Sent:* Friday, August 30, 2013 6:15 AM**** > > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; 'Adam Peake' **** > > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is > dead**** > > **** > > One of many expressions of (justified) concern at the implications of the > NSA revelations, particularly when everyone was so paranoid about how a > mere mention of unsolicited bulk email in the ITRs would have (allegedly) > cleared the way for systematic surveillance. Well, it turns out systematic > surveillance was already happening… And this was quite predictable. We need > to take more seriously now the 'realist' argument I have been advancing > regarding the role of states in Internet governance: **** > > **** > > The biggest threats to Internet freedom today do not come from > intergovernmental organizations. They come from national governments with > the institutional mechanisms to regulate, restrict, surveil, censor and > license Internet suppliers and users. National governments have police > forces, armies - and armies of regulators. This includes, especially, our > own government, which has greater global reach than any other state. (from > http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Greatest-threat-to-Internet-governments-3723621.php#page-2) > **** > > **** > > This was written before the Snowden revelations, btw. States exist in a > state of anarchy, when it comes to national security and military affairs. > Thus it should be**** > > The choice is not "the multistakeholder model" vs. the ITU. It is the > denationalization of Internet governance vs. the international anarchy of > governance by 190 nation-states.**** > > **** > > *From:* apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Adam > Peake > *Sent:* Thursday, August 29, 2013 6:59 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead > **** > > **** > > Interesting comments. **** > > **** > > Adam**** > > **** > > **** > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Carlton Samuels* > Date: Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:25 AM > Subject: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead > To: "lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org" < > lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide < > at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > The CEO of CIRA shares some thoughts on the future of the Internet > > > http://blog.cira.ca/2013/08/the-internet-as-we-know-it-is-dead/?goback=%2Egde_110405_member_268692395#%21 > > -Carlton > > ============================== > Carlton A Samuels > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > ============================= > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org**** > > **** > ------------------------------ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t**** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t**** > > > > **** > > ** ** > > -- > 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 > > -- 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Aug 29 19:59:26 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:59:26 +1000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu><6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba><855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> Message-ID: <945817DFCB80464CB6A1BA2EE5AE010F@Toshiba> Hi Norbert, the reason I originally got involved with this internet governance stuff was that nationalisation = balkanisation in the Internet sphere. International agreements would overcome this and lead to more sensible stable addressing of critical issues. We are not going to get nations out of the picture but we may be able to get them to act collaboratively and set principles and protocols for addressing internet issues. That would not be full on "multistakeholder" governance, but it would be a significant advance on the current unilateral action status quo. It's probably more feasible than what most people imaging multistakeholder to be. We should be encouraging governments to act collaboratively with each other, as well as with other stakeholders. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 7:57 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead I read Diego's posting not as expressing that presumption, but as questioning the feasibility of “denationalization of Internet governance”. Are there reasons to believe that this “denationalization” is feasible? Greetings, Norbert Am Thu, 29 Aug 2013 21:46:32 +0000 schrieb Milton L Mueller : > I would have to reject the way you presume that the society = the > state. That is the whole point of my argument - they are not the > same, _especially_ in cyberspace. I also would have to question your > assumption that "asymmetries" (not entirely clear what you mean by > this, but I assume you mean inequalities) are overcome or mitigated > via the existence of states. Wow, what an assumption. So in the > world of states, there is no asymmetry between USA and Uruguay, or > between China and Laos. Hmmmm. > > But of course, such problems are not easy to overcome. No one said > they were. > > > From: Diego Rafael Canabarro [mailto:diegocanabarro at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:56 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter > Cc: Milton L Mueller; Adam Peake > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it > is dead > > The "denationalized model" proposed in Networks and States > intentionally puts asymmetries aside. And for the larger part of > those 190 or so states (and their societies), asymmetries (especially > socioeconomic ones) are high priority in their international affairs. > It doesn't seem to be something easy to overcome, does it? > > Regards > Diego > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Ian Peter > > wrote: Well > stated Milton! > > "The choice is not "the multistakeholder model" vs. the ITU. It is > the denationalization of Internet governance vs. the international > anarchy of governance by 190 nation-states." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Aug 29 20:59:57 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 06:29:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance Message-ID: What avri is suggesting, I think, is that any wgec member's organization is welcome to submit a response but the specific wgec member should recuse him or herself from the drafting of that response so that they are able to evaluate it along with all the other responses, with an open mind. Fairly reasonable suggestion --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Carlos A. Afonso" To: "IGC" Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance Date: Fri, Aug 30, 2013 2:29 AM Dear Avri, I respect your position, of course. My understanding is that we are in the WGEC (like some of us were in the WGIG) because we are expected to bring to the dialogue what we think are the views of the stakeholders we are supposed to represent, and I think the questionnaire is a good (although imperfect) instrument to help convey these views. So, even if WGEC members themselves decided to respond and provide their views, I would welcome it. Thus, I do not agree we should exclude the organizations we are related to from this survey, and this is the position of several other participants who are helping to build institutional responses to the questionnaire. fraternal regards --c.a. On 08/29/2013 04:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I do not know Adam's reasons. > > I know my own reasons for not doing so. > > I think that in order to the job in WGEC as I feel I should do it, I should not be arguing for responses I have crafted, but rather should be taking the input from others who are commenting, and from the respective and understanding I bring, do the analysis. For myself I beleive that if I contributed to the writing of several proposals I would risk my objectivity in taking the work of others and treating it fairly in the context of WGEC. I also beleive that my contributions in the WGEC might be colored, as if arguments I would make in the WGEC were just a bolstering of opinions I had put before the group in many other ways. > > I am speaking only for myself and the way I think such appointments should be handled. This is why I avoided active participation in any of the several efforts I might have engaged in. > > You are right, there was no rule. I am just doing the job in the best way I know how. I have followed this process many time before and find it works for me. > > avri > > > > On 29 Aug 2013, at 13:57, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Hi people, as a member of WGEC, I do not recall any decision that would >> preclude its members' organizations from presenting their responses to >> the questionnaire. As is well known, WGEC (like the MAG) members are >> there in their personal capacities as members of stakeholder groups, not >> as reps or "ambassadors" of their respective organizations. Where did >> you get this from, Adam? >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 08/29/2013 08:07 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Aug 29, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Perhaps he was referring to the statement Parminder is sending around looking for support. It is perhaps confusing having two statements in circulation: one by the Best Bits and one by Parminder who is a participant in both the Best Bits collective and a member of the WGEC. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, not so good when working group members are advising themselves in this way, multiple ways. The IT for Change position makes many unsubstantiated claims, and again repeats that the Internet is a global commons, which it clearly is not (what's the point of engaging in honest debate on this list if ignored for the sake of some political doctrine?) And bestbits, which I personally disagree with enough not to be able to support, but it much more thoughtful, but is also somewhat undermined by having WG members as authors. Poor process. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> On 28 Aug 2013, at 06:57, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 27/08/2013, at 12:13 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 27-Aug-2013, at 7:21, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Although the Caucus is a little fractured at the moment, Norbert and Sala might nevertheless wish to gauge the feeling of the Caucus towards signing on corporately. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It would help gain broader consensus if the worst bits of that statement were removed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bringing ICANN under UN oversight, really? >>>>> >>>>> Since there is nothing in the submission that suggests that, I have to ask, did you read it? >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >>>>> >>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>> >>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>>> >>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 29 21:05:13 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 06:35:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead Message-ID: The problem is that you can only get consensus on least common denominator mom and apple pie general principles, which will soon break down once you try to achieve consensus on anything more specific. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Ian Peter" To: , "Norbert Bollow" Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead Date: Fri, Aug 30, 2013 5:29 AM Hi Norbert, the reason I originally got involved with this internet governance stuff was that nationalisation = balkanisation in the Internet sphere. International agreements would overcome this and lead to more sensible stable addressing of critical issues. We are not going to get nations out of the picture but we may be able to get them to act collaboratively and set principles and protocols for addressing internet issues. That would not be full on "multistakeholder" governance, but it would be a significant advance on the current unilateral action status quo. It's probably more feasible than what most people imaging multistakeholder to be. We should be encouraging governments to act collaboratively with each other, as well as with other stakeholders. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 7:57 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead I read Diego's posting not as expressing that presumption, but as questioning the feasibility of “denationalization of Internet governance”. Are there reasons to believe that this “denationalization” is feasible? Greetings, Norbert Am Thu, 29 Aug 2013 21:46:32 +0000 schrieb Milton L Mueller : > I would have to reject the way you presume that the society = the > state. That is the whole point of my argument - they are not the > same, _especially_ in cyberspace. I also would have to question your > assumption that "asymmetries" (not entirely clear what you mean by > this, but I assume you mean inequalities) are overcome or mitigated > via the existence of states. Wow, what an assumption. So in the > world of states, there is no asymmetry between USA and Uruguay, or > between China and Laos. Hmmmm. > > But of course, such problems are not easy to overcome. No one said > they were. > > > From: Diego Rafael Canabarro [mailto:diegocanabarro at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:56 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter > Cc: Milton L Mueller; Adam Peake > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it > is dead > > The "denationalized model" proposed in Networks and States > intentionally puts asymmetries aside. And for the larger part of > those 190 or so states (and their societies), asymmetries (especially > socioeconomic ones) are high priority in their international affairs. > It doesn't seem to be something easy to overcome, does it? > > Regards > Diego > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Ian Peter > > wrote: Well > stated Milton! > > "The choice is not "the multistakeholder model" vs. the ITU. It is > the denationalization of Internet governance vs. the international > anarchy of governance by 190 nation-states." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 29 21:21:44 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:21:44 +1000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <63C5B1C1944D4B3C9A339C660F96CB24@Toshiba> Thats probably where you have to start. But there are plenty of international agreements that suggest you can move well beyond that. From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 11:05 AM To: Ian Peter ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead The problem is that you can only get consensus on least common denominator mom and apple pie general principles, which will soon break down once you try to achieve consensus on anything more specific. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Ian Peter" To: , "Norbert Bollow" Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead Date: Fri, Aug 30, 2013 5:29 AM Hi Norbert, the reason I originally got involved with this internet governance stuff was that nationalisation = balkanisation in the Internet sphere. International agreements would overcome this and lead to more sensible stable addressing of critical issues. We are not going to get nations out of the picture but we may be able to get them to act collaboratively and set principles and protocols for addressing internet issues. That would not be full on "multistakeholder" governance, but it would be a significant advance on the current unilateral action status quo. It's probably more feasible than what most people imaging multistakeholder to be. We should be encouraging governments to act collaboratively with each other, as well as with other stakeholders. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 7:57 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead I read Diego's posting not as expressing that presumption, but as questioning the feasibility of “denationalization of Internet governance”. Are there reasons to believe that this “denationalization” is feasible? Greetings, Norbert Am Thu, 29 Aug 2013 21:46:32 +0000 schrieb Milton L Mueller : > I would have to reject the way you presume that the society = the > state. That is the whole point of my argument - they are not the > same, _especially_ in cyberspace. I also would have to question your > assumption that "asymmetries" (not entirely clear what you mean by > this, but I assume you mean inequalities) are overcome or mitigated > via the existence of states. Wow, what an assumption. So in the > world of states, there is no asymmetry between USA and Uruguay, or > between China and Laos. Hmmmm. > > But of course, such problems are not easy to overcome. No one said > they were. > > > From: Diego Rafael Canabarro [mailto:diegocanabarro at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:56 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter > Cc: Milton L Mueller; Adam Peake > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it > is dead > > The "denationalized model" proposed in Networks and States > intentionally puts asymmetries aside. And for the larger part of > those 190 or so states (and their societies), asymmetries (especially > socioeconomic ones) are high priority in their international affairs. > It doesn't seem to be something easy to overcome, does it? > > Regards > Diego > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Ian Peter > > wrote: Well > stated Milton! > > "The choice is not "the multistakeholder model" vs. the ITU. It is > the denationalization of Internet governance vs. the international > anarchy of governance by 190 nation-states." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 29 22:09:06 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 07:39:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: <63C5B1C1944D4B3C9A339C660F96CB24@Toshiba> References: <63C5B1C1944D4B3C9A339C660F96CB24@Toshiba> Message-ID: <35FB6CCF-D56D-4269-BB02-3E29CF587B68@hserus.net> in practice - we have seen international agreements depend on a bedrock that all signatories can agree on. For cybercrime treaties such as the vienna convention for example, the concept of dual criminality, and the internationally understood nature of cybercrime - so that even regimes that don't agree on, say, human rights, find it easier to agree on the best way to coordinate to deal with cybercriminals. Starting somewhere - why not start within the GAC and within the other stakeholder groups in ICANN? Several of the groups coming forward with feedback have never seen the inside of an ICANN meeting. --srs (iPad) On 30-Aug-2013, at 6:51, "Ian Peter" wrote: > Thats probably where you have to start. But there are plenty of international agreements that suggest you can move well beyond that. > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 11:05 AM > To: Ian Peter ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Norbert Bollow > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead > > The problem is that you can only get consensus on least common denominator mom and apple pie general principles, which will soon break down once you try to achieve consensus on anything more specific. > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Ian Peter" > To: , "Norbert Bollow" > Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead > Date: Fri, Aug 30, 2013 5:29 AM > > > Hi Norbert, > > the reason I originally got involved with this internet governance stuff was > that nationalisation = balkanisation in the Internet sphere. > > International agreements would overcome this and lead to more sensible > stable addressing of critical issues. We are not going to get nations out of > the picture but we may be able to get them to act collaboratively and set > principles and protocols for addressing internet issues. > > That would not be full on "multistakeholder" governance, but it would be a > significant advance on the current unilateral action status quo. > > It's probably more feasible than what most people imaging multistakeholder > to be. We should be encouraging governments to act collaboratively with each > other, as well as with other stakeholders. > > Ian Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Norbert Bollow > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 7:57 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead > > I read Diego's posting not as expressing that presumption, but as > questioning the feasibility of “denationalization of Internet > governance”. > > Are there reasons to believe that this “denationalization” is feasible? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Am Thu, 29 Aug 2013 21:46:32 +0000 > schrieb Milton L Mueller : > > > I would have to reject the way you presume that the society = the > > state. That is the whole point of my argument - they are not the > > same, _especially_ in cyberspace. I also would have to question your > > assumption that "asymmetries" (not entirely clear what you mean by > > this, but I assume you mean inequalities) are overcome or mitigated > > via the existence of states. Wow, what an assumption. So in the > > world of states, there is no asymmetry between USA and Uruguay, or > > between China and Laos. Hmmmm. > > > > But of course, such problems are not easy to overcome. No one said > > they were. > > > > > > From: Diego Rafael Canabarro [mailto:diegocanabarro at gmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:56 PM > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter > > Cc: Milton L Mueller; Adam Peake > > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it > > is dead > > > > The "denationalized model" proposed in Networks and States > > intentionally puts asymmetries aside. And for the larger part of > > those 190 or so states (and their societies), asymmetries (especially > > socioeconomic ones) are high priority in their international affairs. > > It doesn't seem to be something easy to overcome, does it? > > > > Regards > > Diego > > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Ian Peter > > > wrote: Well > > stated Milton! > > > > "The choice is not "the multistakeholder model" vs. the ITU. It is > > the denationalization of Internet governance vs. the international > > anarchy of governance by 190 nation-states." > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 29 22:26:09 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 22:26:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, We each approach this in our own way. I think I can do my job of representing the interests of the Civil Society submissions better by not having my own. You think otherwise. Cool. One advantage of some positions coming with their own WGEC champions is I will feel less obligation to defend them since their primary defenders will be in place as members of the group already. i figure one of my roles in the WGEC, at least in the early stages is to make sure that all CS positions that don't come with a WGEC champion get a fair hearing. I respect your position, of course, as well. avri From: "Carlos A. Afonso" > > > Dear Avri, I respect your position, of course. > > My understanding is that we are in the WGEC (like some of us were in the > WGIG) because we are expected to bring to the dialogue what we think are > the views of the stakeholders we are supposed to represent, and I think > the questionnaire is a good (although imperfect) instrument to help > convey these views. So, even if WGEC members themselves decided to > respond and provide their views, I would welcome it. > > Thus, I do not agree we should exclude the organizations we are related > to from this survey, and this is the position of several other > participants who are helping to build institutional responses to the > questionnaire. > > fraternal regards -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 29 22:27:38 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 12:27:38 +1000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: <35FB6CCF-D56D-4269-BB02-3E29CF587B68@hserus.net> References: <63C5B1C1944D4B3C9A339C660F96CB24@Toshiba> <35FB6CCF-D56D-4269-BB02-3E29CF587B68@hserus.net> Message-ID: <71EDEDD5328E43D8B5F8D94DC3E89BDD@Toshiba> I know they consume massive amounts of energy, but I am personally not very interested in the range of issues which ICANN should cover – and nor are most nations. For me there are much more pressing matters which threaten the Internet than the minutia of names and numbers. It’s these wider issues which pose threats. Ian Peter From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 12:09 PM To: Ian Peter Cc: mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead in practice - we have seen international agreements depend on a bedrock that all signatories can agree on. For cybercrime treaties such as the vienna convention for example, the concept of dual criminality, and the internationally understood nature of cybercrime - so that even regimes that don't agree on, say, human rights, find it easier to agree on the best way to coordinate to deal with cybercriminals. Starting somewhere - why not start within the GAC and within the other stakeholder groups in ICANN? Several of the groups coming forward with feedback have never seen the inside of an ICANN meeting. --srs (iPad) On 30-Aug-2013, at 6:51, "Ian Peter" wrote: Thats probably where you have to start. But there are plenty of international agreements that suggest you can move well beyond that. From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 11:05 AM To: Ian Peter ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead The problem is that you can only get consensus on least common denominator mom and apple pie general principles, which will soon break down once you try to achieve consensus on anything more specific. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Ian Peter" To: , "Norbert Bollow" Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead Date: Fri, Aug 30, 2013 5:29 AM Hi Norbert, the reason I originally got involved with this internet governance stuff was that nationalisation = balkanisation in the Internet sphere. International agreements would overcome this and lead to more sensible stable addressing of critical issues. We are not going to get nations out of the picture but we may be able to get them to act collaboratively and set principles and protocols for addressing internet issues. That would not be full on "multistakeholder" governance, but it would be a significant advance on the current unilateral action status quo. It's probably more feasible than what most people imaging multistakeholder to be. We should be encouraging governments to act collaboratively with each other, as well as with other stakeholders. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 7:57 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead I read Diego's posting not as expressing that presumption, but as questioning the feasibility of “denationalization of Internet governance”. Are there reasons to believe that this “denationalization” is feasible? Greetings, Norbert Am Thu, 29 Aug 2013 21:46:32 +0000 schrieb Milton L Mueller : > I would have to reject the way you presume that the society = the > state. That is the whole point of my argument - they are not the > same, _especially_ in cyberspace. I also would have to question your > assumption that "asymmetries" (not entirely clear what you mean by > this, but I assume you mean inequalities) are overcome or mitigated > via the existence of states. Wow, what an assumption. So in the > world of states, there is no asymmetry between USA and Uruguay, or > between China and Laos. Hmmmm. > > But of course, such problems are not easy to overcome. No one said > they were. > > > From: Diego Rafael Canabarro [mailto:diegocanabarro at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:56 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter > Cc: Milton L Mueller; Adam Peake > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it > is dead > > The "denationalized model" proposed in Networks and States > intentionally puts asymmetries aside. And for the larger part of > those 190 or so states (and their societies), asymmetries (especially > socioeconomic ones) are high priority in their international affairs. > It doesn't seem to be something easy to overcome, does it? > > Regards > Diego > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Ian Peter > > wrote: Well > stated Milton! > > "The choice is not "the multistakeholder model" vs. the ITU. It is > the denationalization of Internet governance vs. the international > anarchy of governance by 190 nation-states." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 29 22:34:46 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 22:34:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Thanks Suresh. I, personally, would not go so far as to say others should recuse themselves. For myself, I would have felt I had to recuse myself in one place or another as part of the multistakeholder give and take, but that is just me. I want to feel free to discuss with enthusiasm once in the WGEC and to work for a true multistakeholder synthesis. And in order to have that freedom, I needed to recuse myself from the creation of the comments. I have also found that by listening to many discussions of what was to go into comments, without spending any time forming my own view has given me a chance to learn stuff about some other perspectives. For me that is a key part of this multistakeholder activity - learning to understand other perspectives. As an absolute relativist, I accept that mine is but one way of doing things. I even accept that my way may be a divergent outlier. avri On 29 Aug 2013, at 20:59, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > What avri is suggesting, I think, is that any wgec member's organization is welcome to submit a response but the specific wgec member should recuse him or herself from the drafting of that response so that they are able to evaluate it along with all the other responses, with an open mind. > > Fairly reasonable suggestion > > --srs (htc one x) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 29 22:37:45 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:07:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: <71EDEDD5328E43D8B5F8D94DC3E89BDD@Toshiba> References: <63C5B1C1944D4B3C9A339C660F96CB24@Toshiba> <35FB6CCF-D56D-4269-BB02-3E29CF587B68@hserus.net> <71EDEDD5328E43D8B5F8D94DC3E89BDD@Toshiba> Message-ID: Yes and several of those are already being covered across a wide range of fora that have been operational for a while. Do we seek to plug gaps, or do we seek to create an overarching, as the bestbits statement idealistically puts it "techno political" one forum to rule them all? This diversity - even for inter governmental cooperation - is actually something that has helped let the internet grow worldwide without being bogged down in politics. --srs (iPad) On 30-Aug-2013, at 7:57, "Ian Peter" wrote: > I know they consume massive amounts of energy, but I am personally not very interested in the range of issues which ICANN should cover – and nor are most nations. For me there are much more pressing matters which threaten the Internet than the minutia of names and numbers. It’s these wider issues which pose threats. > > Ian Peter > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 12:09 PM > To: Ian Peter > Cc: mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Norbert Bollow > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead > > in practice - we have seen international agreements depend on a bedrock that all signatories can agree on. > > For cybercrime treaties such as the vienna convention for example, the concept of dual criminality, and the internationally understood nature of cybercrime - so that even regimes that don't agree on, say, human rights, find it easier to agree on the best way to coordinate to deal with cybercriminals. > > Starting somewhere - why not start within the GAC and within the other stakeholder groups in ICANN? Several of the groups coming forward with feedback have never seen the inside of an ICANN meeting. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 30-Aug-2013, at 6:51, "Ian Peter" wrote: > >> Thats probably where you have to start. But there are plenty of international agreements that suggest you can move well beyond that. >> >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian >> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 11:05 AM >> To: Ian Peter ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Norbert Bollow >> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead >> >> The problem is that you can only get consensus on least common denominator mom and apple pie general principles, which will soon break down once you try to achieve consensus on anything more specific. >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "Ian Peter" >> To: , "Norbert Bollow" >> Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead >> Date: Fri, Aug 30, 2013 5:29 AM >> >> >> Hi Norbert, >> >> the reason I originally got involved with this internet governance stuff was >> that nationalisation = balkanisation in the Internet sphere. >> >> International agreements would overcome this and lead to more sensible >> stable addressing of critical issues. We are not going to get nations out of >> the picture but we may be able to get them to act collaboratively and set >> principles and protocols for addressing internet issues. >> >> That would not be full on "multistakeholder" governance, but it would be a >> significant advance on the current unilateral action status quo. >> >> It's probably more feasible than what most people imaging multistakeholder >> to be. We should be encouraging governments to act collaboratively with each >> other, as well as with other stakeholders. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Norbert Bollow >> Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 7:57 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead >> >> I read Diego's posting not as expressing that presumption, but as >> questioning the feasibility of “denationalization of Internet >> governance”. >> >> Are there reasons to believe that this “denationalization” is feasible? >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> >> Am Thu, 29 Aug 2013 21:46:32 +0000 >> schrieb Milton L Mueller : >> >> > I would have to reject the way you presume that the society = the >> > state. That is the whole point of my argument - they are not the >> > same, _especially_ in cyberspace. I also would have to question your >> > assumption that "asymmetries" (not entirely clear what you mean by >> > this, but I assume you mean inequalities) are overcome or mitigated >> > via the existence of states. Wow, what an assumption. So in the >> > world of states, there is no asymmetry between USA and Uruguay, or >> > between China and Laos. Hmmmm. >> > >> > But of course, such problems are not easy to overcome. No one said >> > they were. >> > >> > >> > From: Diego Rafael Canabarro [mailto:diegocanabarro at gmail.com] >> > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:56 PM >> > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter >> > Cc: Milton L Mueller; Adam Peake >> > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it >> > is dead >> > >> > The "denationalized model" proposed in Networks and States >> > intentionally puts asymmetries aside. And for the larger part of >> > those 190 or so states (and their societies), asymmetries (especially >> > socioeconomic ones) are high priority in their international affairs. >> > It doesn't seem to be something easy to overcome, does it? >> > >> > Regards >> > Diego >> > >> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Ian Peter >> > > wrote: Well >> > stated Milton! >> > >> > "The choice is not "the multistakeholder model" vs. the ITU. It is >> > the denationalization of Internet governance vs. the international >> > anarchy of governance by 190 nation-states." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 29 22:52:52 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:52:52 +0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: References: <63C5B1C1944D4B3C9A339C660F96CB24@Toshiba> <35FB6CCF-D56D-4269-BB02-3E29CF587B68@hserus.net> <71EDEDD5328E43D8B5F8D94DC3E89BDD@Toshiba> Message-ID: <03f101cea52c$0b720950$22561bf0$@gmail.com> Hi Suresh, I'm afraid I'm going to have to give you a C- as you don't seem to be willing/able to link Internet governance to the Snowden revelations i.e. how other than some (globally inclusive) "techno-political" forum will it be possible to deal with/respnd to the Internet as a/the primary mechanism for global security management which is the perspective of the currently dominant Internet player and its allies. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 9:38 AM To: Ian Peter Cc: Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead Yes and several of those are already being covered across a wide range of fora that have been operational for a while. Do we seek to plug gaps, or do we seek to create an overarching, as the bestbits statement idealistically puts it "techno political" one forum to rule them all? This diversity - even for inter governmental cooperation - is actually something that has helped let the internet grow worldwide without being bogged down in politics. --srs (iPad) On 30-Aug-2013, at 7:57, "Ian Peter" wrote: I know they consume massive amounts of energy, but I am personally not very interested in the range of issues which ICANN should cover – and nor are most nations. For me there are much more pressing matters which threaten the Internet than the minutia of names and numbers. It’s these wider issues which pose threats. Ian Peter From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 12:09 PM To: Ian Peter Cc: mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead in practice - we have seen international agreements depend on a bedrock that all signatories can agree on. For cybercrime treaties such as the vienna convention for example, the concept of dual criminality, and the internationally understood nature of cybercrime - so that even regimes that don't agree on, say, human rights, find it easier to agree on the best way to coordinate to deal with cybercriminals. Starting somewhere - why not start within the GAC and within the other stakeholder groups in ICANN? Several of the groups coming forward with feedback have never seen the inside of an ICANN meeting. --srs (iPad) On 30-Aug-2013, at 6:51, "Ian Peter" wrote: Thats probably where you have to start. But there are plenty of international agreements that suggest you can move well beyond that. From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 11:05 AM To: Ian Peter ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead The problem is that you can only get consensus on least common denominator mom and apple pie general principles, which will soon break down once you try to achieve consensus on anything more specific. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Ian Peter" To: , "Norbert Bollow" Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead Date: Fri, Aug 30, 2013 5:29 AM Hi Norbert, the reason I originally got involved with this internet governance stuff was that nationalisation = balkanisation in the Internet sphere. International agreements would overcome this and lead to more sensible stable addressing of critical issues. We are not going to get nations out of the picture but we may be able to get them to act collaboratively and set principles and protocols for addressing internet issues. That would not be full on "multistakeholder" governance, but it would be a significant advance on the current unilateral action status quo. It's probably more feasible than what most people imaging multistakeholder to be. We should be encouraging governments to act collaboratively with each other, as well as with other stakeholders. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 7:57 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead I read Diego's posting not as expressing that presumption, but as questioning the feasibility of “denationalization of Internet governance”. Are there reasons to believe that this “denationalization” is feasible? Greetings, Norbert Am Thu, 29 Aug 2013 21:46:32 +0000 schrieb Milton L Mueller : > I would have to reject the way you presume that the society = the > state. That is the whole point of my argument - they are not the > same, _especially_ in cyberspace. I also would have to question your > assumption that "asymmetries" (not entirely clear what you mean by > this, but I assume you mean inequalities) are overcome or mitigated > via the existence of states. Wow, what an assumption. So in the > world of states, there is no asymmetry between USA and Uruguay, or > between China and Laos. Hmmmm. > > But of course, such problems are not easy to overcome. No one said > they were. > > > From: Diego Rafael Canabarro [mailto:diegocanabarro at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:56 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter > Cc: Milton L Mueller; Adam Peake > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it > is dead > > The "denationalized model" proposed in Networks and States > intentionally puts asymmetries aside. And for the larger part of > those 190 or so states (and their societies), asymmetries (especially > socioeconomic ones) are high priority in their international affairs. > It doesn't seem to be something easy to overcome, does it? > > Regards > Diego > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Ian Peter > > wrote: Well > stated Milton! > > "The choice is not "the multistakeholder model" vs. the ITU. It is > the denationalization of Internet governance vs. the international > anarchy of governance by 190 nation-states." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 29 23:00:38 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:30:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: <03f101cea52c$0b720950$22561bf0$@gmail.com> References: <63C5B1C1944D4B3C9A339C660F96CB24@Toshiba> <35FB6CCF-D56D-4269-BB02-3E29CF587B68@hserus.net> <71EDEDD5328E43D8B5F8D94DC3E89BDD@Toshiba> <03f101cea52c$0b720950$22561bf0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: I will cheerfully accept your rating - if you are able to tell me just how a global so-called "techno political forum" which includes multiple different actors each with their own espionage capabilities is going to prove any sort of an improvement to the current situation. Especially where the majority of the applications commonly used on the Internet are anyway based in the USA and subject to US national law / lawful intercept or what have you. --srs (iPad) On 30-Aug-2013, at 8:22, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Hi Suresh, > > I'm afraid I'm going to have to give you a C- as you don't seem to be willing/able to link Internet governance to the Snowden revelations i.e. how other than some (globally inclusive) "techno-political" forum will it be possible to deal with/respnd to the Internet as a/the primary mechanism for global security management which is the perspective of the currently dominant Internet player and its allies. > > M > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 9:38 AM > To: Ian Peter > Cc: > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead > > Yes and several of those are already being covered across a wide range of fora that have been operational for a while. > > Do we seek to plug gaps, or do we seek to create an overarching, as the bestbits statement idealistically puts it "techno political" one forum to rule them all? > > This diversity - even for inter governmental cooperation - is actually something that has helped let the internet grow worldwide without being bogged down in politics. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 30-Aug-2013, at 7:57, "Ian Peter" wrote: > > I know they consume massive amounts of energy, but I am personally not very interested in the range of issues which ICANN should cover – and nor are most nations. For me there are much more pressing matters which threaten the Internet than the minutia of names and numbers. It’s these wider issues which pose threats. > > Ian Peter > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 12:09 PM > To: Ian Peter > Cc: mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Norbert Bollow > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead > > in practice - we have seen international agreements depend on a bedrock that all signatories can agree on. > > For cybercrime treaties such as the vienna convention for example, the concept of dual criminality, and the internationally understood nature of cybercrime - so that even regimes that don't agree on, say, human rights, find it easier to agree on the best way to coordinate to deal with cybercriminals. > > Starting somewhere - why not start within the GAC and within the other stakeholder groups in ICANN? Several of the groups coming forward with feedback have never seen the inside of an ICANN meeting. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 30-Aug-2013, at 6:51, "Ian Peter" wrote: > > Thats probably where you have to start. But there are plenty of international agreements that suggest you can move well beyond that. > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 11:05 AM > To: Ian Peter ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Norbert Bollow > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead > > The problem is that you can only get consensus on least common denominator mom and apple pie general principles, which will soon break down once you try to achieve consensus on anything more specific. > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Ian Peter" > To: , "Norbert Bollow" > Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead > Date: Fri, Aug 30, 2013 5:29 AM > > > Hi Norbert, > > the reason I originally got involved with this internet governance stuff was > that nationalisation = balkanisation in the Internet sphere. > > International agreements would overcome this and lead to more sensible > stable addressing of critical issues. We are not going to get nations out of > the picture but we may be able to get them to act collaboratively and set > principles and protocols for addressing internet issues. > > That would not be full on "multistakeholder" governance, but it would be a > significant advance on the current unilateral action status quo. > > It's probably more feasible than what most people imaging multistakeholder > to be. We should be encouraging governments to act collaboratively with each > other, as well as with other stakeholders. > > Ian Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Norbert Bollow > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 7:57 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead > > I read Diego's posting not as expressing that presumption, but as > questioning the feasibility of “denationalization of Internet > governance”. > > Are there reasons to believe that this “denationalization” is feasible? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Am Thu, 29 Aug 2013 21:46:32 +0000 > schrieb Milton L Mueller : > > > I would have to reject the way you presume that the society = the > > state. That is the whole point of my argument - they are not the > > same, _especially_ in cyberspace. I also would have to question your > > assumption that "asymmetries" (not entirely clear what you mean by > > this, but I assume you mean inequalities) are overcome or mitigated > > via the existence of states. Wow, what an assumption. So in the > > world of states, there is no asymmetry between USA and Uruguay, or > > between China and Laos. Hmmmm. > > > > But of course, such problems are not easy to overcome. No one said > > they were. > > > > > > From: Diego Rafael Canabarro [mailto:diegocanabarro at gmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:56 PM > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter > > Cc: Milton L Mueller; Adam Peake > > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it > > is dead > > > > The "denationalized model" proposed in Networks and States > > intentionally puts asymmetries aside. And for the larger part of > > those 190 or so states (and their societies), asymmetries (especially > > socioeconomic ones) are high priority in their international affairs. > > It doesn't seem to be something easy to overcome, does it? > > > > Regards > > Diego > > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Ian Peter > > > wrote: Well > > stated Milton! > > > > "The choice is not "the multistakeholder model" vs. the ITU. It is > > the denationalization of Internet governance vs. the international > > anarchy of governance by 190 nation-states." > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 29 23:06:14 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:06:14 +0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: References: <63C5B1C1944D4B3C9A339C660F96CB24@Toshiba> <35FB6CCF-D56D-4269-BB02-3E29CF587B68@hserus.net> <71EDEDD5328E43D8B5F8D94DC3E89BDD@Toshiba> <03f101cea52c$0b720950$22561bf0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <040701cea52d$e9cc3a30$bd64ae90$@gmail.com> That of course, is the difficulty and the challenge… I'm not sure if we (or anyone) is up to this but a very significant amount of our individual and collective futures rests on being able to effectively respond/meet these challenges. M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 10:01 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: ; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead I will cheerfully accept your rating - if you are able to tell me just how a global so-called "techno political forum" which includes multiple different actors each with their own espionage capabilities is going to prove any sort of an improvement to the current situation. Especially where the majority of the applications commonly used on the Internet are anyway based in the USA and subject to US national law / lawful intercept or what have you. --srs (iPad) On 30-Aug-2013, at 8:22, "michael gurstein" wrote: Hi Suresh, I'm afraid I'm going to have to give you a C- as you don't seem to be willing/able to link Internet governance to the Snowden revelations i.e. how other than some (globally inclusive) "techno-political" forum will it be possible to deal with/respnd to the Internet as a/the primary mechanism for global security management which is the perspective of the currently dominant Internet player and its allies. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 9:38 AM To: Ian Peter Cc: Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead Yes and several of those are already being covered across a wide range of fora that have been operational for a while. Do we seek to plug gaps, or do we seek to create an overarching, as the bestbits statement idealistically puts it "techno political" one forum to rule them all? This diversity - even for inter governmental cooperation - is actually something that has helped let the internet grow worldwide without being bogged down in politics. --srs (iPad) On 30-Aug-2013, at 7:57, "Ian Peter" wrote: I know they consume massive amounts of energy, but I am personally not very interested in the range of issues which ICANN should cover – and nor are most nations. For me there are much more pressing matters which threaten the Internet than the minutia of names and numbers. It’s these wider issues which pose threats. Ian Peter From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 12:09 PM To: Ian Peter Cc: mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead in practice - we have seen international agreements depend on a bedrock that all signatories can agree on. For cybercrime treaties such as the vienna convention for example, the concept of dual criminality, and the internationally understood nature of cybercrime - so that even regimes that don't agree on, say, human rights, find it easier to agree on the best way to coordinate to deal with cybercriminals. Starting somewhere - why not start within the GAC and within the other stakeholder groups in ICANN? Several of the groups coming forward with feedback have never seen the inside of an ICANN meeting. --srs (iPad) On 30-Aug-2013, at 6:51, "Ian Peter" wrote: Thats probably where you have to start. But there are plenty of international agreements that suggest you can move well beyond that. From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 11:05 AM To: Ian Peter ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead The problem is that you can only get consensus on least common denominator mom and apple pie general principles, which will soon break down once you try to achieve consensus on anything more specific. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Ian Peter" To: , "Norbert Bollow" Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead Date: Fri, Aug 30, 2013 5:29 AM Hi Norbert, the reason I originally got involved with this internet governance stuff was that nationalisation = balkanisation in the Internet sphere. International agreements would overcome this and lead to more sensible stable addressing of critical issues. We are not going to get nations out of the picture but we may be able to get them to act collaboratively and set principles and protocols for addressing internet issues. That would not be full on "multistakeholder" governance, but it would be a significant advance on the current unilateral action status quo. It's probably more feasible than what most people imaging multistakeholder to be. We should be encouraging governments to act collaboratively with each other, as well as with other stakeholders. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 7:57 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead I read Diego's posting not as expressing that presumption, but as questioning the feasibility of “denationalization of Internet governance”. Are there reasons to believe that this “denationalization” is feasible? Greetings, Norbert Am Thu, 29 Aug 2013 21:46:32 +0000 schrieb Milton L Mueller : > I would have to reject the way you presume that the society = the > state. That is the whole point of my argument - they are not the > same, _especially_ in cyberspace. I also would have to question your > assumption that "asymmetries" (not entirely clear what you mean by > this, but I assume you mean inequalities) are overcome or mitigated > via the existence of states. Wow, what an assumption. So in the > world of states, there is no asymmetry between USA and Uruguay, or > between China and Laos. Hmmmm. > > But of course, such problems are not easy to overcome. No one said > they were. > > > From: Diego Rafael Canabarro [mailto:diegocanabarro at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:56 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter > Cc: Milton L Mueller; Adam Peake > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it > is dead > > The "denationalized model" proposed in Networks and States > intentionally puts asymmetries aside. And for the larger part of > those 190 or so states (and their societies), asymmetries (especially > socioeconomic ones) are high priority in their international affairs. > It doesn't seem to be something easy to overcome, does it? > > Regards > Diego > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Ian Peter > > wrote: Well > stated Milton! > > "The choice is not "the multistakeholder model" vs. the ITU. It is > the denationalization of Internet governance vs. the international > anarchy of governance by 190 nation-states." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 29 23:17:38 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:47:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: <040701cea52d$e9cc3a30$bd64ae90$@gmail.com> References: <63C5B1C1944D4B3C9A339C660F96CB24@Toshiba> <35FB6CCF-D56D-4269-BB02-3E29CF587B68@hserus.net> <71EDEDD5328E43D8B5F8D94DC3E89BDD@Toshiba> <03f101cea52c$0b720950$22561bf0$@gmail.com> <040701cea52d$e9cc3a30$bd64ae90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <31663145-F3A6-454B-9558-71A5C171A8D4@hserus.net> Which is why I keep advocating participating in a system and reforming it from the inside Those of us with the goodwill and expertise required (policy, tech, a combination of the two) are thin enough on the ground. Do we squander our energies in setting up an entirely new body - and negotiating all the political jockeying that will inevitably erupt if such a body is ever created in the first place (power abhors a vacuum, and power centers don't shift of themselves)? Or do we work within the framework that does exist, and keeping in mind the realities that do exist, to influence change from within? --srs (iPad) On 30-Aug-2013, at 8:36, "michael gurstein" wrote: > That of course, is the difficulty and the challenge… I'm not sure if we (or anyone) is up to this but a very significant amount of our individual and collective futures rests on being able to effectively respond/meet these challenges. > > M > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 10:01 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: ; Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead > > I will cheerfully accept your rating - if you are able to tell me just how a global so-called "techno political forum" which includes multiple different actors each with their own espionage capabilities is going to prove any sort of an improvement to the current situation. > > Especially where the majority of the applications commonly used on the Internet are anyway based in the USA and subject to US national law / lawful intercept or what have you. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 30-Aug-2013, at 8:22, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Hi Suresh, > > I'm afraid I'm going to have to give you a C- as you don't seem to be willing/able to link Internet governance to the Snowden revelations i.e. how other than some (globally inclusive) "techno-political" forum will it be possible to deal with/respnd to the Internet as a/the primary mechanism for global security management which is the perspective of the currently dominant Internet player and its allies. > > M > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 9:38 AM > To: Ian Peter > Cc: > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead > > Yes and several of those are already being covered across a wide range of fora that have been operational for a while. > > Do we seek to plug gaps, or do we seek to create an overarching, as the bestbits statement idealistically puts it "techno political" one forum to rule them all? > > This diversity - even for inter governmental cooperation - is actually something that has helped let the internet grow worldwide without being bogged down in politics. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 30-Aug-2013, at 7:57, "Ian Peter" wrote: > > I know they consume massive amounts of energy, but I am personally not very interested in the range of issues which ICANN should cover – and nor are most nations. For me there are much more pressing matters which threaten the Internet than the minutia of names and numbers. It’s these wider issues which pose threats. > > Ian Peter > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 12:09 PM > To: Ian Peter > Cc: mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Norbert Bollow > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead > > in practice - we have seen international agreements depend on a bedrock that all signatories can agree on. > > For cybercrime treaties such as the vienna convention for example, the concept of dual criminality, and the internationally understood nature of cybercrime - so that even regimes that don't agree on, say, human rights, find it easier to agree on the best way to coordinate to deal with cybercriminals. > > Starting somewhere - why not start within the GAC and within the other stakeholder groups in ICANN? Several of the groups coming forward with feedback have never seen the inside of an ICANN meeting. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 30-Aug-2013, at 6:51, "Ian Peter" wrote: > > Thats probably where you have to start. But there are plenty of international agreements that suggest you can move well beyond that. > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 11:05 AM > To: Ian Peter ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Norbert Bollow > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead > > The problem is that you can only get consensus on least common denominator mom and apple pie general principles, which will soon break down once you try to achieve consensus on anything more specific. > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Ian Peter" > To: , "Norbert Bollow" > Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead > Date: Fri, Aug 30, 2013 5:29 AM > > > Hi Norbert, > > the reason I originally got involved with this internet governance stuff was > that nationalisation = balkanisation in the Internet sphere. > > International agreements would overcome this and lead to more sensible > stable addressing of critical issues. We are not going to get nations out of > the picture but we may be able to get them to act collaboratively and set > principles and protocols for addressing internet issues. > > That would not be full on "multistakeholder" governance, but it would be a > significant advance on the current unilateral action status quo. > > It's probably more feasible than what most people imaging multistakeholder > to be. We should be encouraging governments to act collaboratively with each > other, as well as with other stakeholders. > > Ian Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Norbert Bollow > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 7:57 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead > > I read Diego's posting not as expressing that presumption, but as > questioning the feasibility of “denationalization of Internet > governance”. > > Are there reasons to believe that this “denationalization” is feasible? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Am Thu, 29 Aug 2013 21:46:32 +0000 > schrieb Milton L Mueller : > > > I would have to reject the way you presume that the society = the > > state. That is the whole point of my argument - they are not the > > same, _especially_ in cyberspace. I also would have to question your > > assumption that "asymmetries" (not entirely clear what you mean by > > this, but I assume you mean inequalities) are overcome or mitigated > > via the existence of states. Wow, what an assumption. So in the > > world of states, there is no asymmetry between USA and Uruguay, or > > between China and Laos. Hmmmm. > > > > But of course, such problems are not easy to overcome. No one said > > they were. > > > > > > From: Diego Rafael Canabarro [mailto:diegocanabarro at gmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:56 PM > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter > > Cc: Milton L Mueller; Adam Peake > > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it > > is dead > > > > The "denationalized model" proposed in Networks and States > > intentionally puts asymmetries aside. And for the larger part of > > those 190 or so states (and their societies), asymmetries (especially > > socioeconomic ones) are high priority in their international affairs. > > It doesn't seem to be something easy to overcome, does it? > > > > Regards > > Diego > > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Ian Peter > > > wrote: Well > > stated Milton! > > > > "The choice is not "the multistakeholder model" vs. the ITU. It is > > the denationalization of Internet governance vs. the international > > anarchy of governance by 190 nation-states." > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 29 23:37:51 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:37:51 +0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: <31663145-F3A6-454B-9558-71A5C171A8D4@hserus.net> References: <63C5B1C1944D4B3C9A339C660F96CB24@Toshiba> <35FB6CCF-D56D-4269-BB02-3E29CF587B68@hserus.net> <71EDEDD5328E43D8B5F8D94DC3E89BDD@Toshiba> <03f101cea52c$0b720950$22561bf0$@gmail.com> <040701cea52d$e9cc3a30$bd64ae90$@gmail.com> <31663145-F3A6-454B-9558-71A5C171A8D4@hserus.net> Message-ID: <042201cea532$550b39f0$ff21add0$@gmail.com> I guess it has to do with how much we think the existing mechanisms have been completely compromised or are manifestly unable to do the job that is necessary. It is rather like the "Internet Freedom" meme… It is hard to disagree with it except that given what we now know it is hard to accept any of it at face value and yet, the notion of freedom of expression (and dare I say true security of free expression) is probably more important now given what we know that it was before the Snowden revelations. The challenge is to develop mechanisms that guarantee these freedoms where the array of forces determined to undermine such freedoms is so overwhelming and ubiquitous. M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 10:18 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: ; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead Which is why I keep advocating participating in a system and reforming it from the inside Those of us with the goodwill and expertise required (policy, tech, a combination of the two) are thin enough on the ground. Do we squander our energies in setting up an entirely new body - and negotiating all the political jockeying that will inevitably erupt if such a body is ever created in the first place (power abhors a vacuum, and power centers don't shift of themselves)? Or do we work within the framework that does exist, and keeping in mind the realities that do exist, to influence change from within? --srs (iPad) On 30-Aug-2013, at 8:36, "michael gurstein" wrote: That of course, is the difficulty and the challenge… I'm not sure if we (or anyone) is up to this but a very significant amount of our individual and collective futures rests on being able to effectively respond/meet these challenges. M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 10:01 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: ; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead I will cheerfully accept your rating - if you are able to tell me just how a global so-called "techno political forum" which includes multiple different actors each with their own espionage capabilities is going to prove any sort of an improvement to the current situation. Especially where the majority of the applications commonly used on the Internet are anyway based in the USA and subject to US national law / lawful intercept or what have you. --srs (iPad) On 30-Aug-2013, at 8:22, "michael gurstein" wrote: Hi Suresh, I'm afraid I'm going to have to give you a C- as you don't seem to be willing/able to link Internet governance to the Snowden revelations i.e. how other than some (globally inclusive) "techno-political" forum will it be possible to deal with/respnd to the Internet as a/the primary mechanism for global security management which is the perspective of the currently dominant Internet player and its allies. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 9:38 AM To: Ian Peter Cc: Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead Yes and several of those are already being covered across a wide range of fora that have been operational for a while. Do we seek to plug gaps, or do we seek to create an overarching, as the bestbits statement idealistically puts it "techno political" one forum to rule them all? This diversity - even for inter governmental cooperation - is actually something that has helped let the internet grow worldwide without being bogged down in politics. --srs (iPad) On 30-Aug-2013, at 7:57, "Ian Peter" wrote: I know they consume massive amounts of energy, but I am personally not very interested in the range of issues which ICANN should cover – and nor are most nations. For me there are much more pressing matters which threaten the Internet than the minutia of names and numbers. It’s these wider issues which pose threats. Ian Peter From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 12:09 PM To: Ian Peter Cc: mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead in practice - we have seen international agreements depend on a bedrock that all signatories can agree on. For cybercrime treaties such as the vienna convention for example, the concept of dual criminality, and the internationally understood nature of cybercrime - so that even regimes that don't agree on, say, human rights, find it easier to agree on the best way to coordinate to deal with cybercriminals. Starting somewhere - why not start within the GAC and within the other stakeholder groups in ICANN? Several of the groups coming forward with feedback have never seen the inside of an ICANN meeting. --srs (iPad) On 30-Aug-2013, at 6:51, "Ian Peter" wrote: Thats probably where you have to start. But there are plenty of international agreements that suggest you can move well beyond that. From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 11:05 AM To: Ian Peter ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead The problem is that you can only get consensus on least common denominator mom and apple pie general principles, which will soon break down once you try to achieve consensus on anything more specific. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Ian Peter" To: , "Norbert Bollow" Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead Date: Fri, Aug 30, 2013 5:29 AM Hi Norbert, the reason I originally got involved with this internet governance stuff was that nationalisation = balkanisation in the Internet sphere. International agreements would overcome this and lead to more sensible stable addressing of critical issues. We are not going to get nations out of the picture but we may be able to get them to act collaboratively and set principles and protocols for addressing internet issues. That would not be full on "multistakeholder" governance, but it would be a significant advance on the current unilateral action status quo. It's probably more feasible than what most people imaging multistakeholder to be. We should be encouraging governments to act collaboratively with each other, as well as with other stakeholders. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 7:57 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead I read Diego's posting not as expressing that presumption, but as questioning the feasibility of “denationalization of Internet governance”. Are there reasons to believe that this “denationalization” is feasible? Greetings, Norbert Am Thu, 29 Aug 2013 21:46:32 +0000 schrieb Milton L Mueller : > I would have to reject the way you presume that the society = the > state. That is the whole point of my argument - they are not the > same, _especially_ in cyberspace. I also would have to question your > assumption that "asymmetries" (not entirely clear what you mean by > this, but I assume you mean inequalities) are overcome or mitigated > via the existence of states. Wow, what an assumption. So in the > world of states, there is no asymmetry between USA and Uruguay, or > between China and Laos. Hmmmm. > > But of course, such problems are not easy to overcome. No one said > they were. > > > From: Diego Rafael Canabarro [mailto:diegocanabarro at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:56 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter > Cc: Milton L Mueller; Adam Peake > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it > is dead > > The "denationalized model" proposed in Networks and States > intentionally puts asymmetries aside. And for the larger part of > those 190 or so states (and their societies), asymmetries (especially > socioeconomic ones) are high priority in their international affairs. > It doesn't seem to be something easy to overcome, does it? > > Regards > Diego > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Ian Peter > > wrote: Well > stated Milton! > > "The choice is not "the multistakeholder model" vs. the ITU. It is > the denationalization of Internet governance vs. the international > anarchy of governance by 190 nation-states." ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Aug 30 00:02:53 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:32:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: <042201cea532$550b39f0$ff21add0$@gmail.com> References: <63C5B1C1944D4B3C9A339C660F96CB24@Toshiba> <35FB6CCF-D56D-4269-BB02-3E29CF587B68@hserus.net> <71EDEDD5328E43D8B5F8D94DC3E89BDD@Toshiba> <03f101cea52c$0b720950$22561bf0$@gmail.com> <040701cea52d$e9cc3a30$bd64ae90$@gmail.com> <31663145-F3A6-454B-9558-71A5C171A8D4@hserus.net> <042201cea532$550b39f0$ff21add0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3ABFF956-CA37-4D76-A316-7C26C8E4661D@hserus.net> Possibly. My concern is that we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. And a lot of the discussions around this topic - at least by certain players - always seem to circle back to questions of who gets to control IP addressing and the domain name system. Even though the issues at hand ARE much broader. --srs (iPad) On 30-Aug-2013, at 9:07, "michael gurstein" wrote: > I guess it has to do with how much we think the existing mechanisms have been completely compromised or are manifestly unable to do the job that is necessary. It is rather like the "Internet Freedom" meme… It is hard to disagree with it except that given what we now know it is hard to accept any of it at face value and yet, the notion of freedom of expression (and dare I say true security of free expression) is probably more important now given what we know that it was before the Snowden revelations. > > The challenge is to develop mechanisms that guarantee these freedoms where the array of forces determined to undermine such freedoms is so overwhelming and ubiquitous. > > M > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 10:18 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: ; Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead > > Which is why I keep advocating participating in a system and reforming it from the inside > > Those of us with the goodwill and expertise required (policy, tech, a combination of the two) are thin enough on the ground. Do we squander our energies in setting up an entirely new body - and negotiating all the political jockeying that will inevitably erupt if such a body is ever created in the first place (power abhors a vacuum, and power centers don't shift of themselves)? > > Or do we work within the framework that does exist, and keeping in mind the realities that do exist, to influence change from within? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 30-Aug-2013, at 8:36, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > That of course, is the difficulty and the challenge… I'm not sure if we (or anyone) is up to this but a very significant amount of our individual and collective futures rests on being able to effectively respond/meet these challenges. > > M > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 10:01 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: ; Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead > > I will cheerfully accept your rating - if you are able to tell me just how a global so-called "techno political forum" which includes multiple different actors each with their own espionage capabilities is going to prove any sort of an improvement to the current situation. > > Especially where the majority of the applications commonly used on the Internet are anyway based in the USA and subject to US national law / lawful intercept or what have you. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 30-Aug-2013, at 8:22, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Hi Suresh, > > I'm afraid I'm going to have to give you a C- as you don't seem to be willing/able to link Internet governance to the Snowden revelations i.e. how other than some (globally inclusive) "techno-political" forum will it be possible to deal with/respnd to the Internet as a/the primary mechanism for global security management which is the perspective of the currently dominant Internet player and its allies. > > M > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 9:38 AM > To: Ian Peter > Cc: > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead > > Yes and several of those are already being covered across a wide range of fora that have been operational for a while. > > Do we seek to plug gaps, or do we seek to create an overarching, as the bestbits statement idealistically puts it "techno political" one forum to rule them all? > > This diversity - even for inter governmental cooperation - is actually something that has helped let the internet grow worldwide without being bogged down in politics. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 30-Aug-2013, at 7:57, "Ian Peter" wrote: > > I know they consume massive amounts of energy, but I am personally not very interested in the range of issues which ICANN should cover – and nor are most nations. For me there are much more pressing matters which threaten the Internet than the minutia of names and numbers. It’s these wider issues which pose threats. > > Ian Peter > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 12:09 PM > To: Ian Peter > Cc: mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Norbert Bollow > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead > > in practice - we have seen international agreements depend on a bedrock that all signatories can agree on. > > For cybercrime treaties such as the vienna convention for example, the concept of dual criminality, and the internationally understood nature of cybercrime - so that even regimes that don't agree on, say, human rights, find it easier to agree on the best way to coordinate to deal with cybercriminals. > > Starting somewhere - why not start within the GAC and within the other stakeholder groups in ICANN? Several of the groups coming forward with feedback have never seen the inside of an ICANN meeting. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 30-Aug-2013, at 6:51, "Ian Peter" wrote: > > Thats probably where you have to start. But there are plenty of international agreements that suggest you can move well beyond that. > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 11:05 AM > To: Ian Peter ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Norbert Bollow > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead > > The problem is that you can only get consensus on least common denominator mom and apple pie general principles, which will soon break down once you try to achieve consensus on anything more specific. > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Ian Peter" > To: , "Norbert Bollow" > Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead > Date: Fri, Aug 30, 2013 5:29 AM > > > Hi Norbert, > > the reason I originally got involved with this internet governance stuff was > that nationalisation = balkanisation in the Internet sphere. > > International agreements would overcome this and lead to more sensible > stable addressing of critical issues. We are not going to get nations out of > the picture but we may be able to get them to act collaboratively and set > principles and protocols for addressing internet issues. > > That would not be full on "multistakeholder" governance, but it would be a > significant advance on the current unilateral action status quo. > > It's probably more feasible than what most people imaging multistakeholder > to be. We should be encouraging governments to act collaboratively with each > other, as well as with other stakeholders. > > Ian Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Norbert Bollow > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 7:57 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead > > I read Diego's posting not as expressing that presumption, but as > questioning the feasibility of “denationalization of Internet > governance”. > > Are there reasons to believe that this “denationalization” is feasible? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Am Thu, 29 Aug 2013 21:46:32 +0000 > schrieb Milton L Mueller : > > > I would have to reject the way you presume that the society = the > > state. That is the whole point of my argument - they are not the > > same, _especially_ in cyberspace. I also would have to question your > > assumption that "asymmetries" (not entirely clear what you mean by > > this, but I assume you mean inequalities) are overcome or mitigated > > via the existence of states. Wow, what an assumption. So in the > > world of states, there is no asymmetry between USA and Uruguay, or > > between China and Laos. Hmmmm. > > > > But of course, such problems are not easy to overcome. No one said > > they were. > > > > > > From: Diego Rafael Canabarro [mailto:diegocanabarro at gmail.com] > > Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:56 PM > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter > > Cc: Milton L Mueller; Adam Peake > > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it > > is dead > > > > The "denationalized model" proposed in Networks and States > > intentionally puts asymmetries aside. And for the larger part of > > those 190 or so states (and their societies), asymmetries (especially > > socioeconomic ones) are high priority in their international affairs. > > It doesn't seem to be something easy to overcome, does it? > > > > Regards > > Diego > > > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Ian Peter > > > wrote: Well > > stated Milton! > > > > "The choice is not "the multistakeholder model" vs. the ITU. It is > > the denationalization of Internet governance vs. the international > > anarchy of governance by 190 nation-states." > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 30 02:39:44 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 08:39:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] Ban Ki-moon's lecture in Leiden 2013-08-28 Message-ID: <20130830083944.464ea1eb@quill> UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's delivered an interesting lecture at Leiden University on August 28, with a significant emphasis on the problem of Internet surveillance as seen from a good human rights based perspective. http://www.un.org/sg/statements/index.asp?nid=7046 In my reading of this, Ban Ki-moon's main point is that fear is not a good advisor. This is a point that I wholeheartedly agree with. (Those who were at last year's BestBits gathering may recall that I made some remarks about how way too much thinking about Internet governance is driven by fear.) I believe that we need to learn to treat the emotion of fear as a signal that there is a need to do careful systemic analysis and that there is a need for hope-inspiring solution proposals. Dealing with with fear and hope in a logical manner may not be part of classical logics, but is probably necessary for creating constructive discourse processes in which all stakeholders are welcome to participate and where the needs, views and concerns expressed by any participant will be taken appropriately seriously. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive 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 Aug 30 03:44:47 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 16:44:47 +0900 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: <521F8B7F.7060906@cafonso.ca> References: <5208605C.8080101@apc.org> <3E1CC149-8E3F-449E-AA93-D87D5B392445@acm.org> <521F8B7F.7060906@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <6F1761C7-EA77-44C5-B547-7BA30A0B9BC8@glocom.ac.jp> On Aug 30, 2013, at 2:57 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi people, as a member of WGEC, I do not recall any decision that would > preclude its members' organizations from presenting their responses to > the questionnaire. As is well known, WGEC (like the MAG) members are > there in their personal capacities as members of stakeholder groups, not > as reps or "ambassadors" of their respective organizations. Hi Carlos, I don't see how this questioning is relevant to my comment, I didn't mention rules, MAG etc. Basically I was expressing an opinion that a WGEC member shopping a statement around for support so they could be presented as the views of a wider group was not a great idea. About the WGEC members and your view of your role, I read the statement by Miguel Palomino de la Gala, Chairman of CSTD about the composition of the working group differently, see http://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspx?OriginalVersionID=442&Sitemap_x0020_Taxonomy=Commission%20on%20Science%20and%20Technology%20for%20Development;#1944;#Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) he says: "I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the designated focal points for each regional and stakeholder group, for their efforts in facilitating consultations on their respective representatives ... " and "I intend to have the meetings of the Working Group be open for observers, including Member States regardless of whether or not they are members of the CSTD, and representatives of business, civil society, technical and academic communities..." I read 'representatives of'. Good chance I may have missed other statements from the CSTD about the working group, you might have had discussions in the WG about your roles, and as a senior member of the group I am sure you know better and will clarify. Or you might start to act accordingly as a representative of civil society and consult with us. It would be nice to think you are interested in the views of you civil society colleagues. Whatever, I don't see how this is relevant to my earlier email. > Where did > you get this from, Adam? > I didn't get anything from anywhere... I think you are reading things that were not there. Adam > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 08/29/2013 08:07 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> >> On Aug 29, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Perhaps he was referring to the statement Parminder is sending around looking for support. It is perhaps confusing having two statements in circulation: one by the Best Bits and one by Parminder who is a participant in both the Best Bits collective and a member of the WGEC. >>> >> >> Yes, not so good when working group members are advising themselves in this way, multiple ways. The IT for Change position makes many unsubstantiated claims, and again repeats that the Internet is a global commons, which it clearly is not (what's the point of engaging in honest debate on this list if ignored for the sake of some political doctrine?) And bestbits, which I personally disagree with enough not to be able to support, but it much more thoughtful, but is also somewhat undermined by having WG members as authors. Poor process. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> avri >>> >>> On 28 Aug 2013, at 06:57, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>>> On 27/08/2013, at 12:13 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 27-Aug-2013, at 7:21, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Although the Caucus is a little fractured at the moment, Norbert and Sala might nevertheless wish to gauge the feeling of the Caucus towards signing on corporately. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It would help gain broader consensus if the worst bits of that statement were removed. >>>>> >>>>> Bringing ICANN under UN oversight, really? >>>> >>>> Since there is nothing in the submission that suggests that, I have to ask, did you read it? >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >>>> >>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>> >>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>> >>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Fri Aug 30 04:00:46 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 17:00:46 +0900 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: <521FB637.2020501@cafonso.ca> References: <5208605C.8080101@apc.org> <3E1CC149-8E3F-449E-AA93-D87D5B392445@acm.org> <521F8B7F.7060906@cafonso.ca> <521FB637.2020501@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <0791D4A9-7690-469D-B2E1-775D5AA5CB62@glocom.ac.jp> Dear Carlos, I did not say there were rules. I did not suggest that a WG members's organization could not/should not submit a contribution; on the contrary I would expect organizations like APC, IT For Change (ISOC, ICANN, etc etc) to submit comments, and hope they do. But I am uncomfortable with a WGEC member shopping around such contributions so they become a statement of some stakeholder group or sub-set of (and I guess by association imbued with some greater weight etc.) Please relax, read what people have to say. We are still allowed opinions I hope. Thanks, Adam On Aug 30, 2013, at 5:59 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Dear Avri, I respect your position, of course. > > My understanding is that we are in the WGEC (like some of us were in the > WGIG) because we are expected to bring to the dialogue what we think are > the views of the stakeholders we are supposed to represent, and I think > the questionnaire is a good (although imperfect) instrument to help > convey these views. So, even if WGEC members themselves decided to > respond and provide their views, I would welcome it. > > Thus, I do not agree we should exclude the organizations we are related > to from this survey, and this is the position of several other > participants who are helping to build institutional responses to the > questionnaire. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 08/29/2013 04:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I do not know Adam's reasons. >> >> I know my own reasons for not doing so. >> >> I think that in order to the job in WGEC as I feel I should do it, I should not be arguing for responses I have crafted, but rather should be taking the input from others who are commenting, and from the respective and understanding I bring, do the analysis. For myself I beleive that if I contributed to the writing of several proposals I would risk my objectivity in taking the work of others and treating it fairly in the context of WGEC. I also beleive that my contributions in the WGEC might be colored, as if arguments I would make in the WGEC were just a bolstering of opinions I had put before the group in many other ways. >> >> I am speaking only for myself and the way I think such appointments should be handled. This is why I avoided active participation in any of the several efforts I might have engaged in. >> >> You are right, there was no rule. I am just doing the job in the best way I know how. I have followed this process many time before and find it works for me. >> >> avri >> >> >> >> On 29 Aug 2013, at 13:57, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> Hi people, as a member of WGEC, I do not recall any decision that would >>> preclude its members' organizations from presenting their responses to >>> the questionnaire. As is well known, WGEC (like the MAG) members are >>> there in their personal capacities as members of stakeholder groups, not >>> as reps or "ambassadors" of their respective organizations. Where did >>> you get this from, Adam? >>> >>> fraternal regards >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 08/29/2013 08:07 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Aug 29, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps he was referring to the statement Parminder is sending around looking for support. It is perhaps confusing having two statements in circulation: one by the Best Bits and one by Parminder who is a participant in both the Best Bits collective and a member of the WGEC. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, not so good when working group members are advising themselves in this way, multiple ways. The IT for Change position makes many unsubstantiated claims, and again repeats that the Internet is a global commons, which it clearly is not (what's the point of engaging in honest debate on this list if ignored for the sake of some political doctrine?) And bestbits, which I personally disagree with enough not to be able to support, but it much more thoughtful, but is also somewhat undermined by having WG members as authors. Poor process. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> On 28 Aug 2013, at 06:57, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 27/08/2013, at 12:13 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 27-Aug-2013, at 7:21, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Although the Caucus is a little fractured at the moment, Norbert and Sala might nevertheless wish to gauge the feeling of the Caucus towards signing on corporately. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It would help gain broader consensus if the worst bits of that statement were removed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bringing ICANN under UN oversight, really? >>>>>> >>>>>> Since there is nothing in the submission that suggests that, I have to ask, did you read it? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >>>>>> >>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>>> >>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>>>> >>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Fri Aug 30 04:48:41 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:48:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: <0791D4A9-7690-469D-B2E1-775D5AA5CB62@glocom.ac.jp> References: <5208605C.8080101@apc.org> <3E1CC149-8E3F-449E-AA93-D87D5B392445@acm.org> <521F8B7F.7060906@cafonso.ca> <521FB637.2020501@cafonso.ca> <0791D4A9-7690-469D-B2E1-775D5AA5CB62@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <38458E7C-1326-4D64-BD27-B74056E98B19@uzh.ch> On Aug 30, 2013, at 10:00 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Dear Carlos, > > I did not say there were rules. I did not suggest that a WG members's organization could not/should not submit a contribution; on the contrary I would expect organizations like APC, IT For Change (ISOC, ICANN, etc etc) to submit comments, and hope they do. But I am uncomfortable with a WGEC member shopping around such contributions so they become a statement of some stakeholder group or sub-set of (and I guess by association imbued with some greater weight etc.) And if a WG members's organization does this, it would seem reasonable to expect the member to remain neutral, if not recused, when contrary CS views/inputs are discussed so that the full diversity of perspectives is allowed to blossom and no false sense of uniformity is established. Bill > > Please relax, read what people have to say. We are still allowed opinions I hope. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > On Aug 30, 2013, at 5:59 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Dear Avri, I respect your position, of course. >> >> My understanding is that we are in the WGEC (like some of us were in the >> WGIG) because we are expected to bring to the dialogue what we think are >> the views of the stakeholders we are supposed to represent, and I think >> the questionnaire is a good (although imperfect) instrument to help >> convey these views. So, even if WGEC members themselves decided to >> respond and provide their views, I would welcome it. >> >> Thus, I do not agree we should exclude the organizations we are related >> to from this survey, and this is the position of several other >> participants who are helping to build institutional responses to the >> questionnaire. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 08/29/2013 04:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I do not know Adam's reasons. >>> >>> I know my own reasons for not doing so. >>> >>> I think that in order to the job in WGEC as I feel I should do it, I should not be arguing for responses I have crafted, but rather should be taking the input from others who are commenting, and from the respective and understanding I bring, do the analysis. For myself I beleive that if I contributed to the writing of several proposals I would risk my objectivity in taking the work of others and treating it fairly in the context of WGEC. I also beleive that my contributions in the WGEC might be colored, as if arguments I would make in the WGEC were just a bolstering of opinions I had put before the group in many other ways. >>> >>> I am speaking only for myself and the way I think such appointments should be handled. This is why I avoided active participation in any of the several efforts I might have engaged in. >>> >>> You are right, there was no rule. I am just doing the job in the best way I know how. I have followed this process many time before and find it works for me. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 29 Aug 2013, at 13:57, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> >>>> Hi people, as a member of WGEC, I do not recall any decision that would >>>> preclude its members' organizations from presenting their responses to >>>> the questionnaire. As is well known, WGEC (like the MAG) members are >>>> there in their personal capacities as members of stakeholder groups, not >>>> as reps or "ambassadors" of their respective organizations. Where did >>>> you get this from, Adam? >>>> >>>> fraternal regards >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> On 08/29/2013 08:07 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 29, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps he was referring to the statement Parminder is sending around looking for support. It is perhaps confusing having two statements in circulation: one by the Best Bits and one by Parminder who is a participant in both the Best Bits collective and a member of the WGEC. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes, not so good when working group members are advising themselves in this way, multiple ways. The IT for Change position makes many unsubstantiated claims, and again repeats that the Internet is a global commons, which it clearly is not (what's the point of engaging in honest debate on this list if ignored for the sake of some political doctrine?) And bestbits, which I personally disagree with enough not to be able to support, but it much more thoughtful, but is also somewhat undermined by having WG members as authors. Poor process. >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> avri >>>>>> >>>>>> On 28 Aug 2013, at 06:57, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 27/08/2013, at 12:13 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 27-Aug-2013, at 7:21, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Although the Caucus is a little fractured at the moment, Norbert and Sala might nevertheless wish to gauge the feeling of the Caucus towards signing on corporately. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It would help gain broader consensus if the worst bits of that statement were removed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bringing ICANN under UN oversight, really? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since there is nothing in the submission that suggests that, I have to ask, did you read it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Aug 30 05:57:23 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:57:23 +0200 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <52206405.6090809@gold.ac.uk> References: <521DD692.700@itforchange.net> <1637502051.10943.1377689702956.JavaMail.www@wwinf1p16> <52206405.6090809@gold.ac.uk> Message-ID: <20130830115723.5320edaf@quill> Marianne Franklin wrote: > Of course, if enough responses are in today to indicate a strong > enough consensus that the coalition signs up to both the statements > being put to us then let us know as soon as you can. And thanks in > advance for taking the time to do this. Provided that enough other positive responses come in, I'm in favor of signing up to both the BestBits and the IT for Change statements. 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 Fri Aug 30 06:03:34 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 15:33:34 +0530 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <20130830115723.5320edaf@quill> References: <521DD692.700@itforchange.net> <1637502051.10943.1377689702956.JavaMail.www@wwinf1p16> <52206405.6090809@gold.ac.uk> <20130830115723.5320edaf@quill> Message-ID: Neither of the two. The bestbits statement is well drafted though a trifle naive in assumptions. I do not intend to sign up to the IT4Change one and if the caucus were to sign up in consensus would request that my name be specifically excluded from it. --srs (iPad) On 30-Aug-2013, at 15:27, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Marianne Franklin wrote: > >> Of course, if enough responses are in today to indicate a strong >> enough consensus that the coalition signs up to both the statements >> being put to us then let us know as soon as you can. And thanks in >> advance for taking the time to do this. > > Provided that enough other positive responses come in, I'm in favor > of signing up to both the BestBits and the IT for Change statements. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Aug 30 06:08:41 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 20:08:41 +1000 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: References: <5208605C.8080101@apc.org> Message-ID: Just a reminder that tomorrow is the deadline, either to endorse the submission that some Best Bits members drafted, or - equally welcome, actually - to submit your own. Many thanks. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. On 27 Aug, 2013, at 11:51 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Joy wrote: > >> Hi all - as noted last week, the deadline for submission of responses >> to the WGEC questionnaire is 31 August. The questionnaire itself can >> be found here: http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx >> I may have missed the discussion, but wondering: is the caucus >> considering posting a response? > > The joint civil society submission prepared through the Best Bits platform has now been opened for endorsements: > > http://bestbits.net/ec > > Members of the Internet Governance Caucus are warmly encouraged to read the submission to see whether they are able to agree with it, and if so, to add your endorsements by 31 August. If you can't, then I hope you will be able to take the time to submit your own submission instead. > > Although the Caucus is a little fractured at the moment, Norbert and Sala might nevertheless wish to gauge the feeling of the Caucus towards signing on corporately. > > -- > 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 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 30 06:32:02 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 12:32:02 +0200 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <521DD692.700@itforchange.net> <1637502051.10943.1377689702956.JavaMail.www@wwinf1p16> <52206405.6090809@gold.ac.uk> <20130830115723.5320edaf@quill> Message-ID: <20130830123202.7738696c@quill> Sorry for not being clear enough (actually I didn't notice at the time that the IGC list was Cc'd.) My email below was in reference to what Marianne wrote in relation to a potential endorsement by the IRP coalition, it was not intended to be read in relation to the IGC. Greetings, Norbert Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Neither of the two. The bestbits statement is well drafted though a > trifle naive in assumptions. > > I do not intend to sign up to the IT4Change one and if the caucus > were to sign up in consensus would request that my name be > specifically excluded from it. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 30-Aug-2013, at 15:27, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Marianne Franklin wrote: > > > >> Of course, if enough responses are in today to indicate a strong > >> enough consensus that the coalition signs up to both the statements > >> being put to us then let us know as soon as you can. And thanks in > >> advance for taking the time to do this. > > > > Provided that enough other positive responses come in, I'm in favor > > of signing up to both the BestBits and the IT for Change statements. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Aug 30 06:54:04 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 16:24:04 +0530 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <20130830123202.7738696c@quill> References: <521DD692.700@itforchange.net> <1637502051.10943.1377689702956.JavaMail.www@wwinf1p16> <52206405.6090809@gold.ac.uk> <20130830115723.5320edaf@quill> <20130830123202.7738696c@quill> Message-ID: <66D9363C-3683-4AFC-AEEF-11E94AE6ED1B@hserus.net> thank you. --srs (iPad) On 30-Aug-2013, at 16:02, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Sorry for not being clear enough (actually I didn't notice at the time > that the IGC list was Cc'd.) > > My email below was in reference to what Marianne wrote in relation to > a potential endorsement by the IRP coalition, it was not intended to > be read in relation to the IGC. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> Neither of the two. The bestbits statement is well drafted though a >> trifle naive in assumptions. >> >> I do not intend to sign up to the IT4Change one and if the caucus >> were to sign up in consensus would request that my name be >> specifically excluded from it. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 30-Aug-2013, at 15:27, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> Marianne Franklin wrote: >>> >>>> Of course, if enough responses are in today to indicate a strong >>>> enough consensus that the coalition signs up to both the statements >>>> being put to us then let us know as soon as you can. And thanks in >>>> advance for taking the time to do this. >>> >>> Provided that enough other positive responses come in, I'm in favor >>> of signing up to both the BestBits and the IT for Change statements. >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive 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 ca at cafonso.ca Fri Aug 30 10:25:40 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:25:40 -0300 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5220AB64.1050000@cafonso.ca> In summary, each one decides what is the preferred way to go within a basic understanding of procedures. I do not think anyone in the WG will "judge" the responses. There will be an effort by the WGEC secretariat to consolidate them (not a job for the WG itself) -- which had the secretariat very concerned about a tsunami of responses (I do not think it is going to happen at all), and of course we will debate according to the positions and views of each member on the basis of this consolidation. The WG is not robotic, it is constituted of people with certain qualifications and positions (this is why we assume we were called to participate) who will convey their visions to the debate with a view to generate a useful (hopefully) report. Consensus will happen or not happen, as was the case of the WGIG, and this will be properly represented (again, hopefully) in the report. But, again, I fully respect Avri's position on this, while understanding each member will have her/his own approach on how to be involved in the process. fraternal regards --c.a. On 08/29/2013 09:59 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > What avri is suggesting, I think, is that any wgec member's organization > is welcome to submit a response but the specific wgec member should > recuse him or herself from the drafting of that response so that they > are able to evaluate it along with all the other responses, with an open > mind. > > Fairly reasonable suggestion > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Carlos A. Afonso" > To: "IGC" > Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance > Date: Fri, Aug 30, 2013 2:29 AM > > > Dear Avri, I respect your position, of course. > > My understanding is that we are in the WGEC (like some of us were in the > WGIG) because we are expected to bring to the dialogue what we think are > the views of the stakeholders we are supposed to represent, and I think > the questionnaire is a good (although imperfect) instrument to help > convey these views. So, even if WGEC members themselves decided to > respond and provide their views, I would welcome it. > > Thus, I do not agree we should exclude the organizations we are related > to from this survey, and this is the position of several other > participants who are helping to build institutional responses to the > questionnaire. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 08/29/2013 04:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I do not know Adam's reasons. >> >> I know my own reasons for not doing so. >> >> I think that in order to the job in WGEC as I feel I should do it, I > should not be arguing for responses I have crafted, but rather should be > taking the input from others who are commenting, and from the respective > and understanding I bring, do the analysis. For myself I beleive that > if I contributed to the writing of several proposals I would risk my > objectivity in taking the work of others and treating it fairly in the > context of WGEC. I also beleive that my contributions in the WGEC might > be colored, as if arguments I would make in the WGEC were just a > bolstering of opinions I had put before the group in many other ways. >> >> I am speaking only for myself and the way I think such appointments > should be handled. This is why I avoided active participation in any of > the several efforts I might have engaged in. >> >> You are right, there was no rule. I am just doing the job in the best > way I know how. I have followed this process many time before and find > it works for me. >> >> avri >> >> >> >> On 29 Aug 2013, at 13:57, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> Hi people, as a member of WGEC, I do not recall any decision that would >>> preclude its members' organizations from presenting their responses to >>> the questionnaire. As is well known, WGEC (like the MAG) members are >>> there in their personal capacities as members of stakeholder groups, not >>> as reps or "ambassadors" of their respective organizations. Where did >>> you get this from, Adam? >>> >>> fraternal regards >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 08/29/2013 08:07 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Aug 29, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps he was referring to the statement Parminder is sending > around looking for support. It is perhaps confusing having two > statements in circulation: one by the Best Bits and one by Parminder who > is a participant in both the Best Bits collective and a member of the WGEC. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, not so good when working group members are advising themselves > in this way, multiple ways. The IT for Change position makes many > unsubstantiated claims, and again repeats that the Internet is a global > commons, which it clearly is not (what's the point of engaging in honest > debate on this list if ignored for the sake of some political doctrine?) > And bestbits, which I personally disagree with enough not to be able to > support, but it much more thoughtful, but is also somewhat undermined by > having WG members as authors. Poor process. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> On 28 Aug 2013, at 06:57, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 27/08/2013, at 12:13 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 27-Aug-2013, at 7:21, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Although the Caucus is a little fractured at the moment, Norbert > and Sala might nevertheless wish to gauge the feeling of the Caucus > towards signing on corporately. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It would help gain broader consensus if the worst bits of that > statement were removed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bringing ICANN under UN oversight, really? >>>>>> >>>>>> Since there is nothing in the submission that suggests that, I > have to ask, did you read it? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement > knowledge hub > |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >>>>>> >>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>>> >>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email > unless necessary. >>>>>> >>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From valeriab at apc.org Fri Aug 30 10:35:31 2013 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:35:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: <521DD692.700@itforchange.net> References: <521DD692.700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2482D254-4CDE-481A-A5B7-9234EC1739A0@apc.org> Dear Parminder and all, We are busy compiling an APC's network response and we will submit our own statement. We will also endorse the Best Bits statement, to which we contributed to. While we appreciate the effort that has gone into it and many of the points raised, APC will not endorse the IT for Change statement. APC members are independent so while some individual APC members might endorse it, APC as an organisation won't. Some of the main reasons why we have made that decision are explained at the end of this message. We thought it is useful to share our thinking in these space as a contribution to the debate. Best, Valeria ------------------------ * The basic case for "global governance of the Internet" is simply not made. The evidence for the proposed new mechanisms is weak, laden with polemic, and with a political bias that is not corrected by balanced, judicious weighing of options nor informed by practical experience (this in relation to ICANN and the technical community in particular). * The statement takes government and an internet-centric approach to policy making and suggests that a global internet policy making framework convention and new body is desirable. This overlooks and would undermine the many other approaches to policy making currently mandated by international law including rights based, environmental, and development among others. we have seen in the intellectual property field, for example, what happens when UN bodies are set up with topic specific mandates for global related policy issues. * To place the internet as the centre for public policy making is a grave conceptual error in our view -rather a better conceptual approach is to focus on internet related aspects of policy issues (such as health, education, discrimination, access, telecommunciations policy and so on). Even better, to put people at the centre of policy making. We must never forget that the internet does not exist in a parallel dimension. Nor can internet policy. Creating a new UN body to focus on internet policy and identifying which issues it should deal with is not going to be sustainable, or effective. The internet touches on so many issues that no single policy space could ever effectively deal with them all. * The imposition of a new global internet policy framework determined and agreed by governments - and therefore being a top down and central mechanism - contradicts the bottom-up multi-stakeholder principles of policy making and end to end principles of internet architecture: it's just wrong. This is not to say that multi-stakeholder policy processes are not flawed and still producing outcomes that reflect the interest of those with power and resources. But creating new frameworks and bodies will not address this automatically. * Most international agreements set MINIMUM standards because governments generally can only agree on the lowest common denominator - apart from generally resulting in inadequate policy, it also risks back- tracking on the existing points of agreement in the Tunis Agenda. * The statement proposes a new framework convention similar to the convention on climate change. Such conventions are inevitably negotiated and agreed by governments and not multi-stakeholder. in addition, the inequalities between States (a key source of friction in current arrangements) will not be solved by the creation of new mechanisms which the same States need to agree on - inevitably the politics simply transfer, Rather than propose a new convention (most take between 5-10 years to negotiate, assuming agreement can be reached), it would be better to empower and strengthen existing mechanisms - more ideas on that separately. APC proposed a framework convention of this nature immediately after Tunis in 2005. But after our work on the 'code of good practice' for internet governance during which we looked closely at environmental and climate change policy processes, and our experience in observing governments in the CSTD when they try to negotiate an annual resolution on WSIS follow up we decided against this. * Finally, the focus on global internet public policy undermines the role of national and regional IGFs and policy making processes many of which have quite different politics and are still evolving to suit their conditions. Not all these processes are inclusive, or even legitimate, but they are not going to be fixed from above by new agreements negotiated by governments. * On balance, then, we think more work is needed to develop options which suit civil society and empower civil society as stakeholders in policy making and that systematically try to consolidate current achievements with regard to human rights on the internet in, for example, the Human Rights Council. On 28/08/2013, at 5:53, parminder wrote: > Dear All > > IT for Change and some other NGOs plan to forward the following > position to the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Preceding > the position statement is a covering letter seeking support. You are > welcome to support this position any time before 12 noon GMT on 31st > Aug. We are happy to provide any additional information/ > clarification etc. Also happy to otherwise discuss this position, > and its different elements. We are motivated by the need to come up > with precise and clear institutional options at this stage. Politics > of inertia and not doing anything just serves the status quo. These > may not be the best institutional options, and we are ready to enter > into discussion with other groups on what instead would be the > better options. But, again, not doing anything is, in our opinion, > would be detrimental to global public interest. > > The web link to this position is at http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_input_to_the_UN_Working_Group_for_global_governance_of_the_Internet > . > > parminder > > > Covering letter / Background > > In May 2012, more than 60 civil society organisations and several > individuals participated in a campaign for 'democratising the global > governance of the Internet'. A joint letter signed by the > participants of this campaign inter alia asked for setting up a UN > Working Group towards this objective. Such a Working Group was set > up and has now asked for public inputs to formulate its > recommendations. > > In our joint letter, we had proposed some outlines for reforming the > current global governance architecture of the Internet. Time has > come now to make more clear and specific recommendations of the > actual institutional mechanism that we need. With most governments > more worried about their narrow geopolitical interests and > relationships with individual countries, it falls upon the civil > society to be bold and forward looking and put precise proposals on > the table that can then be taken forward by state actors. > > In a post-Snowden world, there is deep discomfort among almost all > countries, other than the US, with the manner in which the global > Internet is run and is evolving. The need for some global norms, > principles, rules, and necessary governance mechanisms for the > global Internet is being felt now as never before. The Internet can > no longer remain anchored to the political and business interests of > one country, or to serving global capital, as it is at present. As a > global commons, it is our collective democratic right and > responsibility to participate in the governance of the Internet, so > that it can become a vehicle for greater prosperity, equity and > social justice for all. > > We seek your support to join us in proposing the enclosed document > as an input to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. The > Working Group has sought public inputs through a questionnaire which > can be seen at http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx . The most > important question is at number 8, which seeks input with regard to > precise mechanism(s) that are required. Our response will mostly > address this all-important question. (You are also encouraged to, > separately, give a fuller response to the questionnaire on your > behalf or on behalf of your organization.) We will also like to give > wide media publicity to this civil society statement . > > We will be glad if you can send your response to us before the 30th > of August. We are of course happy to respond to any clarification or > additional information that you may want to seek in the above > regard. Please also circulate this to others who you think may want > to participate in this initiative. The global Internet governance > space seems to be dominated by those who push for neoliberal models > of governance. We must therefore have as many voices heard as > possible. > > (The statement is cut pasted below this email and may also be seen > here ) > > With best regard, > > Parminder > > > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change > In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC > www.ITforChange.net > T: 00-91-80-26654134 | T: 00-91-80-26536890 | Fax: 00-91-80-41461055 > A civil society input to the UN Working Group looking at > institutional mechanisms for global governance of the Internet > (Please write to itfc at itforchange.net before 29th Aug if you will > like to endorse this statement) > > Why global governance of the Internet? > Internet governance is seen largely in terms of national sovereignty > and security or as pertaining to free speech and privacy. We are of > the view that there exist many other equally important issues for > global Internet governance that arise from the whole gamut of rights > and aspirations of people – social, economic, cultural, political > and developmental. The relationship of the global Internet to > cultural diversity is one example. The Internet increasingly > determines not only the global flows of information but also of > cultures, and their commodification. No social process is exempt > from the influence of the Internet – from education to health and > governance. Social systems at national and local levels are being > transformed under the influence of the global Internet. > Instead of decentralizing power, the current structure of the global > Internet tends to centralize control in the hands of a small number > of companies. Some of these companies have near-monopoly power over > key areas of economic and social significance. Therefore, regulation > of global Internet business through pertinent competition law, > consumer law, open interoperability standards, etc, is becoming a > pressing need. Increasing statist controls need to be similarly > resisted. With the emergent paradigm of cloud computing presenting > the looming prospect of remote management of our digital lives from > different 'power centres' across the world, it is inconceivable that > we can do without appropriate democratic governance of the global > Internet. Post-Snowden, as many countries have begun to contemplate > and even embark upon measures for 'digital sovereignty', the only > way to preserve a global Internet is through formulating appropriate > global norms, principles and rules that will underpin its governance. > Background of this civil society input > A group of over 60 civil society organizations and several > individuals, made a statement on 'Democratizing the global > governance of the Internet' to the open consultations on 'enhanced > cooperation'1 called by the Chair of the UN Commission on Science > and Technology for Development (CSTD) on May 18th, 2012, in Geneva. > The statement inter alia sought the setting up of a CSTD Working > Group to address this issue. We are happy to note that such a > Working Group has been set up and has now called for public inputs > to make its recommendations. This document is an input to the > Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) on the behalf of the > undersigned . > In the aforementioned statement of May 2012, the civil society > signatories had called for the following institutional developments > to take place in the global Internet governance architecture: > Our demands with respect to 'global' Internet Governance espouse a > simple and obvious democratic logic. On the technical governance > side, the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical > infrastructure, at present with the US government, should be > transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative, multi- > lateral body, without disturbing the existing distributed > architecture of technical governance of the Internet in any > significant way. (However, improvements in the technical governance > systems are certainly needed.) On the side of larger Internet > related public policy-making on global social, economic, cultural > and political issues, the OECD-based model of global policy making, > as well as the default application of US laws, should be replaced by > a new UN-based democratic mechanism. Any such new arrangement should > be based on the principle of subsidiarity, and be innovative in > terms of its mandate, structure, and functions, to be adequate to > the unique requirements of global Internet governance. It must be > fully participative of all stakeholders, promoting the democratic > and innovative potential of the Internet. > As the WGEC deliberates on concrete ways to move forward, the time > is ripe to propose clear and specific institutional mechanisms for > democratizing the global governance of the Internet. We have, > therefore, expanded the above demands into specific mechanisms that > should be set in place for this purpose. > New global governance mechanisms are needed > We are of the view that it would be useful to have two distinct > mechanisms – one that looks at the global Internet-related public > policy issues in various social, economic, cultural and political > domains, and another that should undertake oversight of the > technical and operational functions related to the Internet > (basically, replacing the current unilateral oversight of the ICANN2 > by the US government). This will require setting up appropriate new > global governance bodies as well as a framework of international law > to facilitate their work, as follows. > A new UN body for Internet-related public policy issues: An anchor > global institution for taking up and addressing various public > policy issues pertaining to the Internet in an ongoing manner is > urgently required. It can be a committee attached to the UN General > Assembly or a more elaborate and relatively autonomous set up linked > loosely to the UN (as a specialized UN body). It should have a very > strong and institutionalized public consultative mechanism, in the > form of stakeholder advisory groups that are selected through formal > processes by different stakeholder constituencies, ensuring adequate > representativeness. (OECD's Committee on Computer, Information and > Communication Policy and India's recent proposal for a UN Committee > on Internet-related Policies are two useful, and somewhat similar, > models that can be looked at.) > This 'new body' will stay abreast of global Internet-related issues; > where necessary, develop international level public policies in the > concerned areas; seek appropriate harmonization of national level > policies, and; facilitate required treaties, conventions and > agreements. It will also have the necessary means to undertake > studies and present analyses in different policy areas. > Most Internet-related public policy issues are of a cross-cutting > nature, and involve overlaps with mandates of other existing global > governance bodies, like WIPO, UNESCO, WTO, UNDP, UNCTAD, ITU and so > on. Due to this reason, the proposed new 'body' will establish > appropriate relationships with all these other existing bodies, > including directing relevant public policy issues to them, receiving > their inputs and comments, and itself contributing specific Internet- > related perspectives to issues under the purview of these other > bodies. > > A new 'Internet Technical Oversight and Advisory Board': This board > will replace the US government's current oversight role over the > technical and operational functions performed by ICANN. The > membership of this oversight board can be of a techno-political > nature, i.e. consisting of people with specialized expertise but who > also have appropriate political backing, ascertained through a > democratic process. For instance, the board can be made of 10/15 > members, with 2/3 members each from five geographic regions (as > understood in the UN system). These members can perhaps be selected > through an appropriate process by the relevant technical standards > bodies and/or country domain name bodies of all the countries of the > respective region. (Other mechanisms for constituting the techno- > political membership of this board can also be considered.) > The Internet technical oversight and advisory board will seek to > ensure that the various technical and operational functions related > to the global Internet are undertaken by the relevant organizations > as per international law and public policy principles developed by > the concerned international bodies. With regard to ICANN, the role > of this board will more or less be exactly the same as exercised by > the US government in its oversight over ICANN. As for the > decentralized Internet standards development mechanisms, like the > Internet Engineering Task Force, these self organizing systems based > on voluntary adoption of standards will continue to work as at > present. The new board will have a very light touch and non-binding > role with regard to them. It will bring in imperatives from, and > advise these technical standards bodies on, international public > policies, international law and norms being developed by various > relevant bodies. > For this board to be able to fulfill its oversight mandate, ICANN > must become an international organization, without changing its > existing multistakeholder character in any substantial manner. It > would enter into a host country agreement with the US government (if > ICANN has to continue to be headquartered in the US). It would have > full immunity from US law and executive authority, and be guided > solely by international law, and be incorporated under it. > Supervision of the authoritative root zone server must also be > transferred to this oversight broad. The board will exercise this > role with the help of an internationalized ICANN. > This board will also advise the afore-mentioned new public policy > body on technical matters pertaining to the Internet policy making, > as well as take public policy inputs from it. > Framework Convention on the Internet: An appropriate international > legal framework will be required sooner than later for the above > bodies to function properly. Accordingly, one of the early tasks of > the proposed 'new body' dealing with Internet-related public policy > issues, discussed above, will be to help negotiate a 'Framework > Convention on the Internet' (somewhat like the Framework Convention > on Climate Change). Governance of the Internet concerns different > kinds of issues that are ever-evolving. It is, therefore, preferable > to formulate an enabling legal structure as a 'framework convention' > rather than as a specific treaty or convention that addresses only a > bounded set of issues. It may also be easier to initially agree to a > series of principles, protocols and processes that can then frame > further agreements, treaties etc on more specific issues. > Such a Framework Convention will thus enable appropriate and ongoing > global policy responses to various opportunities and challenges that > the fast-evolving phenomenon of the Internet throws up. It will also > formalize the basic architecture of the global governance of the > Internet; inter alia recognizing and legitimizing the existing role > and functions of the various bodies currently involved with managing > the technical and logical infrastructure of the Internet, including > the ICANN, Regional Internet Registries, Internet technical > standards bodies and so on. > Appropriate mechanisms for crisis response and dispute resolution in > relation to the global Internet, and the social activity dependent > on it, will also be required to be set up. > Relationship with the IGF > The UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was established as a > multistakeholder 'policy dialogue forum' by the World Summit on the > Information Society. The proposed global Internet policy mechanism, > especially the new UN based body, will maintain a close relationship > with the IGF. IGF affords a very new kind of participative mechanism > for policy making, whereby the participation realm is > institutionalized, and relatively independent of the policy making > structures. The IGF should preferably pre-discuss issues that are > taken up by this new policy body and present diverse perspectives > for its consideration. A good part of the agenda for this new body > can emerge from the IGF. Whenever possible, draft proposals to be > adopted by this new body should be shared with the IGF. > To perform such a participation enhancing role, the IGF must be > adequately strengthened and reformed, especially to address the > dominance of Northern corporatist interests in its current working. > It must be supported with public funds, and insulated from any > funding system that can bring in perverse influences on its agenda > and outcomes. Other required processes must also be put in place to > ensure that the IGF indeed brings in constituencies that are > typically under-represented, rather than provide further political > clout to the already dominant. > A participative body is only as good as the policy making mechanisms > that feed off it. To that extent, the meaningfulness and > effectiveness of the IGF itself requires a strong policy development > mechanism, as suggested in this document, to be linked to it. > Investing in the IGF is useful only if its outputs and contributions > lead to something concrete. > Funding > An innovative way to fund the proposed new global Internet policy > mechanisms, and also the IGF, is to tap into the collections made by > the relevant bodies from allocation of names and numbers resources > pertaining to the global Internet (like the fee that ICANN collects > annually from each domain name owner). These accruals now run into > millions of dollars every year and could be adequate to fund a large > part of the needed mechanisms for democratic governance of the > global Internet. > In the end, we may add that there is nothing really very novel in > the above proposal for setting up new mechanisms for global > governance of the Internet. Similar models, for instance, were > proposed in the report of the Working Group on Internet > Governance that was set up during the World Summit on the > Information Society, back in 2004. > We hope that the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation will fulfill > its high mandate to lead the world towards the path of democratic > governance of the global commons of the Internet. > > 1The outcome documents of the World Summit on the Information > Society, held in 2005, employed this as a placeholder term giving > the mandate for further exploration of the necessary mechanisms for > global governance of the Internet. > > 2Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the US based > non-profit that manages much of technical and logical > infrastructural functions related to the Internet. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ------------- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Aug 30 10:39:44 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:39:44 -0300 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: <0791D4A9-7690-469D-B2E1-775D5AA5CB62@glocom.ac.jp> References: <5208605C.8080101@apc.org> <3E1CC149-8E3F-449E-AA93-D87D5B392445@acm.org> <521F8B7F.7060906@cafonso.ca> <521FB637.2020501@cafonso.ca> <0791D4A9-7690-469D-B2E1-775D5AA5CB62@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <5220AEB0.60502@cafonso.ca> I am pretty relaxed, and comfortable, here in sunny Rio :) frt rgds --c.a. On 08/30/2013 05:00 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Dear Carlos, > > I did not say there were rules. I did not suggest that a WG members's organization could not/should not submit a contribution; on the contrary I would expect organizations like APC, IT For Change (ISOC, ICANN, etc etc) to submit comments, and hope they do. But I am uncomfortable with a WGEC member shopping around such contributions so they become a statement of some stakeholder group or sub-set of (and I guess by association imbued with some greater weight etc.) > > Please relax, read what people have to say. We are still allowed opinions I hope. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > On Aug 30, 2013, at 5:59 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Dear Avri, I respect your position, of course. >> >> My understanding is that we are in the WGEC (like some of us were in the >> WGIG) because we are expected to bring to the dialogue what we think are >> the views of the stakeholders we are supposed to represent, and I think >> the questionnaire is a good (although imperfect) instrument to help >> convey these views. So, even if WGEC members themselves decided to >> respond and provide their views, I would welcome it. >> >> Thus, I do not agree we should exclude the organizations we are related >> to from this survey, and this is the position of several other >> participants who are helping to build institutional responses to the >> questionnaire. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 08/29/2013 04:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I do not know Adam's reasons. >>> >>> I know my own reasons for not doing so. >>> >>> I think that in order to the job in WGEC as I feel I should do it, I should not be arguing for responses I have crafted, but rather should be taking the input from others who are commenting, and from the respective and understanding I bring, do the analysis. For myself I beleive that if I contributed to the writing of several proposals I would risk my objectivity in taking the work of others and treating it fairly in the context of WGEC. I also beleive that my contributions in the WGEC might be colored, as if arguments I would make in the WGEC were just a bolstering of opinions I had put before the group in many other ways. >>> >>> I am speaking only for myself and the way I think such appointments should be handled. This is why I avoided active participation in any of the several efforts I might have engaged in. >>> >>> You are right, there was no rule. I am just doing the job in the best way I know how. I have followed this process many time before and find it works for me. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> On 29 Aug 2013, at 13:57, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> >>>> Hi people, as a member of WGEC, I do not recall any decision that would >>>> preclude its members' organizations from presenting their responses to >>>> the questionnaire. As is well known, WGEC (like the MAG) members are >>>> there in their personal capacities as members of stakeholder groups, not >>>> as reps or "ambassadors" of their respective organizations. Where did >>>> you get this from, Adam? >>>> >>>> fraternal regards >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> On 08/29/2013 08:07 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 29, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps he was referring to the statement Parminder is sending around looking for support. It is perhaps confusing having two statements in circulation: one by the Best Bits and one by Parminder who is a participant in both the Best Bits collective and a member of the WGEC. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes, not so good when working group members are advising themselves in this way, multiple ways. The IT for Change position makes many unsubstantiated claims, and again repeats that the Internet is a global commons, which it clearly is not (what's the point of engaging in honest debate on this list if ignored for the sake of some political doctrine?) And bestbits, which I personally disagree with enough not to be able to support, but it much more thoughtful, but is also somewhat undermined by having WG members as authors. Poor process. >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> avri >>>>>> >>>>>> On 28 Aug 2013, at 06:57, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 27/08/2013, at 12:13 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 27-Aug-2013, at 7:21, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Although the Caucus is a little fractured at the moment, Norbert and Sala might nevertheless wish to gauge the feeling of the Caucus towards signing on corporately. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It would help gain broader consensus if the worst bits of that statement were removed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bringing ICANN under UN oversight, really? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since there is nothing in the submission that suggests that, I have to ask, did you read it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >>>>>>> >>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Aug 30 10:47:14 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:47:14 -0300 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: <38458E7C-1326-4D64-BD27-B74056E98B19@uzh.ch> References: <5208605C.8080101@apc.org> <3E1CC149-8E3F-449E-AA93-D87D5B392445@acm.org> <521F8B7F.7060906@cafonso.ca> <521FB637.2020501@cafonso.ca> <0791D4A9-7690-469D-B2E1-775D5AA5CB62@glocom.ac.jp> <38458E7C-1326-4D64-BD27-B74056E98B19@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <5220B072.5050308@cafonso.ca> Hmmm... of course, Bill, obvious. The objective is to seek consensus, while we all do our politics of bringing views to the dialogue. This "doing politics" does not follow "standard practices", so let us relax, as Adam recommends, avoid to target anyone as subject of our disliking, and let the proposals blossom. I cannot see civil society organizations debating the responses in isolation of their reps in the WG. The same for the business community etc, of course. fraternal regards --c.a. On 08/30/2013 05:48 AM, William Drake wrote: > > On Aug 30, 2013, at 10:00 AM, Adam Peake > wrote: > >> Dear Carlos, >> >> I did not say there were rules. I did not suggest that a WG members's >> organization could not/should not submit a contribution; on the >> contrary I would expect organizations like APC, IT For Change (ISOC, >> ICANN, etc etc) to submit comments, and hope they do. But I am >> uncomfortable with a WGEC member shopping around such contributions so >> they become a statement of some stakeholder group or sub-set of (and I >> guess by association imbued with some greater weight etc.) > > And if a WG members's organization does this, it would seem reasonable > to expect the member to remain neutral, if not recused, when contrary CS > views/inputs are discussed so that the full diversity of perspectives is > allowed to blossom and no false sense of uniformity is established. > > Bill >> >> Please relax, read what people have to say. We are still allowed >> opinions I hope. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Aug 30, 2013, at 5:59 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> Dear Avri, I respect your position, of course. >>> >>> My understanding is that we are in the WGEC (like some of us were in the >>> WGIG) because we are expected to bring to the dialogue what we think are >>> the views of the stakeholders we are supposed to represent, and I think >>> the questionnaire is a good (although imperfect) instrument to help >>> convey these views. So, even if WGEC members themselves decided to >>> respond and provide their views, I would welcome it. >>> >>> Thus, I do not agree we should exclude the organizations we are related >>> to from this survey, and this is the position of several other >>> participants who are helping to build institutional responses to the >>> questionnaire. >>> >>> fraternal regards >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 08/29/2013 04:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I do not know Adam's reasons. >>>> >>>> I know my own reasons for not doing so. >>>> >>>> I think that in order to the job in WGEC as I feel I should do it, I >>>> should not be arguing for responses I have crafted, but rather >>>> should be taking the input from others who are commenting, and from >>>> the respective and understanding I bring, do the analysis. For >>>> myself I beleive that if I contributed to the writing of several >>>> proposals I would risk my objectivity in taking the work of others >>>> and treating it fairly in the context of WGEC. I also beleive that >>>> my contributions in the WGEC might be colored, as if arguments I >>>> would make in the WGEC were just a bolstering of opinions I had put >>>> before the group in many other ways. >>>> >>>> I am speaking only for myself and the way I think such appointments >>>> should be handled. This is why I avoided active participation in >>>> any of the several efforts I might have engaged in. >>>> >>>> You are right, there was no rule. I am just doing the job in the >>>> best way I know how. I have followed this process many time before >>>> and find it works for me. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 29 Aug 2013, at 13:57, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi people, as a member of WGEC, I do not recall any decision that would >>>>> preclude its members' organizations from presenting their responses to >>>>> the questionnaire. As is well known, WGEC (like the MAG) members are >>>>> there in their personal capacities as members of stakeholder >>>>> groups, not >>>>> as reps or "ambassadors" of their respective organizations. Where did >>>>> you get this from, Adam? >>>>> >>>>> fraternal regards >>>>> >>>>> --c.a. >>>>> >>>>> On 08/29/2013 08:07 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 29, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps he was referring to the statement Parminder is sending >>>>>>> around looking for support. It is perhaps confusing having two >>>>>>> statements in circulation: one by the Best Bits and one by >>>>>>> Parminder who is a participant in both the Best Bits collective >>>>>>> and a member of the WGEC. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, not so good when working group members are advising >>>>>> themselves in this way, multiple ways. The IT for Change position >>>>>> makes many unsubstantiated claims, and again repeats that the >>>>>> Internet is a global commons, which it clearly is not (what's the >>>>>> point of engaging in honest debate on this list if ignored for the >>>>>> sake of some political doctrine?) And bestbits, which I >>>>>> personally disagree with enough not to be able to support, but it >>>>>> much more thoughtful, but is also somewhat undermined by having WG >>>>>> members as authors. Poor process. >>>>>> >>>>>> Adam >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> avri >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 28 Aug 2013, at 06:57, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 27/08/2013, at 12:13 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 27-Aug-2013, at 7:21, Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Although the Caucus is a little fractured at the moment, >>>>>>>>>> Norbert and Sala might nevertheless wish to gauge the feeling >>>>>>>>>> of the Caucus towards signing on corporately. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It would help gain broader consensus if the worst bits of that >>>>>>>>> statement were removed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bringing ICANN under UN oversight, really? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Since there is nothing in the submission that suggests that, I >>>>>>>> have to ask, did you read it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement >>>>>>>> knowledge hub >>>>>>>> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >>>>>>>> | >>>>>>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email >>>>>>>> unless necessary. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >>>>>>>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >>>>>>>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch > (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Aug 30 10:49:33 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 20:19:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation Message-ID: Valeria, thanks for explaining why apc will not sign the it 4 change statement.  However the best bits statement too quotes a need to create an international techno political body to carry out an oversight role over icann, but this too is fraught with the same risks you point out in the IT 4 change proposal as you describe in point 3 of your note below.  I do agree it is a much more nuanced way to achieve a diminution of US control and oversight over icann, but it again has much the same risks as a new UN agency does That paragraph is the one reason I find myself unable to endorse the bestbits proposal  Thanks  --srs -------- Original message -------- From: Valeria Betancourt Date: 08/30/2013 8:05 PM (GMT+05:30) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation Dear Parminder and all,  We are busy compiling an APC's network response and we will submit our own statement.  We will also endorse the Best Bits statement, to which we contributed to.  While we appreciate the effort that has gone into it and many of the points raised, APC will not endorse the IT for Change statement.  APC members are independent so while some individual APC members might endorse it, APC as an organisation won't.  Some of the main reasons why we have made that decision are explained at the end of this message. We thought it is useful to share our thinking in these space as a contribution to the debate.  Best,  Valeria  ------------------------ * The basic case for "global governance of the Internet" is simply not made. The evidence for the proposed new mechanisms is weak, laden with polemic, and with a political bias that is not corrected by balanced, judicious weighing of options nor informed by practical experience (this in relation to ICANN and the technical community in particular). * The statement takes government and an internet-centric approach to policy making and suggests that a global internet policy making framework convention and new body is desirable. This overlooks and would undermine the many other approaches to policy making currently mandated by international law including rights based, environmental, and development among others. we have seen in the intellectual property field, for example, what happens when UN bodies are set up with topic specific mandates for global related policy issues. * To place the internet as the centre for public policy making is a grave conceptual error in our view -rather a better conceptual approach is to focus on internet related aspects of policy issues (such as health, education, discrimination, access, telecommunciations policy and so on). Even better, to put people at the centre of policy making. We must never forget that the internet does not exist in a parallel dimension. Nor can internet policy. Creating a new UN body to focus on internet policy and identifying which issues it should deal with is not going to be sustainable, or effective. The internet touches on so many issues that no single policy space could ever effectively deal with them all. * The imposition of a new global internet policy framework determined and agreed by governments - and therefore being a top down and central mechanism - contradicts the bottom-up multi-stakeholder principles of policy making and end to end principles of internet architecture: it's just wrong. This is not to say that multi-stakeholder policy processes are not flawed and still producing outcomes that reflect the interest of those with power and resources. But creating new frameworks and bodies will not address this automatically. * Most international agreements set MINIMUM standards because governments generally can only agree on the lowest common denominator - apart from generally resulting in inadequate policy, it also risks back- tracking on the existing points of agreement in the Tunis Agenda. * The statement proposes a new framework convention similar to the convention on climate change. Such conventions are inevitably negotiated and agreed by governments and not multi-stakeholder. in addition, the inequalities between States (a key source of friction in current arrangements) will not be solved by the creation of new mechanisms which the same States need to agree on - inevitably the politics simply transfer, Rather than propose a new convention (most take between 5-10 years to negotiate, assuming agreement can be reached), it would be better to empower and strengthen existing mechanisms - more ideas on that separately. APC proposed a framework convention of this nature immediately after Tunis in 2005. But after our work on the 'code of good practice' for internet governance during which we looked closely at environmental and climate change policy processes, and our experience in observing governments in the CSTD when they try to negotiate an annual resolution on WSIS follow up we decided against this. * Finally, the focus on global internet public policy undermines the role of national and regional IGFs and policy making processes many of which have quite different politics and are still evolving to suit their conditions. Not all these processes are inclusive, or even legitimate, but they are not going to be fixed from above by new agreements negotiated by governments. * On balance, then, we think more work is needed to develop options which suit civil society and empower civil society as stakeholders in policy making and that systematically try to consolidate current achievements with regard to human rights on the internet in, for example, the Human Rights Council. On 28/08/2013, at 5:53, parminder wrote: Dear All IT for Change and some other NGOs plan to forward the following position to the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. Preceding the position statement is a covering letter seeking support. You are welcome to support this position any time before 12 noon GMT on 31st Aug. We are happy to provide any additional information/ clarification etc. Also happy to otherwise discuss this position, and its different elements. We are motivated by the need to come up with precise and clear institutional options at this stage. Politics of inertia and not doing anything just serves the status quo. These may not be the best institutional options, and we are ready to enter into discussion with other groups on what instead would be the better options. But, again, not doing anything is, in our opinion, would be detrimental to global public interest. The web link to this position is at http://www.itforchange.net/civil_society_input_to_the_UN_Working_Group_for_global_governance_of_the_Internet . parminder Covering letter / Background In May 2012, more than 60 civil society organisations and several individuals participated in a campaign for 'democratising the global governance of the Internet'. A joint letter signed by the participants of this campaign inter alia asked for setting up a UN Working Group towards this objective. Such a Working Group was set up and has now asked for public inputs to formulate its recommendations. In our joint letter, we had proposed some outlines for reforming the current global governance architecture of the Internet. Time has come now to make more clear and specific recommendations of the actual institutional mechanism that we need. With most governments more worried about their narrow geopolitical interests and relationships with individual countries, it falls upon the civil society to be bold and forward looking and put precise proposals on the table that can then be taken forward by state actors. In a post-Snowden world, there is deep discomfort among almost all countries, other than the US, with the manner in which the global Internet is run and is evolving. The need for some global norms, principles, rules, and necessary governance mechanisms for the global Internet is being felt now as never before. The Internet can no longer remain anchored to the political and business interests of one country, or to serving global capital, as it is at present. As a global commons, it is our collective democratic right and responsibility to participate in the governance of the Internet, so that it can become a vehicle for greater prosperity, equity and social justice for all. We seek your support to join us in proposing the enclosed document as an input to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation. The Working Group has sought public inputs through a questionnaire which can be seen at http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD.aspx . The most important question is at number 8, which seeks input with regard to precise mechanism(s) that are required. Our response will mostly address this all-important question. (You are also encouraged to, separately, give a fuller response to the questionnaire on your behalf or on behalf of your organization.) We will also like to give wide media publicity to this civil society statement . We will be glad if you can send your response to us before the 30th of August. We are of course happy to respond to any clarification or additional information that you may want to seek in the above regard. Please also circulate this to others who you think may want to participate in this initiative. The global Internet governance space seems to be dominated by those who push for neoliberal models of governance. We must therefore have as many voices heard as possible. (The statement is cut pasted below this email and may also be seen here ) With best regard, Parminder Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC www.ITforChange.net T: 00-91-80-26654134 | T: 00-91-80-26536890 | Fax: 00-91-80-41461055 A civil society input to the UN Working Group looking at institutional mechanisms for global governance of the Internet (Please write to itfc at itforchange.net before 29th Aug if you will like to endorse this statement) Why global governance of the Internet? Internet governance is seen largely in terms of national sovereignty and security or as pertaining to free speech and privacy. We are of the view that there exist many other equally important issues for global Internet governance that arise from the whole gamut of rights and aspirations of people – social, economic, cultural, political and developmental. The relationship of the global Internet to cultural diversity is one example. The Internet increasingly determines not only the global flows of information but also of cultures, and their commodification. No social process is exempt from the influence of the Internet – from education to health and governance. Social systems at national and local levels are being transformed under the influence of the global Internet. Instead of decentralizing power, the current structure of the global Internet tends to centralize control in the hands of a small number of companies. Some of these companies have near-monopoly power over key areas of economic and social significance. Therefore, regulation of global Internet business through pertinent competition law, consumer law, open interoperability standards, etc, is becoming a pressing need. Increasing statist controls need to be similarly resisted. With the emergent paradigm of cloud computing presenting the looming prospect of remote management of our digital lives from different 'power centres' across the world, it is inconceivable that we can do without appropriate democratic governance of the global Internet. Post-Snowden, as many countries have begun to contemplate and even embark upon measures for 'digital sovereignty', the only way to preserve a global Internet is through formulating appropriate global norms, principles and rules that will underpin its governance. Background of this civil society input A group of over 60 civil society organizations and several individuals, made a statement on 'Democratizing the global governance of the Internet' to the open consultations on 'enhanced cooperation'1 called by the Chair of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) on May 18th, 2012, in Geneva. The statement inter alia sought the setting up of a CSTD Working Group to address this issue. We are happy to note that such a Working Group has been set up and has now called for public inputs to make its recommendations. This document is an input to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC) on the behalf of the undersigned . In the aforementioned statement of May 2012, the civil society signatories had called for the following institutional developments to take place in the global Internet governance architecture: Our demands with respect to 'global' Internet Governance espouse a simple and obvious democratic logic. On the technical governance side, the oversight of the Internet's critical technical and logical infrastructure, at present with the US government, should be transferred to an appropriate, democratic and participative, multi-lateral body, without disturbing the existing distributed architecture of technical governance of the Internet in any significant way. (However, improvements in the technical governance systems are certainly needed.) On the side of larger Internet related public policy-making on global social, economic, cultural and political issues, the OECD-based model of global policy making, as well as the default application of US laws, should be replaced by a new UN-based democratic mechanism. Any such new arrangement should be based on the principle of subsidiarity, and be innovative in terms of its mandate, structure, and functions, to be adequate to the unique requirements of global Internet governance. It must be fully participative of all stakeholders, promoting the democratic and innovative potential of the Internet. As the WGEC deliberates on concrete ways to move forward, the time is ripe to propose clear and specific institutional mechanisms for democratizing the global governance of the Internet. We have, therefore, expanded the above demands into specific mechanisms that should be set in place for this purpose. New global governance mechanisms are needed We are of the view that it would be useful to have two distinct mechanisms – one that looks at the global Internet-related public policy issues in various social, economic, cultural and political domains, and another that should undertake oversight of the technical and operational functions related to the Internet (basically, replacing the current unilateral oversight of the ICANN2 by the US government). This will require setting up appropriate new global governance bodies as well as a framework of international law to facilitate their work, as follows. A new UN body for Internet-related public policy issues: An anchor global institution for taking up and addressing various public policy issues pertaining to the Internet in an ongoing manner is urgently required. It can be a committee attached to the UN General Assembly or a more elaborate and relatively autonomous set up linked loosely to the UN (as a specialized UN body). It should have a very strong and institutionalized public consultative mechanism, in the form of stakeholder advisory groups that are selected through formal processes by different stakeholder constituencies, ensuring adequate representativeness. (OECD's Committee on Computer, Information and Communication Policy and India's recent proposal for a UN Committee on Internet-related Policies are two useful, and somewhat similar, models that can be looked at.) This 'new body' will stay abreast of global Internet-related issues; where necessary, develop international level public policies in the concerned areas; seek appropriate harmonization of national level policies, and; facilitate required treaties, conventions and agreements. It will also have the necessary means to undertake studies and present analyses in different policy areas. Most Internet-related public policy issues are of a cross-cutting nature, and involve overlaps with mandates of other existing global governance bodies, like WIPO, UNESCO, WTO, UNDP, UNCTAD, ITU and so on. Due to this reason, the proposed new 'body' will establish appropriate relationships with all these other existing bodies, including directing relevant public policy issues to them, receiving their inputs and comments, and itself contributing specific Internet-related perspectives to issues under the purview of these other bodies. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 30 10:49:46 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 11:49:46 -0300 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: <38458E7C-1326-4D64-BD27-B74056E98B19@uzh.ch> References: <5208605C.8080101@apc.org> <3E1CC149-8E3F-449E-AA93-D87D5B392445@acm.org> <521F8B7F.7060906@cafonso.ca> <521FB637.2020501@cafonso.ca> <0791D4A9-7690-469D-B2E1-775D5AA5CB62@glocom.ac.jp> <38458E7C-1326-4D64-BD27-B74056E98B19@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <5220B10A.2030200@cafonso.ca> BTW, "a WG members's organization" is a dubious phrase. We are there in our personal capacities, but not as philosophic monks who need to be isolated from our bases during the process. --c.a. On 08/30/2013 05:48 AM, William Drake wrote: > > On Aug 30, 2013, at 10:00 AM, Adam Peake > wrote: > >> Dear Carlos, >> >> I did not say there were rules. I did not suggest that a WG members's >> organization could not/should not submit a contribution; on the >> contrary I would expect organizations like APC, IT For Change (ISOC, >> ICANN, etc etc) to submit comments, and hope they do. But I am >> uncomfortable with a WGEC member shopping around such contributions so >> they become a statement of some stakeholder group or sub-set of (and I >> guess by association imbued with some greater weight etc.) > > And if a WG members's organization does this, it would seem reasonable > to expect the member to remain neutral, if not recused, when contrary CS > views/inputs are discussed so that the full diversity of perspectives is > allowed to blossom and no false sense of uniformity is established. > > Bill >> >> Please relax, read what people have to say. We are still allowed >> opinions I hope. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Aug 30, 2013, at 5:59 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> Dear Avri, I respect your position, of course. >>> >>> My understanding is that we are in the WGEC (like some of us were in the >>> WGIG) because we are expected to bring to the dialogue what we think are >>> the views of the stakeholders we are supposed to represent, and I think >>> the questionnaire is a good (although imperfect) instrument to help >>> convey these views. So, even if WGEC members themselves decided to >>> respond and provide their views, I would welcome it. >>> >>> Thus, I do not agree we should exclude the organizations we are related >>> to from this survey, and this is the position of several other >>> participants who are helping to build institutional responses to the >>> questionnaire. >>> >>> fraternal regards >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 08/29/2013 04:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I do not know Adam's reasons. >>>> >>>> I know my own reasons for not doing so. >>>> >>>> I think that in order to the job in WGEC as I feel I should do it, I >>>> should not be arguing for responses I have crafted, but rather >>>> should be taking the input from others who are commenting, and from >>>> the respective and understanding I bring, do the analysis. For >>>> myself I beleive that if I contributed to the writing of several >>>> proposals I would risk my objectivity in taking the work of others >>>> and treating it fairly in the context of WGEC. I also beleive that >>>> my contributions in the WGEC might be colored, as if arguments I >>>> would make in the WGEC were just a bolstering of opinions I had put >>>> before the group in many other ways. >>>> >>>> I am speaking only for myself and the way I think such appointments >>>> should be handled. This is why I avoided active participation in >>>> any of the several efforts I might have engaged in. >>>> >>>> You are right, there was no rule. I am just doing the job in the >>>> best way I know how. I have followed this process many time before >>>> and find it works for me. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 29 Aug 2013, at 13:57, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi people, as a member of WGEC, I do not recall any decision that would >>>>> preclude its members' organizations from presenting their responses to >>>>> the questionnaire. As is well known, WGEC (like the MAG) members are >>>>> there in their personal capacities as members of stakeholder >>>>> groups, not >>>>> as reps or "ambassadors" of their respective organizations. Where did >>>>> you get this from, Adam? >>>>> >>>>> fraternal regards >>>>> >>>>> --c.a. >>>>> >>>>> On 08/29/2013 08:07 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 29, 2013, at 7:17 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps he was referring to the statement Parminder is sending >>>>>>> around looking for support. It is perhaps confusing having two >>>>>>> statements in circulation: one by the Best Bits and one by >>>>>>> Parminder who is a participant in both the Best Bits collective >>>>>>> and a member of the WGEC. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, not so good when working group members are advising >>>>>> themselves in this way, multiple ways. The IT for Change position >>>>>> makes many unsubstantiated claims, and again repeats that the >>>>>> Internet is a global commons, which it clearly is not (what's the >>>>>> point of engaging in honest debate on this list if ignored for the >>>>>> sake of some political doctrine?) And bestbits, which I >>>>>> personally disagree with enough not to be able to support, but it >>>>>> much more thoughtful, but is also somewhat undermined by having WG >>>>>> members as authors. Poor process. >>>>>> >>>>>> Adam >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> avri >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 28 Aug 2013, at 06:57, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 27/08/2013, at 12:13 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 27-Aug-2013, at 7:21, Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Although the Caucus is a little fractured at the moment, >>>>>>>>>> Norbert and Sala might nevertheless wish to gauge the feeling >>>>>>>>>> of the Caucus towards signing on corporately. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It would help gain broader consensus if the worst bits of that >>>>>>>>> statement were removed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bringing ICANN under UN oversight, really? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Since there is nothing in the submission that suggests that, I >>>>>>>> have to ask, did you read it? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement >>>>>>>> knowledge hub >>>>>>>> |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org >>>>>>>> | >>>>>>>> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email >>>>>>>> unless necessary. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >>>>>>>> recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For >>>>>>>> instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch > (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Fri Aug 30 10:50:10 2013 From: avri at ella.com (avri doria) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 10:50:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance Message-ID: Hi, -------- Original message -------- From: "Carlos A. Afonso" Date: 08/30/2013 10:25 (GMT-05:00) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance > I do not think anyone in the WG will > "judge" the responses. I don't know about judging them, but I do plan to read them all before using the synthesis that the secretariat creates as a reference doc. 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 Fri Aug 30 11:00:26 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 12:00:26 -0300 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5220B38A.2010405@cafonso.ca> Avri, depending on how many are received, I agree all of the members should try and to the same. frt rgds --c.a. On 08/30/2013 11:50 AM, avri doria wrote: > Hi, > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: "Carlos A. Afonso" > Date: 08/30/2013 10:25 (GMT-05:00) > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance > > >> I do not think anyone in the WG will >> "judge" the responses. > > I don't know about judging them, but I do plan to read them all before > using the synthesis that the secretariat creates as a reference doc. > > avri > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Aug 30 11:10:41 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 12:10:41 -0300 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: <5220B38A.2010405@cafonso.ca> References: <5220B38A.2010405@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5220B5F1.3020409@cafonso.ca> DO the same... :) --c.a. On 08/30/2013 12:00 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Avri, depending on how many are received, I agree all of the members > should try and to the same. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 08/30/2013 11:50 AM, avri doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: "Carlos A. Afonso" >> Date: 08/30/2013 10:25 (GMT-05:00) >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance >> >> >>> I do not think anyone in the WG will >>> "judge" the responses. >> >> I don't know about judging them, but I do plan to read them all before >> using the synthesis that the secretariat creates as a reference doc. >> >> avri >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Aug 30 11:24:15 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 17:24:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5220B91F.6050102@apc.org> Dear Avri I think that is important.... that you and other members of the WG read the individual submissions as well as the Secretariat's synthesis. We (APC) have found in our work at the Human Rights Council on the Universal Period Review process that the more submissions that have to be summarised, the more likely that certain nuances are left out. I think it would be useful to propose that the Secretariat to reference the summary extensively so that it can be used as an entry point into individual submissions, not just a summary. Would be great if it all be hyperlinked. Anriette On 30/08/2013 16:50, avri doria wrote: > Hi, > > -------- Original message -------- > From: "Carlos A. Afonso" > Date: 08/30/2013 10:25 (GMT-05:00) > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] WGEC: Questionnaire on internet governance > >> I do not think anyone in the WG will >> "judge" the responses. > I don't know about judging them, but I do plan to read them all before using the synthesis that the secretariat creates as a reference doc. > > avri > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri Aug 30 12:44:15 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 16:44:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BD3AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > Are there reasons to believe that this “denationalization” is feasible? Yes, certainly there are. The whole idea of MuSH involves elevating non-state actors to the same or comparable status of state actors in the formulation of policy. The standardization processes of your vaunted IETF used to be performed by states, but in IETF was not. One simple example. ICANN was _supposed_ to be denationalized, but the US couldn't bring itself to let go. But nothing about the original plan was "not feasible" - it was a choice. Governance of Internet routing is largely denationalized now. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at internetdemocracy.in Fri Aug 30 14:21:08 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 23:51:08 +0530 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <521DD692.700@itforchange.net> <1637502051.10943.1377689702956.JavaMail.www@wwinf1p16> <52206405.6090809@gold.ac.uk> <20130830115723.5320edaf@quill> Message-ID: Dear all, While the Internet Democracy Project is not a member of APC, and though we do have differences of opinion with APC (e.g. on how severe the threat of backgtracking on the Tunis agenda is), we broadly agree with APC's views on the IT for Change statement as outlined by Valeria. We will not be able to sign the IT for Change statement. It is oftentimes made to seem as if there are only two options where Internet governance arrangements are concerned: the status quo and a more centralised form of governance, the latter often (though not always) imagined as involving greater government control. We believe that there is a third way, and one that has far greater potential for a politics of justice, which is that of distributed governance. We will be submitting a submission to the WGEC along these lines. Best regards, Anja On 30 August 2013 15:33, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Neither of the two. The bestbits statement is well drafted though a trifle > naive in assumptions. > > I do not intend to sign up to the IT4Change one and if the caucus were to > sign up in consensus would request that my name be specifically excluded > from it. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 30-Aug-2013, at 15:27, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Marianne Franklin wrote: > > > >> Of course, if enough responses are in today to indicate a strong > >> enough consensus that the coalition signs up to both the statements > >> being put to us then let us know as soon as you can. And thanks in > >> advance for taking the time to do this. > > > > Provided that enough other positive responses come in, I'm in favor > > of signing up to both the BestBits and the IT for Change statements. > > > > 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 > > -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Aug 31 05:21:35 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 11:21:35 +0200 Subject: "denationalization" Re: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BD3AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BD3AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20130831112135.0e58b0b0@quill> Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Are there reasons to believe that this “denationalization” is > > feasible? > > Yes, certainly there are. The whole idea of MuSH involves elevating > non-state actors to the same or comparable status of state actors in > the formulation of policy. The standardization processes of your > vaunted IETF used to be performed by states, but in IETF was not. One > simple example. ICANN was _supposed_ to be denationalized, but the US > couldn't bring itself to let go. But nothing about the original plan > was "not feasible" - it was a choice. Governance of Internet routing > is largely denationalized now. Please let's not forget that the question was raised in the context of the issue of transborder privacy violations by state actors. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Aug 31 05:37:10 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 11:37:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BD3AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.sy r.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BD3AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: At 18:44 30/08/2013, Milton L Mueller wrote: >Yes, certainly there are. The whole idea of MuSH involves elevating >non-state actors to the same or comparable status of state actors in >the formulation of policy. Milton, I fear this is the problem. "Politics is the art of commanding free people" (Aristotle). The internet governance is about concerting among free people and organizations. In doing this there are only two tools: talks and acts. Civil society has reduced itself to talks. The other categories have retained and are developing their acting capacity. >The standardization processes of your vaunted IETF used to be >performed by states, but in IETF was not. IETF is no more neutral. RFC 6852 puts it in the private sector category. This is because actors (corporations, states, international organizations) had to disengaged themslves from the talking only category to stay tuned with the other two acting categories you can identify as ITU and UN. >One simple example. >ICANN was _supposed_ to be denationalized, but the US couldn't bring >itself to let go. But nothing about the original plan was "not >feasible" - it was a choice. It was not an act of God but of Govs? It was sitted aside Peter de Blanc when he threatened Michael Roberts to reset to the ccTLD nuclear arsenal. This is part of the IANA battle. >Governance of Internet routing is largely denationalized now. From reading you (I am not a specialist of lower layers) I understood it was "internationalized", the world being used to mean "US coordinated international cooperation" as per Zbigniew Brzezin'ski? jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Aug 31 05:36:23 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 11:36:23 +0200 Subject: [IRPCoalition] [governance] Position by IT for Change and some other NGOs on enhanced cooperation In-Reply-To: References: <521DD692.700@itforchange.net> <1637502051.10943.1377689702956.JavaMail.www@wwinf1p16> <52206405.6090809@gold.ac.uk> <20130830115723.5320edaf@quill> Message-ID: At 20:21 30/08/2013, Anja Kovacs wrote: >Dear all, > >While the Internet Democracy Project is not a member of APC, and >though we do have differences of opinion with APC (e.g. on how >severe the threat of backgtracking on the Tunis agenda is), we >broadly agree with APC's views on the IT for Change statement as >outlined by Valeria. We will not be able to sign the IT for Change statement. > >It is oftentimes made to seem as if there are only two options where >Internet governance arrangements are concerned: the status quo and a >more centralised form of governance, the latter often (though not >always) imagined as involving greater government control. We believe >that there is a third way, and one that has far greater potential >for a politics of justice, which is that of distributed governance. >We will be submitting a submission to the WGEC along these lines. Dear Anja, from reading you I realize that I miss a "MuSHMap", the links and related positions in each category. Does anyone knows if such reference frame exists? jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Aug 31 07:40:11 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 07:40:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BD3AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 5:37 AM, JFC Morfin wrote: > >> Governance of Internet routing is largely denationalized now. > > > From reading you (I am not a specialist of lower layers) I understood it was > "internationalized", the world being used to mean "US coordinated > international cooperation" as per Zbigniew Brzezin'ski? The USG has zero control over routing of non USG networks. In other words, networks control their own routing. the USG has nothing to do with routing them. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Aug 31 07:55:01 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 17:25:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BD3AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Governance of internet routing depends on business agreements between ISPs Only rarely is it mandated by law to keep local traffic local - china and some other countries do it, either for filtering / lawful intercept / prevention of foreign lawful intercept, or to force ISPs to save itnernational bandwidth when a dominant player in the industry doesnt want to peer. So there's no politics here beyond the usual backbiting - and the rest is as mctim says. --srs (iPad) On 31-Aug-2013, at 17:10, McTim wrote: > On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 5:37 AM, JFC Morfin wrote: > >> >>> Governance of Internet routing is largely denationalized now. >> >> >> From reading you (I am not a specialist of lower layers) I understood it was >> "internationalized", the world being used to mean "US coordinated >> international cooperation" as per Zbigniew Brzezin'ski? > > The USG has zero control over routing of non USG networks. In other > words, networks control their own routing. the USG has nothing to do > with routing them. > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 31 08:42:11 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego R. Canabarro) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 09:42:11 -0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BD3AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Arent those business agreements subject to specific jurisdictions? Are those business entities and ISP completely free from any state law? Shouldnt they be at least incorporated according to specific bodies of regulation? If so, it is really hard to envision from a practical perspective the idea of denationalization. No matter how transnational the activities are. -- Enviado a partir de dispositivo movel Sent from mobile device Em 31/08/2013, às 08:55, Suresh Ramasubramanian escreveu: > Governance of internet routing depends on business agreements between ISPs > > Only rarely is it mandated by law to keep local traffic local - china and some other countries do it, either for filtering / lawful intercept / prevention of foreign lawful intercept, or to force ISPs to save itnernational bandwidth when a dominant player in the industry doesnt want to peer. > > So there's no politics here beyond the usual backbiting - and the rest is as mctim says. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 31-Aug-2013, at 17:10, McTim wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 5:37 AM, JFC Morfin wrote: >> >>> >>>> Governance of Internet routing is largely denationalized now. >>> >>> >>> From reading you (I am not a specialist of lower layers) I understood it was >>> "internationalized", the world being used to mean "US coordinated >>> international cooperation" as per Zbigniew Brzezin'ski? >> >> The USG has zero control over routing of non USG networks. In other >> words, networks control their own routing. the USG has nothing to do >> with routing them. >> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 31 08:45:49 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 14:45:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] talking vs acting (was Re: The Internet as we know it is dead) In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BD3AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20130831144549.77662b74@quill> JFC Morfin wrote: > At 18:44 30/08/2013, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >Yes, certainly there are. The whole idea of MuSH involves elevating > >non-state actors to the same or comparable status of state actors in > >the formulation of policy. > > Milton, > I fear this is the problem. "Politics is the art of commanding free > people" (Aristotle). The internet governance is about concerting > among free people and organizations. In doing this there are only two > tools: talks and acts. Civil society has reduced itself to talks. The > other categories have retained and are developing their acting > capacity. Figuring out which governance actions are in the public interest (in the sense of some reasonable interpretation of what is the public interest) requires a significant amount of talking. I think the key questions are: 1) Are the interests and concerns of all relevant and interested stakeholders represented in the talking process? 2) Is the talking which is being done directed at the objective of figuring out which governance actions are in the public interest (in the sense of some reasonable interpretation of what is the public interest)? (Nota bene it is possible for talking which pretends to have this objective to be in reality in pursuit of other goals, such as advancing personal careerist goals, or putting up smoke screens behind which human rights violating governments and other powerful actors whose particular interests conflict with the public interest can hide how unacceptable their actions truly are!) 3) Does the talking lead to clear output documents that can inform actions? 4) Are the documents which have resulted from the public interest oriented discourse used in determining the actions that are taken? I think that currently the answers to these questions are “yes” only for some relatively narrow highly technical topic areas, the policy development processes of the RIRs being one of the best examples. There are important other topic areas where a small number of powerful stakeholders so far have held the power to decide either alone or in consultation with each other what the online world is to be like. They have not had any need to go through the steps '1' to '4', and they're typically reacting with smoke screen type responses to demands for any kind of public interest oriented policy development that might possibly contradict their particular interests. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive 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 suresh at hserus.net Sat Aug 31 09:22:37 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 18:52:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead Message-ID: Yes but there is generally no specific law drafted to regulate peering Standard contract laws do apply of course and any content hosted in a country would be subject to that country's laws. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Diego R. Canabarro" To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Suresh Ramasubramanian" Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "McTim" , "JFC Morfin" , "Milton L Mueller" , "Norbert Bollow" Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead Date: Sat, Aug 31, 2013 6:12 PM Arent those business agreements subject to specific jurisdictions? Are those business entities and ISP completely free from any state law? Shouldnt they be at least incorporated according to specific bodies of regulation? If so, it is really hard to envision from a practical perspective the idea of denationalization. No matter how transnational the activities are. -- Enviado a partir de dispositivo movel Sent from mobile device Em 31/08/2013, às 08:55, Suresh Ramasubramanian escreveu: > Governance of internet routing depends on business agreements between ISPs > > Only rarely is it mandated by law to keep local traffic local - china and some other countries do it, either for filtering / lawful intercept / prevention of foreign lawful intercept, or to force ISPs to save itnernational bandwidth when a dominant player in the industry doesnt want to peer. > > So there's no politics here beyond the usual backbiting - and the rest is as mctim says. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 31-Aug-2013, at 17:10, McTim wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 5:37 AM, JFC Morfin wrote: >> >>> >>>> Governance of Internet routing is largely denationalized now. >>> >>> >>> From reading you (I am not a specialist of lower layers) I understood it was >>> "internationalized", the world being used to mean "US coordinated >>> international cooperation" as per Zbigniew Brzezin'ski? >> >> The USG has zero control over routing of non USG networks. In other >> words, networks control their own routing. the USG has nothing to do >> with routing them. >> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Aug 31 09:09:54 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 15:09:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BD3AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Aug 31 09:37:29 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 15:37:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] talking vs acting (was Re: The Internet as we know it is dead) In-Reply-To: <20130831144549.77662b74@quill> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BD3AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130831144549.77662b74@quill> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Sat Aug 31 09:57:10 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 06:57:10 -0700 Subject: [governance] [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BD3AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <3618BF76-EACA-46D0-AE76-2879720D56D6@virtualized.org> On Aug 31, 2013, at 6:09 AM, JFC Morfin wrote: > Don't you think routing may have to do with details like architecture, RFCs, addressing plan, IP allocation, RIR strategies? Sure. > Why is there only one source of IPv6 addresses, when ITU had expressed the interest in managing its own IPv6 adressing plan? > Why has Civil Society never been proposed to manage its own IPv6 adressing plan? Because the usefulness of IPv6 addresses (like IPv4 addresses) is constrained by network topology, not politics or whether they feel good, thus for the Internet to actually scale, you need them to be allocated by service providers, not politicians? > Why is this that RIRs have been the first to endorse OpenStand RFC 6852 http://open-stand.org/home-page/endorsements/? Because they agreed with the document? Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Aug 31 10:11:27 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 19:41:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead Message-ID: There is plenty of civil society already involved in IP address management, helping isps in developing countries operate exchange points etc. What is your point here? --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "JFC Morfin" To: "Diego R. Canabarro" , "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Suresh Ramasubramanian" Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "McTim" , "Milton L Mueller" , "Norbert Bollow" Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead Date: Sat, Aug 31, 2013 6:39 PM All this is nice. Don't you think routing may have to do with details like architecture, RFCs, addressing plan, IP allocation, RIR strategies? Why is there only one source of IPv6 addresses, when ITU had expressed the interest in managing its own IPv6 adressing plan? Why is this that RIRs have been the first to endorse OpenStand RFC 6852 http://open-stand.org/home-page/endorsements/? Why has Civil Society never been proposed to manage its own IPv6 adressing plan? jfc At 14:42 31/08/2013, Diego R. Canabarro wrote: Arent those business agreements subject to specific jurisdictions? Are those business entities and ISP completely free from any state law? Shouldnt they be at least incorporated according to specific bodies of regulation? If so, it is really hard to envision from a practical perspective the idea of denationalization. No matter how transnational the activities are. -- Enviado a partir de dispositivo movel Sent from mobile device Em 31/08/2013, à s 08:55, Suresh Ramasubramanian escreveu: Governance of internet routing depends on business agreements between ISPs Only rarely is it mandated by law to keep local traffic local - china and some other countries do it, either for filtering / lawful intercept / prevention of foreign lawful intercept, or to force ISPs to save itnernational bandwidth when a dominant player in the industry doesnt want to peer. So there's no politics here beyond the usual backbiting - and the rest is as mctim says. --srs (iPad) On 31-Aug-2013, at 17:10, McTim wrote: On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 5:37 AM, JFC Morfin wrote: Governance of Internet routing is largely denationalized now. From reading you (I am not a specialist of lower layers) I understood it was "internationalized", the world being used to mean "US coordinated international cooperation" as per Zbigniew Brzezin'ski? The USG has zero control over routing of non USG networks. In other words, networks control their own routing. the USG has nothing to do with routing them. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 31 12:11:23 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 18:11:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] definition of "governance" (was Re: talking vs acting) In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BD3AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130831144549.77662b74@quill> Message-ID: <20130831181123.4660efa2@quill> JFC Morfin wrote: > At 14:45 31/08/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> 2) Is the talking which is being done directed at the objective of >> figuring out which governance actions are in the public interest (in >> the sense of some reasonable interpretation of what is the public >> interest)? > Even before defining what is the public interest, the problem here is > to define what is a governance action, so we know if the debate is > credible enough or not. I think that in the Internet context, the definition of governance is essentially a solved problem: Definition: Internet governance is the development and application of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. Note: Governments, civil society and the private sector are all involved in Internet governance in various roles. (This is a slight rephrasing of the “working definition” from WGIG which is also in para 34 of the Tunis agenda; the change which I'm proposing is to move the words “by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles” to a Note and to change “respective roles” to “various roles”. My reason for proposing this change is that the terms “governments”, “civil society” and “private sector” are all hard to define precisely, and whether they should have precisely defined “respective roles” is not so clear either.) Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive 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 jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Aug 31 23:03:50 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 05:03:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] [At-Large] The Internet as we know it is dead In-Reply-To: <3618BF76-EACA-46D0-AE76-2879720D56D6@virtualized.org> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BD3AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3618BF76-EACA-46D0-AE76-2879720D56D6@virtualized.org> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Aug 31 22:48:57 2013 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 04:48:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] definition of "governance" (was Re: talking vs acting) In-Reply-To: <20130831181123.4660efa2@quill> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCB5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6A34A69D8C46421C99F3474A74AFD3A8@Toshiba> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BCD43@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130829235712.584f1e1b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24BD3AC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20130831144549.77662b74@quill> <20130831181123.4660efa2@quill> Message-ID: At 18:11 31/08/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote: >JFC Morfin wrote: > > At 14:45 31/08/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> 2) Is the talking which is being done directed at the objective of > >> figuring out which governance actions are in the public interest (in > >> the sense of some reasonable interpretation of what is the public > >> interest)? > > Even before defining what is the public interest, the problem here is > > to define what is a governance action, so we know if the debate is > > credible enough or not. Dear Norbert, >I think that in the Internet context, the definition of governance is >essentially a solved problem: Here is our main difference then :-) 1. I am not much interested in the now defunct internet (cf. CIRA) 2. I am like you: I am not fully satisfied with the definition of the governance concept, per se, and because it did not prevent the death of the internet. > Definition: Internet governance is the development and application > of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and > programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. IMHO you are missing the governance's true role which is neither the use (this is the short term operance's mission) nor the care of the evolution (that is concertance long term architectonic responsibility), but the mid-term management of the internet. The error politicians made in addition is confusing the web with the internet, and the internet with the human information society as extended by digitalization (digisphere). The internet is just a tool. For a certain time it was the core of the information society development. RFC 6852 and PRISM show that this time is over. The internet as some dreamt it is realy dead. There are three technologies: information (collecting data), communications (transporting data) and intellition (intelligently using information to infer data one will not need to collect and transport). The intellition performance is the John Von Neumann's "singularity". Intellition has three dimensions: data, metadata (data about data) and syllodata (data between data, they are the intelligence - Doug Engelbart introduced them through their hyperlinks type). What is discussed when talking of the "death of the internet" are two changes of paradigm. 1. The main change is the human creep into reality outside of the Plato's cave, through intelligence with the bots' assistance. Experimental science gave us data, we share them through communications (round the world or throughout processors) and extend then through intellition, in applying intelligence to communicated informaton. Einstein explained us why we are in a 4D world (as a result of Poincaré findings on the n-body reality). Snowden using PRISM and Raymond Kurzweil joining Google (http://www.wired.com/business/2013/04/kurzweil-google-ai/) are just showing us that we have actually entered already the 7D singularity - tuching reality as Plato and Aristotle expected it, but had not the science and the mathematic uncompletion to demonstrate it. Plenty of people worked hard on the problem for 2400 years! 2. The second change is OpenStand which adapts the internet standardization process to this new situation and abandon the general leadership of three stewardship layers. These three layers were defined in RFC 3935 (IETF mission). The IETF mission was: "to influence those who - design (long term, architectural concordance now becoming architectonically dependent). - use (short term operance, claimed by OpenUse) - manage (mid-term governance) the internet in order to make it work better" (general common interest, never actually defined, now pragmatically reduced to make it adequate to the markets). > Note: Governments, civil society and the private sector are all > involved in Internet governance in various roles. You are missing International organizations in the 4-lateral MSist governance. >(This is a slight rephrasing of the "working definition" from WGIG which >is also in para 34 of the Tunis agenda; the change which I'm proposing >is to move the words "by governments, the private sector and civil >society, in their respective roles" to a Note and to change “respective >roles" to "various roles". My reason for proposing this change is that >the terms "governments", "civil society" and "private sector" are all >hard to define precisely, and whether they should have precisely defined >"respective roles" is not so clear either.) The WGIG definitions are just that. Definition by a group of people of the former paradigm trying to adapt to the new one, i.e. the post-singularity one (as per Kurzweil, Google pays to make it heppens through the language use - hence my opposition to the Unicode/Google control on languistic RFCs). They did a good job. We have to complete it as we know progressively more and better. Take care. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t