From pwilson at apnic.net Sun Dec 1 00:32:47 2013 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 15:32:47 +1000 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC In-Reply-To: <0F52BC21-747B-456D-9B3A-D1F5BD8778F3@hserus.net> References: <054001ceed39$1ce87c00$56b97400$@gmail.com> <0F52BC21-747B-456D-9B3A-D1F5BD8778F3@hserus.net> Message-ID: <4EEDB265-C354-4DFC-82FF-D8ACD590C0D7@apnic.net> Thanks Suresh. Indeed, I was referring to the "Internet community" in the broadest sense, including all stakeholders. Paul. On 30/11/2013, at 8:45 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Not speaking for Paul but the definition of Internet community he appears to refer to is quite open, and more importantly, does not seek to specifically exclude particular classes of people or organizations. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 30-Nov-2013, at 0:57, "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> Thanks for the pointer to this very interesting post Nnenna. >> >> Paul uses the term “Internet community” in several places and I’m curious what he means by it… >> >> I have a feeling that we may not all have a similar definition (or that our definitions are evolving) and that that might be one reason why our discussions often go off the rails—we have different conceptions of who the audience or target group is for various of the policy issues that we address from time to time. >> >> (I provided my own definition in my current blogpost, but I’m not sure that everyone here agrees with mine J and of course ISOC, ICANN, IETF also all use the term “Internet community” and if those folks also want to chime in it would be greatly appreciated. >> >> M >> >> >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Nnenna Nwakanma >> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 8:21 AM >> To: Governance; >> Subject: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC >> >> >> Just published here: >> http://www.circleid.com/posts/2013112_what_is_1net_to_me/ >> >> N[MG>] >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pwilson at apnic.net Sun Dec 1 00:31:12 2013 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 15:31:12 +1000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC In-Reply-To: <054001ceed39$1ce87c00$56b97400$@gmail.com> References: <054001ceed39$1ce87c00$56b97400$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks Nnenna. Hi Michael, When I mention "Internet community" (or "the community") I am referring to the multistakeholder community in the broadest sense, including any and all Internet stakeholders, whether individuals or organisations. I tried to make broad inclusion clear enough in all references, but I suppose it is useful to clarify this. Paul. On 30/11/2013, at 5:27 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Thanks for the pointer to this very interesting post Nnenna. > > Paul uses the term “Internet community” in several places and I’m curious what he means by it… > > I have a feeling that we may not all have a similar definition (or that our definitions are evolving) and that that might be one reason why our discussions often go off the rails—we have different conceptions of who the audience or target group is for various of the policy issues that we address from time to time. > > (I provided my own definition in my current blogpost, but I’m not sure that everyone here agrees with mine J and of course ISOC, ICANN, IETF also all use the term “Internet community” and if those folks also want to chime in it would be greatly appreciated. > > M > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Nnenna Nwakanma > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 8:21 AM > To: Governance; > Subject: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC > > > Just published here: > http://www.circleid.com/posts/2013112_what_is_1net_to_me/ > > N[MG>] > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Guru at ITforChange.net Sun Dec 1 03:38:37 2013 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2013 14:08:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC In-Reply-To: <4EEDB265-C354-4DFC-82FF-D8ACD590C0D7@apnic.net> References: <054001ceed39$1ce87c00$56b97400$@gmail.com> <0F52BC21-747B-456D-9B3A-D1F5BD8778F3@hserus.net> <4EEDB265-C354-4DFC-82FF-D8ACD590C0D7@apnic.net> Message-ID: <529AF58D.4080205@ITforChange.net> On 12/01/2013 11:02 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: > Thanks Suresh. > > Indeed, I was referring to the "Internet community" in the broadest sense, including all stakeholders. are Governments included in this 'all stakeholders' Guru > Paul. > > > On 30/11/2013, at 8:45 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> Not speaking for Paul but the definition of Internet community he appears to refer to is quite open, and more importantly, does not seek to specifically exclude particular classes of people or organizations. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 30-Nov-2013, at 0:57, "michael gurstein" wrote: >> >>> Thanks for the pointer to this very interesting post Nnenna. >>> >>> Paul uses the term “Internet community” in several places and I’m curious what he means by it… >>> >>> I have a feeling that we may not all have a similar definition (or that our definitions are evolving) and that that might be one reason why our discussions often go off the rails—we have different conceptions of who the audience or target group is for various of the policy issues that we address from time to time. >>> >>> (I provided my own definition in my current blogpost, but I’m not sure that everyone here agrees with mine J and of course ISOC, ICANN, IETF also all use the term “Internet community” and if those folks also want to chime in it would be greatly appreciated. >>> >>> M >>> >>> >>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Nnenna Nwakanma >>> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 8:21 AM >>> To: Governance; >>> Subject: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC >>> >>> >>> Just published here: >>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/2013112_what_is_1net_to_me/ >>> >>> N[MG>] >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pwilson at apnic.net Sun Dec 1 03:49:03 2013 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 18:49:03 +1000 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC In-Reply-To: <529AF58D.4080205@ITforChange.net> References: <054001ceed39$1ce87c00$56b97400$@gmail.com> <0F52BC21-747B-456D-9B3A-D1F5BD8778F3@hserus.net> <4EEDB265-C354-4DFC-82FF-D8ACD590C0D7@apnic.net> <529AF58D.4080205@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <155D3317-5FEC-4B84-9A23-76C417899835@apnic.net> yes, to me they certainly are included. paul. On 01/12/2013, at 6:38 PM, Guru गुरु wrote: > > On 12/01/2013 11:02 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: >> Thanks Suresh. >> >> Indeed, I was referring to the "Internet community" in the broadest sense, including all stakeholders. >> > > are Governments included in this 'all stakeholders' > > Guru >> Paul. >> >> >> On 30/11/2013, at 8:45 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> Not speaking for Paul but the definition of Internet community he appears to refer to is quite open, and more importantly, does not seek to specifically exclude particular classes of people or organizations. >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 0:57, "michael gurstein" >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Thanks for the pointer to this very interesting post Nnenna. >>>> >>>> Paul uses the term “Internet community” in several places and I’m curious what he means by it… >>>> >>>> I have a feeling that we may not all have a similar definition (or that our definitions are evolving) and that that might be one reason why our discussions often go off the rails—we have different conceptions of who the audience or target group is for various of the policy issues that we address from time to time. >>>> >>>> (I provided my own definition in my current blogpost, but I’m not sure that everyone here agrees with mine J and of course ISOC, ICANN, IETF also all use the term “Internet community” and if those folks also want to chime in it would be greatly appreciated. >>>> >>>> M >>>> >>>> >>>> From: >>>> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>> ] On Behalf Of Nnenna Nwakanma >>>> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 8:21 AM >>>> To: Governance; >>>> >>>> >>>> Subject: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC >>>> >>>> >>>> Just published here: >>>> >>>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/2013112_what_is_1net_to_me/ >>>> >>>> >>>> N[MG>] >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> >>>> Translate this email: >>>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> >>> Translate this email: >>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Dec 1 04:05:16 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 14:35:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC In-Reply-To: <529AF58D.4080205@ITforChange.net> References: <054001ceed39$1ce87c00$56b97400$@gmail.com> <0F52BC21-747B-456D-9B3A-D1F5BD8778F3@hserus.net> <4EEDB265-C354-4DFC-82FF-D8ACD590C0D7@apnic.net> <529AF58D.4080205@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: Why shouldn't they be? --srs (iPad) > On 01-Dec-2013, at 14:08, Guru गुरु wrote: > > > On 12/01/2013 11:02 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: >> Thanks Suresh. >> >> Indeed, I was referring to the "Internet community" in the broadest sense, including all stakeholders. > > are Governments included in this 'all stakeholders' > > Guru >> Paul. >> >> >> On 30/11/2013, at 8:45 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >>> Not speaking for Paul but the definition of Internet community he appears to refer to is quite open, and more importantly, does not seek to specifically exclude particular classes of people or organizations. >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 0:57, "michael gurstein" wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks for the pointer to this very interesting post Nnenna. >>>> >>>> Paul uses the term “Internet community” in several places and I’m curious what he means by it… >>>> >>>> I have a feeling that we may not all have a similar definition (or that our definitions are evolving) and that that might be one reason why our discussions often go off the rails—we have different conceptions of who the audience or target group is for various of the policy issues that we address from time to time. >>>> >>>> (I provided my own definition in my current blogpost, but I’m not sure that everyone here agrees with mine J and of course ISOC, ICANN, IETF also all use the term “Internet community” and if those folks also want to chime in it would be greatly appreciated. >>>> >>>> M >>>> >>>> >>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Nnenna Nwakanma >>>> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 8:21 AM >>>> To: Governance; >>>> Subject: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC >>>> >>>> >>>> Just published here: >>>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/2013112_what_is_1net_to_me/ >>>> >>>> N[MG>] >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 1 06:38:34 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 12:38:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] Coordinator elections In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20131201123834.679f8ab6@quill> Avri Doria wrote: > Process makes sense to me. +1 Greetings, Norbert > -------- Original message -------- > From: Ian Peter > Date: 11/30/2013 13:59 (GMT-05:00) > To: Norbert Bollow ,IGC > Cc: "'Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro'" > Subject: Re: [governance] > Coordinator elections > Yes, that was my understanding as well. December 1 cutoff. And I > think to date there have been four candidates? If there does need to > be an extension in these unusual circumstances, I believe no more > than a week can be justified. We must move on. > > In the circumstances I hope we can have elections before Christmas, > to allow two new co ordinators to take place before Christmas, and > give us a fresh start in 2014. > > > The circumstances of a co ordinator resigning are unusual for us, but > this excerpt from the charter explains the procedures. > > " > If a coordinator leaves the role due to personal reasons or recall, > the role will be refilled as quickly as possible. The role will be > refilled for the balance of the term unless the refill occurs during > the year in which the role was to be vacated. In this case the > coordinator position will be for the balance of the replacement terms > plus a two (2) year regular term. For example, if the 'even year' > coordinator for 2006, leaves the role during an odd year, 2007, the > rest of the term will be filled with a replacement, and a new > selection will be made on schedule in 2008. If on the other hand the > coordinator leaves the role early in 2008, then the replacement would > complete the original term and serve the 2008-2010 term." > > My suggestion is that everyone gets to vote for two candidates. The > person with most votes serves a two year term, the person with second > most votes serves a one year term - to get us back into rotation. I > think that is a correct reading of the situation given the year in > which the resignation was received. > > I am sure there are plenty of people who will help with the > continuity issues arising from two new people taking on roles at the > same time. Indeed there is nothing to stop the new co coordinators > asking a few people to specifically help in this regard. > > I admire your stance on this Norbert. A new start is definitely > needed and I appreciate that the steps you have taken actually have > created this opportunity, (despite the circumstances being less than > ideal). > > > Ian Peter -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Dec 1 06:42:32 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 12:42:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <529A0E33.50400@itforchange.net> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573F76@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529A0E33.50400@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20131201124232.73fb3886@quill> The approach proposed by Parminder below is reasonable IMO. I particularly like the idea of creating a trustworthy international jurisdiction. In today's highly globalized world, that could turn out to be very valuable also for purposes quite different from Internet governance. Greetings, Norbert Parminder wrote: > > On Saturday 30 November 2013 06:58 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > Some concepts are too complex to force them into a single word. > > Deirdre > > Deirdre/ All > > Most things in social and political discourse are complex. However, > there is always a way to build categories, split issues, and progress > in steps , whereby we can certainly talk meaningfully about them and > make social and political progress... Such a shared intention is > key... > > I think there are two clear issues about 'internationalisation of > ICANN' > > 1. Its legal status, and the jurisdiction to which it is subject. > > 2. The actual role of US-NTIA in authorising every change in the root > file. > > It seems that other than the US gov itself, everyone agrees that > US-NTIA should be divested of that 'root change authorising' > role..... Then the question comes; (a) should the role then be > exercised directly and finally by ICANN itself, or (b) another body > to undertake this role (and just this role and nothing else) is > needed. > > A lot of people - including i* group - are of the opinion that (a) > above is the best option. Some others think that every significant > decision pertaining to a crucial global infrastructure should be > subject to a second opinion or confirmation, as a normal prudence, by > a body different from the executive authority (ICANN Board). One way > would be to have some kind of international oversight board (not > necessarily inter-gov) undertaking the same role as undertaken by > US-NTIA today. Another way is to allow ICANN to make root changes but > all such decisions are post facto reviewed and confirmed by such an > international oversight board. ( Whether with a pre facto or post > facto role, such an oversight board will exercise its role within > clearly set our parameters and rules.) A third way is to only have an > appellate board which reviews root change decisions only if an appeal > is made to it through a due process. > > Therefore, on point 2 above, we can easily agree to ask US-NTIA to > shed its oversight role. What should further be done can be discussed > along the above three lines (others may add more options if any) > > Point 1 above is more contentious. Although, in principles, it is > easy to assert that a global resource cannot be subject to the > jurisdiction of one country and that it should be subject to > international jurisdiction. The issue then is; how to form such an > international jurisdiction. > > Here too, it is easy for us as a civil society group to assert the > principle - yes, it is untenable that ICANN continues to be subject > to US law and jurisdiction. ICANN needs to be made subject to > international law and jurisdiction. Lets do first agree on this > principle. If we do, we can then take up the subsequent discussion of > how to establish an appropriate jurisdiction and legal framework for > ICANN. I am sure we can close onto a few clear options, if not agree > on one. > > A structured discussion on the above lines will help identify areas > we all agree on, explore the possibility of convergences on those we > do not, and in the latter case, at least come out with a clear set of > alternatives. > > parminder -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Dec 1 06:45:47 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2013 17:15:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance Message-ID: I doubt it. Following existing processes from inside is going to work far better for you --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Norbert Bollow" To: Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance Date: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 5:12 PM The approach proposed by Parminder below is reasonable IMO. I particularly like the idea of creating a trustworthy international jurisdiction. In today's highly globalized world, that could turn out to be very valuable also for purposes quite different from Internet governance. Greetings, Norbert Parminder wrote: > > On Saturday 30 November 2013 06:58 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > Some concepts are too complex to force them into a single word. > > Deirdre > > Deirdre/ All > > Most things in social and political discourse are complex. However, > there is always a way to build categories, split issues, and progress > in steps , whereby we can certainly talk meaningfully about them and > make social and political progress... Such a shared intention is > key... > > I think there are two clear issues about 'internationalisation of > ICANN' > > 1. Its legal status, and the jurisdiction to which it is subject. > > 2. The actual role of US-NTIA in authorising every change in the root > file. > > It seems that other than the US gov itself, everyone agrees that > US-NTIA should be divested of that 'root change authorising' > role..... Then the question comes; (a) should the role then be > exercised directly and finally by ICANN itself, or (b) another body > to undertake this role (and just this role and nothing else) is > needed. > > A lot of people - including i* group - are of the opinion that (a) > above is the best option. Some others think that every significant > decision pertaining to a crucial global infrastructure should be > subject to a second opinion or confirmation, as a normal prudence, by > a body different from the executive authority (ICANN Board). One way > would be to have some kind of international oversight board (not > necessarily inter-gov) undertaking the same role as undertaken by > US-NTIA today. Another way is to allow ICANN to make root changes but > all such decisions are post facto reviewed and confirmed by such an > international oversight board. ( Whether with a pre facto or post > facto role, such an oversight board will exercise its role within > clearly set our parameters and rules.) A third way is to only have an > appellate board which reviews root change decisions only if an appeal > is made to it through a due process. > > Therefore, on point 2 above, we can easily agree to ask US-NTIA to > shed its oversight role. What should further be done can be discussed > along the above three lines (others may add more options if any) > > Point 1 above is more contentious. Although, in principles, it is > easy to assert that a global resource cannot be subject to the > jurisdiction of one country and that it should be subject to > international jurisdiction. The issue then is; how to form such an > international jurisdiction. > > Here too, it is easy for us as a civil society group to assert the > principle - yes, it is untenable that ICANN continues to be subject > to US law and jurisdiction. ICANN needs to be made subject to > international law and jurisdiction. Lets do first agree on this > principle. If we do, we can then take up the subsequent discussion of > how to establish an appropriate jurisdiction and legal framework for > ICANN. I am sure we can close onto a few clear options, if not agree > on one. > > A structured discussion on the above lines will help identify areas > we all agree on, explore the possibility of convergences on those we > do not, and in the latter case, at least come out with a clear set of > alternatives. > > 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 nb at bollow.ch Sun Dec 1 07:03:18 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 13:03:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Mawaki Chango for IGC coordinator Message-ID: <20131201130318.61d1bd4f@quill> Dear all Hereby I nominate Mawaki Chango for the IGC coordinator elections. I have already asked him whether he is willing to run in these elections, and after a bit of reflection, he has said yes. 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 jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Sun Dec 1 07:52:05 2013 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 13:52:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <686C2365-EA4C-4AD8-9A10-BCE4FEAB7A7F@theglobaljournal.net> Suresh, I don't know why but, based upon the reading of some of your previous messages, I had the impression you could do that type of answer. Aren't these 12 words a little antagonistic, and with no argument at all? Could you elaborate - doubt - work far better And what's immediately wrong with a trustworthy international jurisdiction ?? Thanks JC Le 1 déc. 2013 à 12:45, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > I doubt it. Following existing processes from inside is going to work far better for you > > --srs (htc one x) > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Norbert Bollow" > To: > Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance > Date: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 5:12 PM > > The approach proposed by Parminder below is reasonable IMO. I > particularly like the idea of creating a trustworthy international > jurisdiction. In today's highly globalized world, that could turn out to > be very valuable also for purposes quite different from Internet > governance. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Parminder wrote: > > > > > On Saturday 30 November 2013 06:58 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > > Some concepts are too complex to force them into a single word. > > > Deirdre > > > > Deirdre/ All > > > > Most things in social and political discourse are complex. However, > > there is always a way to build categories, split issues, and progress > > in steps , whereby we can certainly talk meaningfully about them and > > make social and political progress... Such a shared intention is > > key... > > > > I think there are two clear issues about 'internationalisation of > > ICANN' > > > > 1. Its legal status, and the jurisdiction to which it is subject. > > > > 2. The actual role of US-NTIA in authorising every change in the root > > file. > > > > It seems that other than the US gov itself, everyone agrees that > > US-NTIA should be divested of that 'root change authorising' > > role..... Then the question comes; (a) should the role then be > > exercised directly and finally by ICANN itself, or (b) another body > > to undertake this role (and just this role and nothing else) is > > needed. > > > > A lot of people - including i* group - are of the opinion that (a) > > above is the best option. Some others think that every significant > > decision pertaining to a crucial global infrastructure should be > > subject to a second opinion or confirmation, as a normal prudence, by > > a body different from the executive authority (ICANN Board). One way > > would be to have some kind of international oversight board (not > > necessarily inter-gov) undertaking the same role as undertaken by > > US-NTIA today. Another way is to allow ICANN to make root changes but > > all such decisions are post facto reviewed and confirmed by such an > > international oversight board. ( Whether with a pre facto or post > > facto role, such an oversight board will exercise its role within > > clearly set our parameters and rules.) A third way is to only have an > > appellate board which reviews root change decisions only if an appeal > > is made to it through a due process. > > > > Therefore, on point 2 above, we can easily agree to ask US-NTIA to > > shed its oversight role. What should further be done can be discussed > > along the above three lines (others may add more options if any) > > > > Point 1 above is more contentious. Although, in principles, it is > > easy to assert that a global resource cannot be subject to the > > jurisdiction of one country and that it should be subject to > > international jurisdiction. The issue then is; how to form such an > > international jurisdiction. > > > > Here too, it is easy for us as a civil society group to assert the > > principle - yes, it is untenable that ICANN continues to be subject > > to US law and jurisdiction. ICANN needs to be made subject to > > international law and jurisdiction. Lets do first agree on this > > principle. If we do, we can then take up the subsequent discussion of > > how to establish an appropriate jurisdiction and legal framework for > > ICANN. I am sure we can close onto a few clear options, if not agree > > on one. > > > > A structured discussion on the above lines will help identify areas > > we all agree on, explore the possibility of convergences on those we > > do not, and in the latter case, at least come out with a clear set of > > alternatives. > > > > 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 Sun Dec 1 08:32:28 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2013 19:02:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance Message-ID: It is simply that existing governance structures are multistakeholder. The thrust seems to be to uproot and replace them, and a lot of the voices in favor of that are more influenced by political control than the practical difficulties of replicating everything from scratch while at the same time a pitched battle for control of this new structure continues. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" To: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" Cc: "Norbert Bollow" , Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance Date: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 6:22 PM Suresh, I don't know why but, based upon the reading of some of your previous messages, I had the impression you could do that type of answer. Aren't these 12 words a little antagonistic, and with no argument at all? Could you elaborate - doubt - work far better And what's immediately wrong with a trustworthy international jurisdiction ?? Thanks JC Le 1 déc. 2013 à 12:45, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > I doubt it. Following existing processes from inside is going to work far better for you > > --srs (htc one x) > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Norbert Bollow" > To: > Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance > Date: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 5:12 PM > > The approach proposed by Parminder below is reasonable IMO. I > particularly like the idea of creating a trustworthy international > jurisdiction. In today's highly globalized world, that could turn out to > be very valuable also for purposes quite different from Internet > governance. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Parminder wrote: > > > > > On Saturday 30 November 2013 06:58 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > > Some concepts are too complex to force them into a single word. > > > Deirdre > > > > Deirdre/ All > > > > Most things in social and political discourse are complex. However, > > there is always a way to build categories, split issues, and progress > > in steps , whereby we can certainly talk meaningfully about them and > > make social and political progress... Such a shared intention is > > key... > > > > I think there are two clear issues about 'internationalisation of > > ICANN' > > > > 1. Its legal status, and the jurisdiction to which it is subject. > > > > 2. The actual role of US-NTIA in authorising every change in the root > > file. > > > > It seems that other than the US gov itself, everyone agrees that > > US-NTIA should be divested of that 'root change authorising' > > role..... Then the question comes; (a) should the role then be > > exercised directly and finally by ICANN itself, or (b) another body > > to undertake this role (and just this role and nothing else) is > > needed. > > > > A lot of people - including i* group - are of the opinion that (a) > > above is the best option. Some others think that every significant > > decision pertaining to a crucial global infrastructure should be > > subject to a second opinion or confirmation, as a normal prudence, by > > a body different from the executive authority (ICANN Board). One way > > would be to have some kind of international oversight board (not > > necessarily inter-gov) undertaking the same role as undertaken by > > US-NTIA today. Another way is to allow ICANN to make root changes but > > all such decisions are post facto reviewed and confirmed by such an > > international oversight board. ( Whether with a pre facto or post > > facto role, such an oversight board will exercise its role within > > clearly set our parameters and rules.) A third way is to only have an > > appellate board which reviews root change decisions only if an appeal > > is made to it through a due process. > > > > Therefore, on point 2 above, we can easily agree to ask US-NTIA to > > shed its oversight role. What should further be done can be discussed > > along the above three lines (others may add more options if any) > > > > Point 1 above is more contentious. Although, in principles, it is > > easy to assert that a global resource cannot be subject to the > > jurisdiction of one country and that it should be subject to > > international jurisdiction. The issue then is; how to form such an > > international jurisdiction. > > > > Here too, it is easy for us as a civil society group to assert the > > principle - yes, it is untenable that ICANN continues to be subject > > to US law and jurisdiction. ICANN needs to be made subject to > > international law and jurisdiction. Lets do first agree on this > > principle. If we do, we can then take up the subsequent discussion of > > how to establish an appropriate jurisdiction and legal framework for > > ICANN. I am sure we can close onto a few clear options, if not agree > > on one. > > > > A structured discussion on the above lines will help identify areas > > we all agree on, explore the possibility of convergences on those we > > do not, and in the latter case, at least come out with a clear set of > > alternatives. > > > > 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Dec 1 08:45:44 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 08:45:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <529A0E33.50400@itforchange.net> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573F76@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529A0E33.50400@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 11:11 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Saturday 30 November 2013 06:58 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > Some concepts are too complex to force them into a single word. > Deirdre > > > Deirdre/ All > > Most things in social and political discourse are complex. However, there > is always a way to build categories, split issues, and progress in steps , > whereby we can certainly talk meaningfully about them and make social and > political progress... Such a shared intention is key... > > I think there are two clear issues about 'internationalisation of ICANN' > > 1. Its legal status, and the jurisdiction to which it is subject. > > 2. The actual role of US-NTIA in authorising every change in the root file. > > It seems that other than the US gov itself, everyone agrees that US-NTIA > should be divested of that 'root change authorising' role > Actually not true. We have heard on this list that there are governments who are comfortable with this role, but they will only speak of this in private, but that is not who you need to convince. I think there are a lot of biz folk who are happy with the status quo of #2. > ..... Then the question comes; (a) should the role then be exercised > directly and finally by ICANN itself, or (b) another body to undertake this > role (and just this role and nothing else) is needed. > Actually the question that must precede the above is: "Does this auth role need to be filled". In other words, can we trust IANA to do their job according to their own processes (which is what NTIA looks at). > > A lot of people - including i* group - are of the opinion that (a) above > is the best option. Some others think that every significant decision > pertaining to a crucial global infrastructure should be subject to a second > opinion or confirmation, as a normal prudence, by a body different from the > executive authority (ICANN Board). > These "decisions" are mainly minor administtrivia. Changing the IP address of a ccTLDs nameserver for example. When it comes to deciding what can go in the root, that is clearly now the role of the GAC (see GAC Communnique's from Beijing, Durban). > One way would be to have some kind of international oversight board (not > necessarily inter-gov) undertaking the same role as undertaken by US-NTIA > today. Another way is to allow ICANN to make root changes but all such > decisions are post facto reviewed and confirmed by such an international > oversight board. ( Whether with a pre facto or post facto role, such an > oversight board will exercise its role within clearly set our parameters > and rules.) A third way is to only have an appellate board which reviews > root change decisions only if an appeal is made to it through a due > process. > FYI, the ICANN Board ALREADY decides on new gTLDs and redelegations, so adding less important like changes to glue records should be non-controversial. > > Therefore, on point 2 above, we can easily agree to ask US-NTIA to shed > its oversight role. > We can certainly ask. but they take this responsibility very seriously, so they may not accede to the request. > What should further be done can be discussed along the above three lines > (others may add more options if any) > > Point 1 above is more contentious. Although, in principles, it is easy to > assert that a global resource cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of one > country and that it should be subject to international jurisdiction. The > issue then is; how to form such an international jurisdiction. > If we can do point #2, then it may be easier to do point #1. I don't think we should try to do both. Let's work on continued evolution, not revolution. > > Here too, it is easy for us as a civil society group to assert the > principle - yes, it is untenable that ICANN continues to be subject to US > law and jurisdiction. > and Singapore law and Turkish law and the laws of other nations where there are offices. Karl's point re: contracts is a valid one. How would you address that? > ICANN needs to be made subject to international law and jurisdiction. > Is it not already? Aren't we all? -- 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 jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Sun Dec 1 08:55:52 2013 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 14:55:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: thanks Suresh, though this does not convince me much. It reminds me of a great executive at Airbus. He achieved a few things in this European project, such as managing the building of the new assembly facility for the Airbus A380 (a huge and smart plant by the way). Before that he had to restructure the EADS missile branch. It was made of many different parts, each of them assuming they were acting together (do you say multistakeholder here?). Reality was that these different parts were more or less baronies, who would stick to their history, tradition, way of thinking, number of employees... The only way he could make them work together, in an efficient manner was to create a brand new building. Other old buildings could not only fit everyone, but could not either fit new technologies, new management skills... He needed a shock of culture, a transformative plan. That's how he succeeded. Some of the old buildings were later decommissioned, though not all of them. The new building was a great success. It was a transparent building (unusual for missile makers) and it allowed them to link back to civil industry, as the missile business was losing a lot of ground. What seems to me, is that, even though they are many great minds and a lot of experience and expertise along the IGF path, today that process is almost coming to an end. The fact that the ICANN is more or less doing what it pleases itself in regards of panels, committee, liaisons, participants, means the IGF has no other choice than to think different. Don't you think? We can wait for Brazil, and see where this is will drive the IGF community with its flaws and virtues. The ICANN train won't wait for the IGF when IGF should be the locomotive. __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias Editor in Chief jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net @jc_nothias Follow us on Twitter and Like us on Facebook Follow my Op-Eds at the Huffington Post US Palais des Nations SP2-53 8-14 avenue de la Paix 1211 Geneva, Switzerland T: +41 22 917 12 97 www.theglobaljournal.com Le 1 déc. 2013 à 14:32, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > It is simply that existing governance structures are multistakeholder. The thrust seems to be to uproot and replace them, and a lot of the voices in favor of that are more influenced by political control than the practical difficulties of replicating everything from scratch while at the same time a pitched battle for control of this new structure continues. > > --srs (htc one x) > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" > To: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > Cc: "Norbert Bollow" , > Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance > Date: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 6:22 PM > > Suresh, > > I don't know why but, based upon the reading of some of your previous messages, I had the impression you could do that type of answer. Aren't these 12 words a little antagonistic, and with no argument at all? > > Could you elaborate > - doubt > - work far better > > And what's immediately wrong with > a trustworthy international > jurisdiction > ?? > > Thanks > JC > > > Le 1 déc. 2013 à 12:45, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > > > I doubt it. Following existing processes from inside is going to work far better for you > > > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > ----- Reply message ----- > > From: "Norbert Bollow" > > To: > > Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance > > Date: Sun, Dec 1, 2013 5:12 PM > > > > The approach proposed by Parminder below is reasonable IMO. I > > particularly like the idea of creating a trustworthy international > > jurisdiction. In today's highly globalized world, that could turn out to > > be very valuable also for purposes quite different from Internet > > governance. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > Parminder wrote: > > > > > > > > On Saturday 30 November 2013 06:58 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > > > Some concepts are too complex to force them into a single word. > > > > Deirdre > > > > > > Deirdre/ All > > > > > > Most things in social and political discourse are complex. However, > > > there is always a way to build categories, split issues, and progress > > > in steps , whereby we can certainly talk meaningfully about them and > > > make social and political progress... Such a shared intention is > > > key... > > > > > > I think there are two clear issues about 'internationalisation of > > > ICANN' > > > > > > 1. Its legal status, and the jurisdiction to which it is subject. > > > > > > 2. The actual role of US-NTIA in authorising every change in the root > > > file. > > > > > > It seems that other than the US gov itself, everyone agrees that > > > US-NTIA should be divested of that 'root change authorising' > > > role..... Then the question comes; (a) should the role then be > > > exercised directly and finally by ICANN itself, or (b) another body > > > to undertake this role (and just this role and nothing else) is > > > needed. > > > > > > A lot of people - including i* group - are of the opinion that (a) > > > above is the best option. Some others think that every significant > > > decision pertaining to a crucial global infrastructure should be > > > subject to a second opinion or confirmation, as a normal prudence, by > > > a body different from the executive authority (ICANN Board). One way > > > would be to have some kind of international oversight board (not > > > necessarily inter-gov) undertaking the same role as undertaken by > > > US-NTIA today. Another way is to allow ICANN to make root changes but > > > all such decisions are post facto reviewed and confirmed by such an > > > international oversight board. ( Whether with a pre facto or post > > > facto role, such an oversight board will exercise its role within > > > clearly set our parameters and rules.) A third way is to only have an > > > appellate board which reviews root change decisions only if an appeal > > > is made to it through a due process. > > > > > > Therefore, on point 2 above, we can easily agree to ask US-NTIA to > > > shed its oversight role. What should further be done can be discussed > > > along the above three lines (others may add more options if any) > > > > > > Point 1 above is more contentious. Although, in principles, it is > > > easy to assert that a global resource cannot be subject to the > > > jurisdiction of one country and that it should be subject to > > > international jurisdiction. The issue then is; how to form such an > > > international jurisdiction. > > > > > > Here too, it is easy for us as a civil society group to assert the > > > principle - yes, it is untenable that ICANN continues to be subject > > > to US law and jurisdiction. ICANN needs to be made subject to > > > international law and jurisdiction. Lets do first agree on this > > > principle. If we do, we can then take up the subsequent discussion of > > > how to establish an appropriate jurisdiction and legal framework for > > > ICANN. I am sure we can close onto a few clear options, if not agree > > > on one. > > > > > > A structured discussion on the above lines will help identify areas > > > we all agree on, explore the possibility of convergences on those we > > > do not, and in the latter case, at least come out with a clear set of > > > alternatives. > > > > > > 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Global_logo-175x50px.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14790 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 nnenna75 at gmail.com Sun Dec 1 09:46:48 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 14:46:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] Coordinator elections In-Reply-To: <20131201123834.679f8ab6@quill> References: <20131201123834.679f8ab6@quill> Message-ID: +1 Ian, when will voting be scheduled? The earlier, the better. N On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Avri Doria wrote: > > > Process makes sense to me. > > +1 > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > -------- Original message -------- > > From: Ian Peter > > Date: 11/30/2013 13:59 (GMT-05:00) > > To: Norbert Bollow ,IGC > > Cc: "'Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro'" > > Subject: Re: [governance] > > Coordinator elections > > Yes, that was my understanding as well. December 1 cutoff. And I > > think to date there have been four candidates? If there does need to > > be an extension in these unusual circumstances, I believe no more > > than a week can be justified. We must move on. > > > > In the circumstances I hope we can have elections before Christmas, > > to allow two new co ordinators to take place before Christmas, and > > give us a fresh start in 2014. > > > > > > The circumstances of a co ordinator resigning are unusual for us, but > > this excerpt from the charter explains the procedures. > > > > " > > If a coordinator leaves the role due to personal reasons or recall, > > the role will be refilled as quickly as possible. The role will be > > refilled for the balance of the term unless the refill occurs during > > the year in which the role was to be vacated. In this case the > > coordinator position will be for the balance of the replacement terms > > plus a two (2) year regular term. For example, if the 'even year' > > coordinator for 2006, leaves the role during an odd year, 2007, the > > rest of the term will be filled with a replacement, and a new > > selection will be made on schedule in 2008. If on the other hand the > > coordinator leaves the role early in 2008, then the replacement would > > complete the original term and serve the 2008-2010 term." > > > > My suggestion is that everyone gets to vote for two candidates. The > > person with most votes serves a two year term, the person with second > > most votes serves a one year term - to get us back into rotation. I > > think that is a correct reading of the situation given the year in > > which the resignation was received. > > > > I am sure there are plenty of people who will help with the > > continuity issues arising from two new people taking on roles at the > > same time. Indeed there is nothing to stop the new co coordinators > > asking a few people to specifically help in this regard. > > > > I admire your stance on this Norbert. A new start is definitely > > needed and I appreciate that the steps you have taken actually have > > created this opportunity, (despite the circumstances being less than > > ideal). > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chlebrum at gmail.com Sun Dec 1 10:18:20 2013 From: chlebrum at gmail.com (chlebrum .) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 16:18:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Mawaki Chango for IGC coordinator In-Reply-To: <20131201130318.61d1bd4f@quill> References: <20131201130318.61d1bd4f@quill> Message-ID: +1 2013/12/1 Norbert Bollow > Dear all > > Hereby I nominate Mawaki Chango for the IGC coordinator elections. > > I have already asked him whether he is willing to run in these > elections, and after a bit of reflection, he has said yes. > > 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 mueller at syr.edu Sun Dec 1 10:21:01 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 15:21:01 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC In-Reply-To: References: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net> <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net> <528E12DB.3030902@itforchange.net> <5291F450.9040908@itforchange.net> <8841C2DC-64D3-4FA5-AAC0-8186478B5BCF@glocom.ac.jp> <52741740-24C3-477B-9BDC-A5BBA60ADCDC@glocom.ac.jp> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133225A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574406@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Here is a factual account of what happened http://www.internetgovernance.org/2011/06/28/civil-society-defects-from-oecd-internet-policy-principles/ ________________________________ From: sama.digitalpolicy at gmail.com [sama.digitalpolicy at gmail.com] on behalf of Andrea Glorioso [andrea at digitalpolicy.it] Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 12:55 PM To: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake; Andrea Glorioso; parminder; Dixie Hawtin; Andrew Puddephatt; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC To be clear: my understanding is that the statement that CSOs did endorse a set of principles produced within the OECD was challenged. It seems to me - and, unless I misinterpret the relevant messages, confirmed inter alia by Jeremy and Wolfgang - that a number of CSOs did indeed endorse a set of OECD principles which was acceptable to them. Again if I understand correctly, the point was not on the substance of such principles but on the legitimacy of policy-making done within "restricted" environments, especially when such principles / policies have ambitions of broader adoption; as well as, relatedly, on the approach to be taken towards broader settings. Please note that I'm not taking a position either on the OECD principles or on the related debate re: broader settings. P.S. I would not be so sure that people outside of the rather small IG circle (which are, according to some, stakeholders as well) are so clear on the details of who signed what, when and for which reason. On Sunday, November 24, 2013, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: Again: The two principles which did not get a CISAC endorsement was IPR and intermediarities. The opposition of CISAC to the two principles was ere outspoken but ignored by an article in the Washington Post by David Weitzer. This was corrected later when CISAC reconfirmed that it had its own position and did not change it. In contrary, as the statement - re-distributed by Andrea - says clearly, CISAC expected a continuation of the debate around the two controvrsial principles with the aim to improve the lanague and to make it acceptable to civil society. This OECD debate did influence also the final stage of the elaboration of the Council of Europe principles - which was negotiated in parallel. In the COE we avoided controversial OECD language and got the full endorsement by all parties. w -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Adam Peake Gesendet: So 24.11.2013 15:07 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Andrea Glorioso Cc: parminder; Dixie Hawtin; Andrew Puddephatt; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC I think we know what was endorsed and what wasn't. Please, just read the documents, it's pretty clear. Adam On Nov 24, 2013, at 10:51 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > As far as I understood when I used to follow this process, CSISAC did support a modified version of these principles. I'm happy to stand corrected by those who know more. > > http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php > > CSISAC Welcomes OECD Recommendation on Principles for Internet Policy Making > In a press release published on 19 December 2011, the CSISAC welcomes the Recommendation on Principles for Internet Policy Making adoped by the OECD Council on 13 December 2011, which reaffirms OECD commitment to a free, open and inclusive Internet. > > Most critically, this Recommendation envisions a collaborative decision-making process that is inclusive of civil society issues and concerns, such as those expressed by CSISAC when it declined to support a previous Communique resulting from the OECD High Level Meeting of June 2011. > > CSISAC looks forward to working with the OECD in order to develop the Principles itemized in the December Recommendation in greater detail and in a manner that promotes openness, is grounded in respect for human rights and the rule of law, and strengthens the capacity to improve the quality of life for all citizens. > > > On Sunday, November 24, 2013, Adam Peake wrote: > > On Nov 24, 2013, at 9:42 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > > On Thursday 21 November 2013 10:54 PM, Dixie Hawtin wrote: > >> I've never ever entered these debates before either, but I want to add my 2 cents too! > >> > >> On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the principles, on the basis of the intellectual property rights provision. > >> > > > > This is not true, Dixie. CSISAC did endorse them. > > > > > No Parminder, you're wrong. Civil society (CSISAC: Civil Society Information Society Advisory Council) did not endorse the OECD principles on Internet policy making (June 2011 ) Read the document. > > No point in any further discussion, the document is what it is. > > Adam > > > > > However, I have stayed away from discussing the substantive merit of the outcomes of OECD kind of 'global' public policy processes. I only spoke about their procedural aspects - like inclusiveness, multistakeholder versus multilateral, etc . That these processes > > > > 1. do not involve all countries/ governments, and > > 2. are no less multilateral, and no more multistakeholder , than some of the proposed UN based Internet policy fora, like India's CIRP proposal. > > > > And the fact that civil society seems never to bother with this particular problem of global Internet governance. As for instance we are fond of regularly writing to ITU about its processes, and have even started to speak against proposed WSIS + 10, which is supposed to follow WSIS model which was one of the most participatory of processes that I have ever seen. > > > > Can you show me an instance where we have addressed the above problem of global governance - something which is a constant refrain in most discussions of global governance in the South . How can we simply dismiss this concern. > > > > Ok, to make it topical: The mandate of OCED's CCICP (OECD's Internet policy organ) is up for renewal sometime now ( I think it is supposed to be this December). As they renew their mandate, I propose that we write to them, that > > > > 1. CCICP should seek "full and equal' engagement with UN and other regional bodies on Internet policy issues that really have implications across the globe, to ensure global democracy. > > 2. CCICP should never seek to post facto push their policy frameworks on other countries - if they indeed think/ know that a particular Internet policy issue is of a global dimension they should from the start itself take it up at a global forum and accordingly develop policies regarding it . > > 3. CCICP should be made fully multistakeholder on the same principles of multistakeholderism that OECD countries seek for global Internet policy related bodies. In this regard, OECD should clearly specify the role of different stakeholders in terms of Internet policy making by OECD/ CCICP, and whether they are same or different than what they > >> Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > >> gp-digital.org > >> > >> From: parminder [ > >> mailto:parminder at itforchange.net > >> ] > >> Sent: 21 November 2013 11:38 > >> To: Andrew Puddephatt > >> Cc: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > >> , > >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC > >> > >> Andrew > >> > >> I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I am not quite sure that is a good thing to do. > >> > >> Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the proceedings of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed debate. Some of them directly referred by name to positions presented by me/ my organisation which is also quite fair because we are all in a public space and people need to be able to say whatever they want to (apart from some obnoxious personal comments by Adam which is where I think IGC and BB group responsibility-holders should be focussing; which they regrettably have let pass.) What I cant understand is why in your view should I not be able to present and defend my views, the below being my very first email on the issue. > >> > >> my responses below... > >> On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > >> > >> I don't normally respond to these discussions but occasionally I feel > >> > >> I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for those who are engaging in it.... > >> > >> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > > -- > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. > Twitter: @andreaglorioso > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.go -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sun Dec 1 10:35:35 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 15:35:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC In-Reply-To: References: <054001ceed39$1ce87c00$56b97400$@gmail.com> <0F52BC21-747B-456D-9B3A-D1F5BD8778F3@hserus.net> <4EEDB265-C354-4DFC-82FF-D8ACD590C0D7@apnic.net> <529AF58D.4080205@ITforChange.net>, Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574449@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> It's actually a confusion of domains to consider governments as "stakeholders" in the same sense that an individual, a civil society organization or a business or trade association is a stakeholder. Especially when governments are treated as if they are unitary actors who aggregate the interests of an entire nation. Governments qua governments are supposed to aggregate and represent all the "stakeholders" under their jurisdiction. To combine direct, representation of stakeholders with unitary national governments is to throw together two completely incompatible systems of representation. That is what so many people don't get about MSM ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Guru गुरु Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC Why shouldn't they be? --srs (iPad) On 01-Dec-2013, at 14:08, Guru गुरु > wrote: On 12/01/2013 11:02 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: Thanks Suresh. Indeed, I was referring to the "Internet community" in the broadest sense, including all stakeholders. are Governments included in this 'all stakeholders' Guru Paul. On 30/11/2013, at 8:45 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Not speaking for Paul but the definition of Internet community he appears to refer to is quite open, and more importantly, does not seek to specifically exclude particular classes of people or organizations. --srs (iPad) On 30-Nov-2013, at 0:57, "michael gurstein" wrote: Thanks for the pointer to this very interesting post Nnenna. Paul uses the term “Internet community” in several places and I’m curious what he means by it… I have a feeling that we may not all have a similar definition (or that our definitions are evolving) and that that might be one reason why our discussions often go off the rails—we have different conceptions of who the audience or target group is for various of the policy issues that we address from time to time. (I provided my own definition in my current blogpost, but I’m not sure that everyone here agrees with mine J and of course ISOC, ICANN, IETF also all use the term “Internet community” and if those folks also want to chime in it would be greatly appreciated. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Nnenna Nwakanma Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 8:21 AM To: Governance; Subject: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC Just published here: http://www.circleid.com/posts/2013112_what_is_1net_to_me/ N[MG>] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 1 10:49:25 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2013 21:19:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574449@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <054001ceed39$1ce87c00$56b97400$@gmail.com> <0F52BC21-747B-456D-9B3A-D1F5BD8778F3@hserus.net> <4EEDB265-C354-4DFC-82FF-D8ACD590C0D7@apnic.net> <529AF58D.4080205@ITforChange.net>, <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574449@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <529B5A85.6070708@itforchange.net> On Sunday 01 December 2013 09:05 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > It's actually a confusion of domains to consider governments as > "stakeholders" in the same sense that an individual, a civil society > organization or a business or trade association is a stakeholder. > Especially when governments are treated as if they are unitary actors > who aggregate the interests of an entire nation. > > Governments qua governments are supposed to aggregate and represent > all the "stakeholders" under their jurisdiction. To combine direct, > representation of stakeholders with unitary national governments is to > throw together two completely incompatible systems of representation. > That is what so many people don't get about MSM I fully agree with Milton here... All our time in our domestic advocacy and political representation we (as in our organisation and networks) spend telling the governments (meaning those who occupy gov positions) that they cannot represent their own interests, they have to represent people's interest. That is what democratic government is about. Now, if I agree that government is a stakeholder like others, then they obviously are to represent their own interests and not of the people... This is why so much of mutlistakeholder concepts and lingo do not suit or fit within the democratic ideals and discourse... parminder > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Suresh > Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net] > *Sent:* Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Guru गुरु > *Subject:* Re: [governance] [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul > Wilson of APNIC > > Why shouldn't they be? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 01-Dec-2013, at 14:08, Guru गुरु > wrote: > >> >> On 12/01/2013 11:02 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: >>> Thanks Suresh. >>> >>> Indeed, I was referring to the "Internet community" in the broadest sense, including all stakeholders. >> >> are Governments included in this 'all stakeholders' >> >> Guru >>> Paul. >>> >>> >>> On 30/11/2013, at 8:45 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> >>>> Not speaking for Paul but the definition of Internet community he appears to refer to is quite open, and more importantly, does not seek to specifically exclude particular classes of people or organizations. >>>> >>>> --srs (iPad) >>>> >>>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 0:57, "michael gurstein" wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks for the pointer to this very interesting post Nnenna. >>>>> >>>>> Paul uses the term “Internet community” in several places and I’m curious what he means by it… >>>>> >>>>> I have a feeling that we may not all have a similar definition (or that our definitions are evolving) and that that might be one reason why our discussions often go off the rails—we have different conceptions of who the audience or target group is for various of the policy issues that we address from time to time. >>>>> >>>>> (I provided my own definition in my current blogpost, but I’m not sure that everyone here agrees with mine J and of course ISOC, ICANN, IETF also all use the term “Internet community” and if those folks also want to chime in it would be greatly appreciated. >>>>> >>>>> M >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Nnenna Nwakanma >>>>> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 8:21 AM >>>>> To: Governance; >>>>> Subject: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Just published here: >>>>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/2013112_what_is_1net_to_me/ >>>>> >>>>> N[MG>] >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 1 11:00:11 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2013 21:30:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574406@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net> <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net> <528E12DB.3030902@itforchange.net> <5291F450.9040908@itforchange.net> <8841C2DC-64D3-4FA5-AAC0-8186478B5BCF@glocom.ac.jp> <52741740-24C3-477B-9BDC-A5BBA60ADCDC@glocom.ac.jp> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133225A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574406@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <529B5D0B.2040304@itforchange.net> On Sunday 01 December 2013 08:51 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Here is a factual account of what happened > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2011/06/28/civil-society-defects-from-oecd-internet-policy-principles/ One really wonders why we are not able to settle something which is a simple matter of fact.... Yes, civil society groups did not initially sign these principles but later signed a latter version . In Dec 2013, if someone says, 'OCED's Internet policy making principles', what is meant is the final version issues by the OECD Council, and *not* the initial communiqué which in effect is superseded by the Council document. And civil society groups did sign the latter Council document .... http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php That is all that was asserted in the first instance by me which has got this long thread running... parminder > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* sama.digitalpolicy at gmail.com [sama.digitalpolicy at gmail.com] on > behalf of Andrea Glorioso [andrea at digitalpolicy.it] > *Sent:* Sunday, November 24, 2013 12:55 PM > *To:* Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake; Andrea Glorioso; > parminder; Dixie Hawtin; Andrew Puddephatt; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the Government of > India to the WGEC > > To be clear: my understanding is that the statement that CSOs > did endorse a set of principles produced within the OECD was > challenged. It seems to me - and, unless I misinterpret the relevant > messages, confirmed inter alia by Jeremy and Wolfgang - that a number > of CSOs did indeed endorse a set of OECD principles which was > acceptable to them. > > Again if I understand correctly, the point was not on the substance of > such principles but on the legitimacy of policy-making done within > "restricted" environments, especially when such principles / > policies have ambitions of broader adoption; as well as, relatedly, on > the approach to be taken towards broader settings. > > Please note that I'm not taking a position either on the OECD > principles or on the related debate re: broader settings. > > P.S. I would not be so sure that people outside of the rather small IG > circle (which are, according to some, stakeholders as well) are so > clear on the details of who signed what, when and for which reason. > > On Sunday, November 24, 2013, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > > Again: The two principles which did not get a CISAC endorsement > was IPR and intermediarities. The opposition of CISAC to the two > principles was ere outspoken but ignored by an article in the > Washington Post by David Weitzer. This was corrected later when > CISAC reconfirmed that it had its own position and did not change > it. In contrary, as the statement - re-distributed by Andrea - > says clearly, CISAC expected a continuation of the debate around > the two controvrsial principles with the aim to improve the > lanague and to make it acceptable to civil society. This OECD > debate did influence also the final stage of the elaboration of > the Council of Europe principles - which was negotiated in > parallel. In the COE we avoided controversial OECD language and > got the full endorsement by all parties. > > w > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > im Auftrag von Adam Peake > Gesendet: So 24.11.2013 15:07 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Andrea > Glorioso > Cc: parminder; Dixie Hawtin; Andrew Puddephatt; > <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >, > Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the > Government of India to the WGEC > > I think we know what was endorsed and what wasn't. Please, just > read the documents, it's pretty clear. > > Adam > > > > On Nov 24, 2013, at 10:51 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > > As far as I understood when I used to follow this process, > CSISAC did support a modified version of these principles. I'm > happy to stand corrected by those who know more. > > > > http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php > > > > CSISAC Welcomes OECD Recommendation on Principles for Internet > Policy Making > > In a press release published on 19 December 2011, the CSISAC > welcomes the Recommendation on Principles for Internet Policy > Making adoped by the OECD Council on 13 December 2011, which > reaffirms OECD commitment to a free, open and inclusive Internet. > > > > Most critically, this Recommendation envisions a collaborative > decision-making process that is inclusive of civil society issues > and concerns, such as those expressed by CSISAC when it declined > to support a previous Communique resulting from the OECD High > Level Meeting of June 2011. > > > > CSISAC looks forward to working with the OECD in order to > develop the Principles itemized in the December Recommendation in > greater detail and in a manner that promotes openness, is grounded > in respect for human rights and the rule of law, and strengthens > the capacity to improve the quality of life for all citizens. > > > > > > On Sunday, November 24, 2013, Adam Peake wrote: > > > > On Nov 24, 2013, at 9:42 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thursday 21 November 2013 10:54 PM, Dixie Hawtin wrote: > > >> I've never ever entered these debates before either, but I > want to add my 2 cents too! > > >> > > >> On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the > principles, on the basis of the intellectual property rights > provision. > > >> > > > > > > This is not true, Dixie. CSISAC did endorse them. > > > > > > > > > No Parminder, you're wrong. Civil society (CSISAC: Civil > Society Information Society Advisory Council) did not endorse the > OECD principles on Internet policy making (June 2011 > ) Read the > document. > > > > No point in any further discussion, the document is what it is. > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > However, I have stayed away from discussing the substantive > merit of the outcomes of OECD kind of 'global' public policy > processes. I only spoke about their procedural aspects - like > inclusiveness, multistakeholder versus multilateral, etc . That > these processes > > > > > > 1. do not involve all countries/ governments, and > > > 2. are no less multilateral, and no more multistakeholder , > than some of the proposed UN based Internet policy fora, like > India's CIRP proposal. > > > > > > And the fact that civil society seems never to bother with > this particular problem of global Internet governance. As for > instance we are fond of regularly writing to ITU about its > processes, and have even started to speak against proposed WSIS + > 10, which is supposed to follow WSIS model which was one of the > most participatory of processes that I have ever seen. > > > > > > Can you show me an instance where we have addressed the above > problem of global governance - something which is a constant > refrain in most discussions of global governance in the South . > How can we simply dismiss this concern. > > > > > > Ok, to make it topical: The mandate of OCED's CCICP (OECD's > Internet policy organ) is up for renewal sometime now ( I think it > is supposed to be this December). As they renew their mandate, I > propose that we write to them, that > > > > > > 1. CCICP should seek "full and equal' engagement with UN and > other regional bodies on Internet policy issues that really have > implications across the globe, to ensure global democracy. > > > 2. CCICP should never seek to post facto push their policy > frameworks on other countries - if they indeed think/ know that a > particular Internet policy issue is of a global dimension they > should from the start itself take it up at a global forum and > accordingly develop policies regarding it . > > > 3. CCICP should be made fully multistakeholder on the same > principles of multistakeholderism that OECD countries seek for > global Internet policy related bodies. In this regard, OECD should > clearly specify the role of different stakeholders in terms of > Internet policy making by OECD/ CCICP, and whether they are same > or different than what they > >> Development House, 56-64 Leonard > Street, London EC2A 4LT > > >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: > andrewpuddephatt > > >> gp-digital.org > > >> > > >> From: parminder [ > > >> mailto:parminder at itforchange.net > > >> ] > > >> Sent: 21 November 2013 11:38 > > >> To: Andrew Puddephatt > > >> Cc: > > >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; > <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > > >> , > > >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the > Government of India to the WGEC > > >> > > >> Andrew > > >> > > >> I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I > am not quite sure that is a good thing to do. > > >> > > >> Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the > proceedings of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed > debate. Some of them directly referred by name to positions > presented by me/ my organisation which is also quite fair because > we are all in a public space and people need to be able to say > whatever they want to (apart from some obnoxious personal comments > by Adam which is where I think IGC and BB group > responsibility-holders should be focussing; which they regrettably > have let pass.) What I cant understand is why in your view should > I not be able to present and defend my views, the below being my > very first email on the issue. > > >> > > >> my responses below... > > >> On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > > >> > > >> I don't normally respond to these discussions but > occasionally I feel > > >> > > >> I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for > those who are engaging in it.... > > >> > > >> > > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > -- > > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with > myself. Keep it in mind. > > Twitter: @andreaglorioso > > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso > > LinkedIn: > http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.go > > > > > -- > > -- > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. > Keep it in mind. > Twitter: @andreaglorioso > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Dec 1 11:16:42 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 21:46:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC In-Reply-To: <529B5A85.6070708@itforchange.net> References: <054001ceed39$1ce87c00$56b97400$@gmail.com> <0F52BC21-747B-456D-9B3A-D1F5BD8778F3@hserus.net> <4EEDB265-C354-4DFC-82FF-D8ACD590C0D7@apnic.net> <529AF58D.4080205@ITforChange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574449@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529B5A85.6070708@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <86CE1C3B-B5B4-4F54-9A80-5E58FAE6E484@hserus.net> Governments in general - yes. Specific government agencies, perhaps not. Dont' forget, governments have a development and capacity building role, as much as they do a regulatory role. Individual government agencies can and should be stakeholders - not "leaders" or "sole representatives" - in any process that has broader policy goals, if these are to be sustainable longer term. --srs (iPad) > On 01-Dec-2013, at 21:19, parminder wrote: > > >> On Sunday 01 December 2013 09:05 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> It's actually a confusion of domains to consider governments as "stakeholders" in the same sense that an individual, a civil society organization or a business or trade association is a stakeholder. Especially when governments are treated as if they are unitary actors who aggregate the interests of an entire nation. >> >> Governments qua governments are supposed to aggregate and represent all the "stakeholders" under their jurisdiction. To combine direct, representation of stakeholders with unitary national governments is to throw together two completely incompatible systems of representation. That is what so many people don't get about MSM > > I fully agree with Milton here... > > All our time in our domestic advocacy and political representation we (as in our organisation and networks) spend telling the governments (meaning those who occupy gov positions) that they cannot represent their own interests, they have to represent people's interest. That is what democratic government is about. Now, if I agree that government is a stakeholder like others, then they obviously are to represent their own interests and not of the people... This is why so much of mutlistakeholder concepts and lingo do not suit or fit within the democratic ideals and discourse... > > parminder >> >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net] >> Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Guru गुरु >> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC >> >> Why shouldn't they be? >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 01-Dec-2013, at 14:08, Guru गुरु wrote: >> >>> >>> On 12/01/2013 11:02 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: >>>> Thanks Suresh. >>>> >>>> Indeed, I was referring to the "Internet community" in the broadest sense, including all stakeholders. >>> >>> are Governments included in this 'all stakeholders' >>> >>> Guru >>>> Paul. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 30/11/2013, at 8:45 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> >>>>> Not speaking for Paul but the definition of Internet community he appears to refer to is quite open, and more importantly, does not seek to specifically exclude particular classes of people or organizations. >>>>> >>>>> --srs (iPad) >>>>> >>>>> On 30-Nov-2013, at 0:57, "michael gurstein" wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the pointer to this very interesting post Nnenna. >>>>>> >>>>>> Paul uses the term “Internet community” in several places and I’m curious what he means by it… >>>>>> >>>>>> I have a feeling that we may not all have a similar definition (or that our definitions are evolving) and that that might be one reason why our discussions often go off the rails—we have different conceptions of who the audience or target group is for various of the policy issues that we address from time to time. >>>>>> >>>>>> (I provided my own definition in my current blogpost, but I’m not sure that everyone here agrees with mine J and of course ISOC, ICANN, IETF also all use the term “Internet community” and if those folks also want to chime in it would be greatly appreciated. >>>>>> >>>>>> M >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Nnenna Nwakanma >>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 8:21 AM >>>>>> To: Governance; >>>>>> Subject: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Just published here: >>>>>> http://www.circleid.com/posts/2013112_what_is_1net_to_me/ >>>>>> >>>>>> N[MG>] >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 1 11:18:22 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 08:18:22 -0800 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC In-Reply-To: <529B5A85.6070708@itforchange.net> References: <054001ceed39$1ce87c00$56b97400$@gmail.com> <0F52BC21-747B-456D-9B3A-D1F5BD8778F3@hserus.net> <4EEDB265-C354-4DFC-82FF-D8ACD590C0D7@apnic.net> <529AF58D.4080205@ITforChange.net>, <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574449@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529B5A85.6070708@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <031e01ceeeb0$f5078a90$df169fb0$@gmail.com> +1 One way of approaching this is to distinguish between MS “governance”, MS “decision-making” and MS “discussions”. Discussions provide input into and influence decision making and thus should include everyone involved in the issue. Decision making to my mind should include among others those most impacted by the decisions being made. Governance is about how the rules of the game within which the processes of influencing and decision making are determined. Governance thus must be subject to democratic processes and procedures. In some cases decision making may by democratic processes be determined to most appropriately be MS, but by no means will this always and under every circumstance be the case. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 7:49 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC On Sunday 01 December 2013 09:05 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: It's actually a confusion of domains to consider governments as "stakeholders" in the same sense that an individual, a civil society organization or a business or trade association is a stakeholder. Especially when governments are treated as if they are unitary actors who aggregate the interests of an entire nation. Governments qua governments are supposed to aggregate and represent all the "stakeholders" under their jurisdiction. To combine direct, representation of stakeholders with unitary national governments is to throw together two completely incompatible systems of representation. That is what so many people don't get about MSM I fully agree with Milton here... All our time in our domestic advocacy and political representation we (as in our organisation and networks) spend telling the governments (meaning those who occupy gov positions) that they cannot represent their own interests, they have to represent people's interest. That is what democratic government is about. Now, if I agree that government is a stakeholder like others, then they obviously are to represent their own interests and not of the people... This is why so much of mutlistakeholder concepts and lingo do not suit or fit within the democratic ideals and discourse... parminder _____ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Guru गुरु Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC Why shouldn't they be? --srs (iPad) On 01-Dec-2013, at 14:08, Guru गुरु wrote: On 12/01/2013 11:02 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: Thanks Suresh. Indeed, I was referring to the "Internet community" in the broadest sense, including all stakeholders. are Governments included in this 'all stakeholders' Guru Paul. On 30/11/2013, at 8:45 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Not speaking for Paul but the definition of Internet community he appears to refer to is quite open, and more importantly, does not seek to specifically exclude particular classes of people or organizations. --srs (iPad) On 30-Nov-2013, at 0:57, "michael gurstein" wrote: Thanks for the pointer to this very interesting post Nnenna. Paul uses the term “Internet community” in several places and I’m curious what he means by it… I have a feeling that we may not all have a similar definition (or that our definitions are evolving) and that that might be one reason why our discussions often go off the rails—we have different conceptions of who the audience or target group is for various of the policy issues that we address from time to time. (I provided my own definition in my current blogpost, but I’m not sure that everyone here agrees with mine J and of course ISOC, ICANN, IETF also all use the term “Internet community” and if those folks also want to chime in it would be greatly appreciated. M From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Nnenna Nwakanma Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 8:21 AM To: Governance; Subject: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC Just published here: http://www.circleid.com/posts/2013112_what_is_1net_to_me/ N[MG>] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Sun Dec 1 11:20:25 2013 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 17:20:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574449@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <054001ceed39$1ce87c00$56b97400$@gmail.com> <0F52BC21-747B-456D-9B3A-D1F5BD8778F3@hserus.net> <4EEDB265-C354-4DFC-82FF-D8ACD590C0D7@apnic.net> <529AF58D.4080205@ITforChange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574449@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, even though I agree with your passage that "Governments qua governments are supposed to aggregate and represent all the "stakeholders" under their jurisdiction", I'm not sure I fully understand the implications. What would then be the role of governments / public authorities in a multi-stakeholder governance model? Ciao, Andrea On Sunday, December 1, 2013, Milton L Mueller wrote: > It's actually a confusion of domains to consider governments as > "stakeholders" in the same sense that an individual, a civil society > organization or a business or trade association is a stakeholder. > Especially when governments are treated as if they are unitary actors who > aggregate the interests of an entire nation. > > Governments qua governments are supposed to aggregate and represent all > the "stakeholders" under their jurisdiction. To combine direct, > representation of stakeholders with unitary national governments is to > throw together two completely incompatible systems of representation. That > is what so many people don't get about MSM > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 'governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org');> [ > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 'governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org');>] on behalf of Suresh > Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net 'suresh at hserus.net');>] > *Sent:* Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org');>; Guru गुरु > *Subject:* Re: [governance] [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul > Wilson of APNIC > > Why shouldn't they be? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 01-Dec-2013, at 14:08, Guru गुरु wrote: > > > On 12/01/2013 11:02 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: > > Thanks Suresh. > > Indeed, I was referring to the "Internet community" in the broadest sense, including all stakeholders. > > > are Governments included in this 'all stakeholders' > > Guru > > Paul. > > > On 30/11/2013, at 8:45 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > Not speaking for Paul but the definition of Internet community he appears to refer to is quite open, and more importantly, does not seek to specifically exclude particular classes of people or organizations. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 30-Nov-2013, at 0:57, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > > Thanks for the pointer to this very interesting post Nnenna. > > Paul uses the term “Internet community” in several places and I’m curious what he means by it… > > I have a feeling that we may not all have a similar definition (or that our definitions are evolving) and that that might be one reason why our discussions often go off the rails—we have different conceptions of who the audience or target group is for various of the policy issues that we address from time to time. > > (I provided my own definition in my current blogpost, but I’m not sure that everyone here agrees with mine J and of course ISOC, ICANN, IETF also all use the term “Internet community” and if those folks also want to chime in it would be greatly appreciated. > > M > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Nnenna Nwakanma > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 8:21 AM > To: Governance; > Subject: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC > > > Just published here:http://www.circleid.com/posts/2013112_what_is_1net_to_me/ > > N[MG>] > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be > > -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Dec 1 11:21:29 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 21:51:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC In-Reply-To: <031e01ceeeb0$f5078a90$df169fb0$@gmail.com> References: <054001ceed39$1ce87c00$56b97400$@gmail.com> <0F52BC21-747B-456D-9B3A-D1F5BD8778F3@hserus.net> <4EEDB265-C354-4DFC-82FF-D8ACD590C0D7@apnic.net> <529AF58D.4080205@ITforChange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574449@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529B5A85.6070708@itforchange.net> <031e01ceeeb0$f5078a90$df169fb0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <46D685D8-5294-40B6-B779-AB2D7B4E41EF@hserus.net> Thank you for bringing out the use cases I was thinking of. --srs (iPad) > On 01-Dec-2013, at 21:48, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > +1 > > One way of approaching this is to distinguish between MS “governance”, MS “decision-making” and MS “discussions”. > > Discussions provide input into and influence decision making and thus should include everyone involved in the issue. > > Decision making to my mind should include among others those most impacted by the decisions being made. > > Governance is about how the rules of the game within which the processes of influencing and decision making are determined. Governance thus must be subject to democratic processes and procedures. In some cases decision making may by democratic processes be determined to most appropriately be MS, but by no means will this always and under every circumstance be the case. > > M > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder > Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 7:49 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC > > > On Sunday 01 December 2013 09:05 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > It's actually a confusion of domains to consider governments as "stakeholders" in the same sense that an individual, a civil society organization or a business or trade association is a stakeholder. Especially when governments are treated as if they are unitary actors who aggregate the interests of an entire nation. > > Governments qua governments are supposed to aggregate and represent all the "stakeholders" under their jurisdiction. To combine direct, representation of stakeholders with unitary national governments is to throw together two completely incompatible systems of representation. That is what so many people don't get about MSM > > I fully agree with Milton here... > > All our time in our domestic advocacy and political representation we (as in our organisation and networks) spend telling the governments (meaning those who occupy gov positions) that they cannot represent their own interests, they have to represent people's interest. That is what democratic government is about. Now, if I agree that government is a stakeholder like others, then they obviously are to represent their own interests and not of the people... This is why so much of mutlistakeholder concepts and lingo do not suit or fit within the democratic ideals and discourse... > > parminder > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian [suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Guru गुरु > Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC > > Why shouldn't they be? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 01-Dec-2013, at 14:08, Guru गुरु wrote: > > > On 12/01/2013 11:02 AM, Paul Wilson wrote: > Thanks Suresh. > > Indeed, I was referring to the "Internet community" in the broadest sense, including all stakeholders. > > are Governments included in this 'all stakeholders' > > Guru > > Paul. > > > On 30/11/2013, at 8:45 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Not speaking for Paul but the definition of Internet community he appears to refer to is quite open, and more importantly, does not seek to specifically exclude particular classes of people or organizations. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 30-Nov-2013, at 0:57, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Thanks for the pointer to this very interesting post Nnenna. > > Paul uses the term “Internet community” in several places and I’m curious what he means by it… > > I have a feeling that we may not all have a similar definition (or that our definitions are evolving) and that that might be one reason why our discussions often go off the rails—we have different conceptions of who the audience or target group is for various of the policy issues that we address from time to time. > > (I provided my own definition in my current blogpost, but I’m not sure that everyone here agrees with mine J and of course ISOC, ICANN, IETF also all use the term “Internet community” and if those folks also want to chime in it would be greatly appreciated. > > M > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Nnenna Nwakanma > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 8:21 AM > To: Governance; > Subject: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC > > > Just published here: > http://www.circleid.com/posts/2013112_what_is_1net_to_me/ > > N[MG>] > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Dec 1 12:18:00 2013 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2013 12:18:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573F76@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529A0E33.50400@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <529B6F48.2050602@communisphere.com> McTim, Perhaps you can assist me with a question relating to root governance. When you say: These "decisions" are mainly minor administtrivia. Changing the IP address of a ccTLDs nameserver for example. When it comes to deciding what can go in the root, that is clearly now the role of the GAC (see GAC Communnique's from Beijing, Durban). Thinking about our city's application for the .nyc TLD, I've been looking at the NTIA-IANA contract, particularly C.2.9.2.d, which says: (fromhttp://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and_sacs.pdf) C.2.9.2d Delegation and Redelegation of a Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) -- The Contractor shall verify that all requests related to the delegation and redelegation of gTLDs are consistent with the procedures developed by ICANN. In making a delegation or redelegation recommendation, the Contractor must provide documentation verifying that ICANN followed its own policy framework including _specific documentation demonstrating how the process provided the opportunity for input from relevant stakeholders_ and was supportive of the global public interest. The Contractor shall submit its recommendations to the COR via a Delegationand Redelegation Report. With New York only now considering ways to provide "the opportunity for input from relevant stakeholders" I've been seeking guidance from the nature of that review by IANA. Last week I wrote to the COR (an NTIA official) and IANA asking how those supportive of the .nyc TLD might assure that the city's application and outreach efforts meet the input requirements (see attachment). As I understand it, IANA is now a "independent" entity within ICANN. But I've been unable to find any detail about the nature of its C.2.9.2.d review on its website. Any pointers on this would be greatly appreciated. And isn't it IANA rather than GAC that decides what goes into the root? Best, Tom Lowenhaupt On 12/1/2013 8:45 AM, McTim wrote: > Parminder, > > > On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 11:11 AM, parminder > wrote: > > > On Saturday 30 November 2013 06:58 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> Some concepts are too complex to force them into a single word. >> Deirdre > > Deirdre/ All > > Most things in social and political discourse are complex. > However, there is always a way to build categories, split issues, > and progress in steps , whereby we can certainly talk meaningfully > about them and make social and political progress... Such a shared > intention is key... > > I think there are two clear issues about 'internationalisation of > ICANN' > > 1. Its legal status, and the jurisdiction to which it is subject. > > 2. The actual role of US-NTIA in authorising every change in the > root file. > > It seems that other than the US gov itself, everyone agrees that > US-NTIA should be divested of that 'root change authorising' role > > > > Actually not true. We have heard on this list that there are > governments who are comfortable with this role, but they will only > speak of this in private, but that is not who you need to convince. I > think there are a lot of biz folk who are happy with the status quo of > #2. > > ..... Then the question comes; (a) should the role then be > exercised directly and finally by ICANN itself, or (b) another > body to undertake this role (and just this role and nothing else) > is needed. > > > > Actually the question that must precede the above is: "Does this auth > role need to be filled". In other words, can we trust IANA to do > their job according to their own processes (which is what NTIA looks at). > > > A lot of people - including i* group - are of the opinion that (a) > above is the best option. Some others think that every significant > decision pertaining to a crucial global infrastructure should be > subject to a second opinion or confirmation, as a normal prudence, > by a body different from the executive authority (ICANN Board). > > > > These "decisions" are mainly minor administtrivia. Changing the IP > address of a ccTLDs nameserver for example. When it comes to > deciding what can go in the root, that is clearly now the role of the > GAC (see GAC Communnique's from Beijing, Durban). > > > One way would be to have some kind of international oversight > board (not necessarily inter-gov) undertaking the same role as > undertaken by US-NTIA today. Another way is to allow ICANN to make > root changes but all such decisions are post facto reviewed and > confirmed by such an international oversight board. ( Whether with > a pre facto or post facto role, such an oversight board will > exercise its role within clearly set our parameters and rules.) A > third way is to only have an appellate board which reviews root > change decisions only if an appeal is made to it through a due > process. > > > FYI, the ICANN Board ALREADY decides on new gTLDs and redelegations, > so adding less important like changes to glue records should be > non-controversial. > > > Therefore, on point 2 above, we can easily agree to ask US-NTIA to > shed its oversight role. > > > We can certainly ask. but they take this responsibility very > seriously, so they may not accede to the request. > > What should further be done can be discussed along the above three > lines (others may add more options if any) > > Point 1 above is more contentious. Although, in principles, it is > easy to assert that a global resource cannot be subject to the > jurisdiction of one country and that it should be subject to > international jurisdiction. The issue then is; how to form such an > international jurisdiction. > > > > If we can do point #2, then it may be easier to do point #1. I don't > think we should try to do both. Let's work on continued evolution, > not revolution. > > > Here too, it is easy for us as a civil society group to assert the > principle - yes, it is untenable that ICANN continues to be > subject to US law and jurisdiction. > > > and Singapore law and Turkish law and the laws of other nations where > there are offices. > > Karl's point re: contracts is a valid one. How would you address that? > > ICANN needs to be made subject to international law and jurisdiction. > > > > Is it not already? Aren't we all? > > -- > 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Inquiry regarding section C.2.9.2.d of the IANA contract.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 68509 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 soekpe at gmail.com Sun Dec 1 12:21:29 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 18:21:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Nomination of Mawaki Chango for IGC coordinator In-Reply-To: References: <20131201130318.61d1bd4f@quill> Message-ID: +1 for Mawaki Chango nomination. Best regards. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Dec 1, 2013 4:19 PM, "chlebrum ." wrote: > +1 > > > 2013/12/1 Norbert Bollow > >> Dear all >> >> Hereby I nominate Mawaki Chango for the IGC coordinator elections. >> >> I have already asked him whether he is willing to run in these >> elections, and after a bit of reflection, he has said yes. >> >> 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 mueller at syr.edu Sun Dec 1 12:53:53 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 17:53:53 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC In-Reply-To: References: <054001ceed39$1ce87c00$56b97400$@gmail.com> <0F52BC21-747B-456D-9B3A-D1F5BD8778F3@hserus.net> <4EEDB265-C354-4DFC-82FF-D8ACD590C0D7@apnic.net> <529AF58D.4080205@ITforChange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574449@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25744DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > even though I agree with your passage that "Governments qua governments are supposed to aggregate > and represent all the "stakeholders" under their jurisdiction", I'm not sure I fully understand the > implications. What would then be the role of governments / public authorities in a multi-stakeholder > governance model? Two possible roles. 1. One would be to provide a generic legal framework (e.g., incorporation law for nonprofits or INGOs). With that in place governments can simply formally recognize a non-state MS process as authoritative in its domain and then stay out of it. Do not underestimate the importance of this role. True, it does not satisfy the ego of politicians and ministers who think they need to be the ones directing outcomes or 'in control' of the internet. But it does provide the social function that govts are supposed to provide: general rules that establish an orderly and just way of doing things while allowing social actors to pursue their own interests in creative and innovative ways. The fallacy of GAC is that it invites govts to make "policy" when their proper role is to make law, and it has the potential to give the full force of law to the policy opinions of a small collection of govt representatives assembled in a room at an ICANN meeting, with no normal procedural checks and balances or legal basis. 2. Govts can also be 'stakeholders' and participate as 'stakeholders' but only if they abandon the pretense of being a unitary actor, disaggregate their representation, and allow any and every agency to pursue its organizational self-interest in an open MS process. E.g. law enforcement agencies might be interested in some policies and processes and not others, the data protection authorities might intervene in ways different from and even opposed to the LEAs, the departmental CIOs might have an interest in issues that are irrelevant to Foreign Ministries and War Departments, individual Parliamentarians may intervene in ways opposed to official state policy, etc. This kind of governmental participation in an MS process raises the same concerns as those of the participation of a bloc of large corporations with specific economic interests, of course, but at least it is more transparent what is going on. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Dec 1 13:01:19 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 13:01:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <529B6F48.2050602@communisphere.com> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573F76@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529A0E33.50400@itforchange.net> <529B6F48.2050602@communisphere.com> Message-ID: Hi Thomas, On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > McTim, > > Perhaps you can assist me with a question relating to root governance. > > When you say: > > These "decisions" are mainly minor administtrivia. Changing the IP > address of a ccTLDs nameserver for example. When it comes to deciding > what can go in the root, that is clearly now the role of the GAC (see GAC > Communnique's from Beijing, Durban). > > Thinking about our city's application for the .nyc TLD, I've been looking > at the NTIA-IANA contract, particularly C.2.9.2.d, which says: (from > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and_sacs.pdf > ) > > > C.2.9.2d Delegation and Redelegation of a Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) > -- The Contractor shall verify that all requests related to the delegation > and redelegation of gTLDs are consistent with the procedures developed by > ICANN. In making a delegation or redelegation recommendation, the > Contractor must provide documentation verifying that ICANN followed its own > policy framework including *specific documentation demonstrating how the > process provided the opportunity for input from relevant stakeholders*and was supportive of the global public interest. The Contractor shall > submit its recommendations to the COR via a Delegation and Redelegation > Report. > > With New York only now considering ways to provide "the opportunity for > input from relevant stakeholders" I've been seeking guidance from the > nature of that review by IANA. Last week I wrote to the COR (an NTIA > official) and IANA asking how those supportive of the .nyc TLD might > assure that the city's application and outreach efforts meet the input > requirements (see attachment). > Is this onus on you or on the "Contractor"? My reading suggests it is on the Contractor (which is of course ICANN). > > As I understand it, IANA is now a "independent" entity within ICANN. But > I've been unable to find any detail about the nature of its C.2.9.2.d > review on its website. Any pointers on this would be greatly appreciated. > IANA is a function (or series of functions) that ICANN is currently responsible for doing. They have always been a separate "entity" in a variety of ways. I have no pointers except Google, sorry. This may be of interest tho: http://www.iab.org/activities/programs/iana-evolution-program/ > > And isn't it IANA rather than GAC that decides what goes into the root? > Yes. and No. IANA makes decisions according to its documented procedures about a change to the root. However, in the current paradigm of new gTLDs, it is the GAC which gives advice to the BoD (and the BoD seems unwilling to disregard much of this advice). So if you are the .gcc applicant, from your perspective, it is the GAC who made the decision that you are unworthy. IANA had nothing to do with it! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sun Dec 1 13:08:10 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 18:08:10 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25744DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <054001ceed39$1ce87c00$56b97400$@gmail.com> <0F52BC21-747B-456D-9B3A-D1F5BD8778F3@hserus.net> <4EEDB265-C354-4DFC-82FF-D8ACD590C0D7@apnic.net> <529AF58D.4080205@ITforChange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574449@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>,,<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25744DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25744FF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> I might add one other thing. When Paul Wilson and other representatives of I* governance organizations happily concede that 'governments are stakeholders too' I believe that what they are doing is proposing a political bargain, not a coherent mode of governance. In other words, they are trying to reach an accommodation with nation-states that will preserve key elements of the status quo by reassuring state actors that they will not be left out of or excluded from the system. By calling states-as-unitary-actors "stakeholders" who must be specially accommodated through contradictory and dysfunctional arrangements like the GAC, they are literally compromising what we know about how MS governance works in order to buy greater political support for the new institutions from the old institutions. Think of Britain topping of its emerging democracy with a monarchy, if you want a historical analogy. Democracy and monarchy are fundamentally incompatible forms of government, and ultimately one must prevail over the other, but in the transitional period you are bound to get weird, path-dependent mixes of the two. Of course, most of us are not parties to such a bargain. It does not serve our interests, and in fact it warps the entire bottom up policy development process. ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 12:53 PM To: Andrea Glorioso; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC > even though I agree with your passage that "Governments qua governments are supposed to aggregate > and represent all the "stakeholders" under their jurisdiction", I'm not sure I fully understand the > implications. What would then be the role of governments / public authorities in a multi-stakeholder > governance model? Two possible roles. 1. One would be to provide a generic legal framework (e.g., incorporation law for nonprofits or INGOs). With that in place governments can simply formally recognize a non-state MS process as authoritative in its domain and then stay out of it. Do not underestimate the importance of this role. True, it does not satisfy the ego of politicians and ministers who think they need to be the ones directing outcomes or 'in control' of the internet. But it does provide the social function that govts are supposed to provide: general rules that establish an orderly and just way of doing things while allowing social actors to pursue their own interests in creative and innovative ways. The fallacy of GAC is that it invites govts to make "policy" when their proper role is to make law, and it has the potential to give the full force of law to the policy opinions of a small collection of govt representatives assembled in a room at an ICANN meeting, with no normal procedural checks and balances or legal basis. 2. Govts can also be 'stakeholders' and participate as 'stakeholders' but only if they abandon the pretense of being a unitary actor, disaggregate their representation, and allow any and every agency to pursue its organizational self-interest in an open MS process. E.g. law enforcement agencies might be interested in some policies and processes and not others, the data protection authorities might intervene in ways different from and even opposed to the LEAs, the departmental CIOs might have an interest in issues that are irrelevant to Foreign Ministries and War Departments, individual Parliamentarians may intervene in ways opposed to official state policy, etc. This kind of governmental participation in an MS process raises the same concerns as those of the participation of a bloc of large corporations with specific economic interests, of course, but at least it is more transparent what is going on. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sun Dec 1 13:15:58 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 18:15:58 +0000 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> ,<52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574510@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Parminder, 2 questions for you. 1. By US laws you mean merely that ICANN is incorporated in California under its nonprofit corp law? That law does not make ICANN subject to US policy (although the MoU did, the IANA contract still does to some extent, and the Affirmation of Commitments also incorporates elements of US policy). Are you confusing policy with law? 2. If ICANN is incorporated under any other nation's laws, including Switzerland's, is it not also subject to a specific state's laws? ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 11:56 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance On Saturday 30 November 2013 10:19 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: yes Milton it will make it the FIFA of IG world Rafik Rafik, do you in that case agree that ICANN should remain an US organisation, subject solely to US laws... parminder 2013/11/30 Milton L Mueller > No, no, no, please. That level of specificity is counterproductive at this stage. Many people who have studied this issue believe that turning ICANN into an INGO is the surest way for it to escape what little accountability it currently has. Those willing to go along with a general call for reform in ICANN’s US-centered oversight need not commit themselves to a particular solution at this point, and the language below does that. Please don’t come up with off the cuff quickie solutions for this. It will take more than a scan of Wikipedia to solve. From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 7:49 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google' Cc: 'Norbert Bollow'; Milton L Mueller Subject: RE: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance What about 1) Transitioning ICANN and IANA to an International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) status: The Global Meeting should aim at developing a suitable and widely acceptable means to achieve the desired transition of ICANN and IANA away from its links to the USG and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_nongovernmental_organization M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 2:39 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance ICANN (and its President/CEO) have been "encouraged" at several opportunities to adjust its "internationalization" rhetoric/terminology and thus its resulting INTERNATIONALIZATION thrust to one which is significantly more embrasive of the objectives of, and indeed, spirit of what GLOBALIZATION in theory, intends to achieve. I believe therefore that Milton's recommendation is timely and appropriate ... whether we use the term "Globalization" or a perhaps more compromising and less economics/free-market linked phrase or term such as "Global Integration", or more radically, "Glocalization". ------ Rgds, Tracy On Nov 29, 2013 4:52 PM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" > wrote: Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual perspective, and in my humble Global Governance observer capacity, for the pleasure of the reflection: Internationalization: one wants to have a larger international basis: more offices, more representatives, more of a network of local branches that, being put together, creates an international network. Still each element is mostly comparable to the starting point in terms of culture, thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' kind of uniformity. Meaning many little ICANNs all around. Globalization: this could happen without a network of offices around the world. You can observe a very globalized entity containing so many different elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet with a governance of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than one single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the many in a global manner of thinking. Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind. Transnationalization: this tends to establish a community of people based in various locations, trying to forget about their local identity, interest or belonging, with the objective to address a more common, regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an understanding of global magnitude. Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds. - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater control over the network, and at the end of the day, you can pretend to be a global minded outlet. Good communication value. - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, specially if you are not starting from a fully independent culture. Very challenging when one starts from a private or national basis. - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts trust in the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable approach, and ultimately, one that could deliver a true global minded system. Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG debate. Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from the corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, executives would convene 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade union, politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable definition and understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something that usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... All the best, __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias Editor in Chief jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net @jc_nothias Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 schrieb Milton L Mueller >: Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national relations. On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to address. Maybe yet another term could be used??? 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 soekpe at gmail.com Sun Dec 1 13:18:08 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 19:18:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] Notice of Travel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Sala, Sorry for that. Just take your time all will be okay. Best. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Dec 1, 2013 4:46 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Apologies for the sparse reply as I have hardly had any sleep last night > with all the rugby mayhem in Dubai - streaming remotely and packing. > > I caught the red eye to Christchurch from New Zealand from Suva through to > Nadi and onwards to Chch. As such I have seen the emails regarding > elections and promise to respond as soon as I am unpacked properly and > settled in. > > It did not help that I lost my luggage :( So please bear with me for a > little while longer. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 1 13:26:41 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 10:26:41 -0800 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC In-Reply-To: References: <054001ceed39$1ce87c00$56b97400$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <03ef01ceeec2$e227d350$a67779f0$@gmail.com> Thanks Paul, What about my argument (made concerning Internet users) that I made in my blogpost on Internet Justice Much of the discussion to date has focused on "Internet users" as the most general category. The problem with this of course, is that it excludes those and still a majority of the world's population - who, for whatever reason are not able or willing to use the Internet. Meanwhile, given the global reach and penetration of the Internet even those currently unable or uninterested in "using" the Internet are equally impacted by it. Based on simple principles of democratic participation even they should have some say in how the Internet is deployed and managed in relation to matters of most general concern. We are all now citizens of an Internet-enabled world whether we are "users" or not. M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 9:31 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: 'Nnenna Nwakanma'; 'Governance'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC Thanks Nnenna. Hi Michael, When I mention "Internet community" (or "the community") I am referring to the multistakeholder community in the broadest sense, including any and all Internet stakeholders, whether individuals or organisations. I tried to make broad inclusion clear enough in all references, but I suppose it is useful to clarify this. Paul. On 30/11/2013, at 5:27 AM, michael gurstein < gurstein at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the pointer to this very interesting post Nnenna. > > Paul uses the term "Internet community" in several places and I'm curious what he means by it. > > I have a feeling that we may not all have a similar definition (or that our definitions are evolving) and that that might be one reason why our discussions often go off the rails-we have different conceptions of who the audience or target group is for various of the policy issues that we address from time to time. > > (I provided my own definition in my current blogpost, but I'm not sure that everyone here agrees with mine J and of course ISOC, ICANN, IETF also all use the term "Internet community" and if those folks also want to chime in it would be greatly appreciated. > > M > > > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [ mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Nnenna Nwakanma > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 8:21 AM > To: Governance; < bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> > Subject: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC > > > Just published here: > http://www.circleid.com/posts/2013112_what_is_1net_to_me/ > > N[MG>] > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Sun Dec 1 13:33:05 2013 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 19:33:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574510@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> ,<52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574510@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <8DAE92E3-23A0-4B8D-9177-997FECC7AFC3@theglobaljournal.net> Milton, Aren't there 3 aspects here? - statutes and bylaw (under which and to which jurisdiction to go in case of crime, felony, liability - how the entity works, how the entity wants to rule itself ) - mandate ( in the case of ICANN it obeys to a mandate for the US Gov, not to a law) - US policy and US law as it applies to all its citizens, corps, non profit if concerned. In case of a Swiss 'idea', you've got two options - one is Swiss, the other one is international - If it is given and recognized a special statute such the Red Cross, then you have not necessarily a Swiss jurisdiction, but an international jurisdiction - A mandate? Such an organization could have several bodies to take its mandate from: an entity having signed a contract with the UN, belonging to the UN system but not being a UN agency or program. Many entities are older than the UN. They have agreed to be part of the UN system, still retaining their own specific constituencies. So you have a couple of options. To be explored JC Le 1 déc. 2013 à 19:15, Milton L Mueller a écrit : > Parminder, > 2 questions for you. > > 1. By US laws you mean merely that ICANN is incorporated in California under its nonprofit corp law? That law does not make ICANN subject to US policy (although the MoU did, the IANA contract still does to some extent, and the Affirmation of Commitments also incorporates elements of US policy). Are you confusing policy with law? > > 2. If ICANN is incorporated under any other nation's laws, including Switzerland's, is it not also subject to a specific state's laws? > > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 11:56 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance > > > On Saturday 30 November 2013 10:19 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> yes Milton it will make it the FIFA of IG world >> >> Rafik > > Rafik, do you in that case agree that ICANN should remain an US organisation, subject solely to US laws... parminder > >> >> 2013/11/30 Milton L Mueller >> No, no, no, please. That level of specificity is counterproductive at this stage. Many people who have studied this issue believe that turning ICANN into an INGO is the surest way for it to escape what little accountability it currently has. Those willing to go along with a general call for reform in ICANN’s US-centered oversight need not commit themselves to a particular solution at this point, and the language below does that. >> >> >> Please don’t come up with off the cuff quickie solutions for this. It will take more than a scan of Wikipedia to solve. >> >> >> >> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 7:49 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google' >> Cc: 'Norbert Bollow'; Milton L Mueller >> Subject: RE: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance >> >> >> What about >> >> >> 1) Transitioning ICANN and IANA to an International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) status: The Global Meeting should aim at developing a suitable and widely acceptable means to achieve the desired transition of ICANN and IANA away from its links to the USG and >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_nongovernmental_organization >> >> >> M >> >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google >> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 2:39 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Cc: Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller >> Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance >> >> >> ICANN (and its President/CEO) have been "encouraged" at several opportunities to adjust its "internationalization" rhetoric/terminology and thus its resulting INTERNATIONALIZATION thrust to one which is significantly more embrasive of the objectives of, and indeed, spirit of what GLOBALIZATION in theory, intends to achieve. >> >> I believe therefore that Milton's recommendation is timely and appropriate ... whether we use the term "Globalization" or a perhaps more compromising and less economics/free-market linked phrase or term such as "Global Integration", or more radically, "Glocalization". >> >> ------ >> Rgds, >> >> Tracy >> >> >> On Nov 29, 2013 4:52 PM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" wrote: >> >> Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, >> >> >> If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual perspective, and in my humble Global Governance observer capacity, for the pleasure of the reflection: >> >> >> Internationalization: one wants to have a larger international basis: more offices, more representatives, more of a network of local branches that, being put together, creates an international network. Still each element is mostly comparable to the starting point in terms of culture, thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' kind of uniformity. Meaning many little ICANNs all around. >> >> >> Globalization: this could happen without a network of offices around the world. You can observe a very globalized entity containing so many different elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet with a governance of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than one single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the many in a global manner of thinking. >> >> Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind. >> >> >> Transnationalization: this tends to establish a community of people based in various locations, trying to forget about their local identity, interest or belonging, with the objective to address a more common, regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an understanding of global magnitude. >> >> Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds. >> >> >> >> - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater control over the network, and at the end of the day, you can pretend to be a global minded outlet. Good communication value. >> >> - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, specially if you are not starting from a fully independent culture. Very challenging when one starts from a private or national basis. >> >> - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts trust in the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable approach, and ultimately, one that could deliver a true global minded system. >> >> >> Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG debate. >> >> >> Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from the corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, executives would convene 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade union, politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable definition and understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something that usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... >> >> >> All the best, >> >> __________________________ >> >> Jean-Christophe Nothias >> Editor in Chief >> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net >> >> @jc_nothias >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : >> >> >> Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 >> schrieb Milton L Mueller : >> >> >> Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family >> >> holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word >> >> "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in >> >> a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not >> >> an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena >> >> >> That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their >> governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has >> certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global >> phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of >> decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is >> happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national >> relations. >> >> On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very >> wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased >> social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns >> that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to address. >> >> Maybe yet another term could be used??? >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sun Dec 1 13:37:25 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 18:37:25 +0000 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> ,<529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> It's a basic error to equate a generic incorporation law with comprehensive regulatory "oversight by the US legal system" as Parminder is doing. I am not sure whether Parminder is just using a rhetorical ploy at this point. But I am not averse to host-country type agreements that would protect ICANN from legislative interference. An honest argument makes a comparison based on current facts. Regardless of where ICANN is incorporated now, it has to be incorporated somewhere. We are presented so far with 3 choices: 1. a Geneva-based INGO like FIFA or the Red Cross 2. California NPPBL 3. Some new international public law (treaty-based) that we have no experience with and no concrete guarantees regarding its content (because it doesn't exist yet) and which might take 3-10 years to conclude Take your pick. Open to good arguments for any, as well as hybrids and other ideas. And if you can bring yourself to ignore the commentor's nationality, Karl's argument that any feasible transitional arrangement has to deal with real contracts and assets must be taken into account. --MM ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:24 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance On Saturday 30 November 2013 11:10 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: it is up to Milton to defend his position and I don't think that he defended an continuity of any kind of US control. anyway you can read his ideas in details at his blog. For sure, I have read them. Yes, he does advocate continued oversight ('control' if you like) by US legal system, or broadly, the US polity, over ICANN, but extinguishing executive controls exercised through US DoC. But of course Milton can tell us if I am wrong in saying the above... parminder I made the analogy to FIFA because it is international organisation too if you mean diversity etc but also for the level of corruption and no accountability there. I think that you can see the point here . we can argue a lot about the legal status of the organisation but what matters at the end is the mechanism for accountability, transparency , openness, inclusiveness . And as you say if you are not arguing that ICANN "should be an US org under US laws ", then the question is "what kind of org and under what kind of law" do you advocate. Thanks. I don't have an answer about the legal framework to be used or any other organisational complexity, however I am thinking on how to avoid situation where interests group try to expand trademark law there or governments use GAC to push for content policy through gTLD or eroding privacy rights to match LEA requests without any oversight or in contradiction to ehir own data protection law. I am thinking on how we make the organisation developing users-driven policies and not to respond to narrow governmental or private interests. coming from a small developing country struggling with a complicated and painful democratic transition, I am more keen to defend citizen interests and not by any geopolitical interests of some governments Rafik parminder I have a question, maybe naive: if we have problem with one state to have dominant role as assumed by mant, how adding more states will solve the problem , a kind of zero sum game? another question, what benefit for the average users far from any geopolitical consideration in such case? Rafik 2013/11/30 parminder > On Saturday 30 November 2013 10:19 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: yes Milton it will make it the FIFA of IG world Rafik Rafik, do you in that case agree that ICANN should remain an US organisation, subject solely to US laws... parminder 2013/11/30 Milton L Mueller > No, no, no, please. That level of specificity is counterproductive at this stage. Many people who have studied this issue believe that turning ICANN into an INGO is the surest way for it to escape what little accountability it currently has. Those willing to go along with a general call for reform in ICANN’s US-centered oversight need not commit themselves to a particular solution at this point, and the language below does that. Please don’t come up with off the cuff quickie solutions for this. It will take more than a scan of Wikipedia to solve. From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 7:49 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google' Cc: 'Norbert Bollow'; Milton L Mueller Subject: RE: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance What about 1) Transitioning ICANN and IANA to an International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) status: The Global Meeting should aim at developing a suitable and widely acceptable means to achieve the desired transition of ICANN and IANA away from its links to the USG and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_nongovernmental_organization M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 2:39 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance ICANN (and its President/CEO) have been "encouraged" at several opportunities to adjust its "internationalization" rhetoric/terminology and thus its resulting INTERNATIONALIZATION thrust to one which is significantly more embrasive of the objectives of, and indeed, spirit of what GLOBALIZATION in theory, intends to achieve. I believe therefore that Milton's recommendation is timely and appropriate ... whether we use the term "Globalization" or a perhaps more compromising and less economics/free-market linked phrase or term such as "Global Integration", or more radically, "Glocalization". ------ Rgds, Tracy On Nov 29, 2013 4:52 PM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" > wrote: Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual perspective, and in my humble Global Governance observer capacity, for the pleasure of the reflection: Internationalization: one wants to have a larger international basis: more offices, more representatives, more of a network of local branches that, being put together, creates an international network. Still each element is mostly comparable to the starting point in terms of culture, thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' kind of uniformity. Meaning many little ICANNs all around. Globalization: this could happen without a network of offices around the world. You can observe a very globalized entity containing so many different elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet with a governance of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than one single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the many in a global manner of thinking. Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind. Transnationalization: this tends to establish a community of people based in various locations, trying to forget about their local identity, interest or belonging, with the objective to address a more common, regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an understanding of global magnitude. Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds. - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater control over the network, and at the end of the day, you can pretend to be a global minded outlet. Good communication value. - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, specially if you are not starting from a fully independent culture. Very challenging when one starts from a private or national basis. - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts trust in the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable approach, and ultimately, one that could deliver a true global minded system. Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG debate. Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from the corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, executives would convene 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade union, politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable definition and understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something that usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... All the best, __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias Editor in Chief jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net @jc_nothias Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 schrieb Milton L Mueller >: Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national relations. On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to address. Maybe yet another term could be used??? Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com Sun Dec 1 14:19:41 2013 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 20:19:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> ,<529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <0690D670-3660-40F9-9102-F413EB155479@gmail.com> > 3. Some new international public law (treaty-based) that we have no experience with and no concrete guarantees regarding its content (because it doesn't exist yet) Well it exists!! When you do have an international treaty, such a Convention, the treaty specifies that its governance/ruling body (often named a secretariat), and whatever other instruments of ruling, is being settled within an existing framework. The convention gains a location, and can live its own life, under its funding statute. Convention are usually hosted. Need to find a host which the signatories agree upon. International laws have much more room than one usually thinks. There is some experience and expertise to start with here. The convention offers a lot of space. Funding (crowdfunding can be part of the convention, on top of whatever stakeholder wants to provide as a support) Take another example; INTERPEACE is a spin-off from the UN, independent but enjoying a UN endorsement. Easy to contact people working in the governance of these international conventions or spin-off and get a clear feed-back of what is working or not working, or just need some improvement. Le 1 déc. 2013 à 19:37, Milton L Mueller a écrit : > It's a basic error to equate a generic incorporation law with comprehensive regulatory "oversight by the US legal system" as Parminder is doing. I am not sure whether Parminder is just using a rhetorical ploy at this point. But I am not averse to host-country type agreements that would protect ICANN from legislative interference. > > An honest argument makes a comparison based on current facts. Regardless of where ICANN is incorporated now, it has to be incorporated somewhere. We are presented so far with 3 choices: > 1. a Geneva-based INGO like FIFA or the Red Cross > 2. California NPPBL > 3. Some new international public law (treaty-based) that we have no experience with and no concrete guarantees regarding its content (because it doesn't exist yet) and which might take 3-10 years to conclude > > Take your pick. Open to good arguments for any, as well as hybrids and other ideas. And if you can bring yourself to ignore the commentor's nationality, Karl's argument that any feasible transitional arrangement has to deal with real contracts and assets must be taken into account. > > --MM > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:24 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance > > > On Saturday 30 November 2013 11:10 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> >> >> >> it is up to Milton to defend his position and I don't think that he defended an continuity of any kind of US control. anyway you can read his ideas in details at his blog. > > For sure, I have read them. Yes, he does advocate continued oversight ('control' if you like) by US legal system, or broadly, the US polity, over ICANN, but extinguishing executive controls exercised through US DoC. > > But of course Milton can tell us if I am wrong in saying the above... parminder > > >> I made the analogy to FIFA because it is international organisation too if you mean diversity etc but also for the level of corruption and no accountability there. I think that you can see the point here . >> we can argue a lot about the legal status of the organisation but what matters at the end is the mechanism for accountability, transparency , openness, inclusiveness . >> >> >> And as you say if you are not arguing that ICANN "should be an US org under US laws ", then the question is "what kind of org and under what kind of law" do you advocate. Thanks. >> >> I don't have an answer about the legal framework to be used or any other organisational complexity, however I am thinking on how to avoid situation where interests group try to expand trademark law there or governments use GAC to push for content policy through gTLD or eroding privacy rights to match LEA requests without any oversight or in contradiction to ehir own data protection law. I am thinking on how we make the organisation developing users-driven policies and not to respond to narrow governmental or private interests. >> coming from a small developing country struggling with a complicated and painful democratic transition, I am more keen to defend citizen interests and not by any geopolitical interests of some governments >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> parminder >> >>> I have a question, maybe naive: if we have problem with one state to have dominant role as assumed by mant, how adding more states will solve the problem , a kind of zero sum game? >>> another question, what benefit for the average users far from any geopolitical consideration in such case? >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2013/11/30 parminder >>> >>> On Saturday 30 November 2013 10:19 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> yes Milton it will make it the FIFA of IG world >>>> >>>> Rafik >>> >>> Rafik, do you in that case agree that ICANN should remain an US organisation, subject solely to US laws... parminder >>> >>>> >>>> 2013/11/30 Milton L Mueller >>>> No, no, no, please. That level of specificity is counterproductive at this stage. Many people who have studied this issue believe that turning ICANN into an INGO is the surest way for it to escape what little accountability it currently has. Those willing to go along with a general call for reform in ICANN’s US-centered oversight need not commit themselves to a particular solution at this point, and the language below does that. >>>> >>>> >>>> Please don’t come up with off the cuff quickie solutions for this. It will take more than a scan of Wikipedia to solve. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 7:49 PM >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google' >>>> Cc: 'Norbert Bollow'; Milton L Mueller >>>> Subject: RE: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance >>>> >>>> >>>> What about >>>> >>>> >>>> 1) Transitioning ICANN and IANA to an International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) status: The Global Meeting should aim at developing a suitable and widely acceptable means to achieve the desired transition of ICANN and IANA away from its links to the USG and >>>> >>>> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_nongovernmental_organization >>>> >>>> >>>> M >>>> >>>> >>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google >>>> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 2:39 PM >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> Cc: Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance >>>> >>>> >>>> ICANN (and its President/CEO) have been "encouraged" at several opportunities to adjust its "internationalization" rhetoric/terminology and thus its resulting INTERNATIONALIZATION thrust to one which is significantly more embrasive of the objectives of, and indeed, spirit of what GLOBALIZATION in theory, intends to achieve. >>>> >>>> I believe therefore that Milton's recommendation is timely and appropriate ... whether we use the term "Globalization" or a perhaps more compromising and less economics/free-market linked phrase or term such as "Global Integration", or more radically, "Glocalization". >>>> >>>> ------ >>>> Rgds, >>>> >>>> Tracy >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 29, 2013 4:52 PM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, >>>> >>>> >>>> If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual perspective, and in my humble Global Governance observer capacity, for the pleasure of the reflection: >>>> >>>> >>>> Internationalization: one wants to have a larger international basis: more offices, more representatives, more of a network of local branches that, being put together, creates an international network. Still each element is mostly comparable to the starting point in terms of culture, thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' kind of uniformity. Meaning many little ICANNs all around. >>>> >>>> >>>> Globalization: this could happen without a network of offices around the world. You can observe a very globalized entity containing so many different elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet with a governance of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than one single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the many in a global manner of thinking. >>>> >>>> Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind. >>>> >>>> >>>> Transnationalization: this tends to establish a community of people based in various locations, trying to forget about their local identity, interest or belonging, with the objective to address a more common, regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an understanding of global magnitude. >>>> >>>> Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater control over the network, and at the end of the day, you can pretend to be a global minded outlet. Good communication value. >>>> >>>> - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, specially if you are not starting from a fully independent culture. Very challenging when one starts from a private or national basis. >>>> >>>> - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts trust in the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable approach, and ultimately, one that could deliver a true global minded system. >>>> >>>> >>>> Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG debate. >>>> >>>> >>>> Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from the corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, executives would convene 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade union, politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable definition and understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something that usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... >>>> >>>> >>>> All the best, >>>> >>>> __________________________ >>>> >>>> Jean-Christophe Nothias >>>> Editor in Chief >>>> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net >>>> >>>> @jc_nothias >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : >>>> >>>> >>>> Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 >>>> schrieb Milton L Mueller : >>>> >>>> >>>> Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family >>>> >>>> holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word >>>> >>>> "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in >>>> >>>> a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not >>>> >>>> an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena >>>> >>>> >>>> That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their >>>> governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has >>>> certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global >>>> phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of >>>> decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is >>>> happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national >>>> relations. >>>> >>>> On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very >>>> wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased >>>> social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns >>>> that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to address. >>>> >>>> Maybe yet another term could be used??? >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tisrael at cippic.ca Sun Dec 1 14:33:39 2013 From: tisrael at cippic.ca (Tamir Israel) Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2013 14:33:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the Government of India to the WGEC In-Reply-To: <529B5D0B.2040304@itforchange.net> References: <528A37DC.1030908@apc.org> <528B71FB.2090504@itforchange.net> <528DF07A.204@itforchange.net> <528E12DB.3030902@itforchange.net> <5291F450.9040908@itforchange.net> <8841C2DC-64D3-4FA5-AAC0-8186478B5BCF@glocom.ac.jp> <52741740-24C3-477B-9BDC-A5BBA60ADCDC@glocom.ac.jp> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133225A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574406@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529B5D0B.2040304@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <529B8F13.4010506@cippic.ca> That's right Parminder. To be really precise, what CSISAC was willing to live with was the principles themselves: 1. Promote and protect the global free flow of information; 2. Promote the open, distributed and interconnected nature of the Internet; 3. Promote investment and competition in high speed networks and services; 4. Promote and enable the cross-border delivery of services; 5. Encourage multi-stakeholder co-operation in policy development processes; 6. Foster voluntarily developed codes of conduct; 7. Develop capacities to bring publicly available, reliable data into the policy-making process; 8. Ensure transparency, fair process, and accountability; 9. Strengthen consistency and effectiveness in privacy protection at a global level; 10. Maximise individual empowerment; 11. Promote creativity and innovation; 12. Limit Internet intermediary liability; 13. Encourage co-operation to promote Internet security; 14. Give appropriate priority to enforcement efforts. which are relatively harmless as extremely high level statements. What CSISAC rejected was the more detailed explanation of how they are to be applied. There were many problems with the way the principles were intended to be applied, relating mostly to intermediary liability and IPR enforcement. Best, Tamir On 12/1/2013 11:00 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Sunday 01 December 2013 08:51 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Here is a factual account of what happened >> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2011/06/28/civil-society-defects-from-oecd-internet-policy-principles/ > > One really wonders why we are not able to settle something which is a > simple matter of fact.... Yes, civil society groups did not initially > sign these principles but later signed a latter version . > > In Dec 2013, if someone says, 'OCED's Internet policy making > principles', what is meant is the final version issues by the OECD > Council, and *not* the initial communiqué which in effect is > superseded by the Council document. And civil society groups did sign > the latter Council document .... > http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php > > That is all that was asserted in the first instance by me which has > got this long thread running... > > parminder > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* sama.digitalpolicy at gmail.com [sama.digitalpolicy at gmail.com] >> on behalf of Andrea Glorioso [andrea at digitalpolicy.it] >> *Sent:* Sunday, November 24, 2013 12:55 PM >> *To:* Kleinwächter, Wolfgang >> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake; Andrea Glorioso; >> parminder; Dixie Hawtin; Andrew Puddephatt; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> *Subject:* [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the Government of >> India to the WGEC >> >> To be clear: my understanding is that the statement that CSOs >> did endorse a set of principles produced within the OECD was >> challenged. It seems to me - and, unless I misinterpret the relevant >> messages, confirmed inter alia by Jeremy and Wolfgang - that a number >> of CSOs did indeed endorse a set of OECD principles which was >> acceptable to them. >> >> Again if I understand correctly, the point was not on the substance >> of such principles but on the legitimacy of policy-making done within >> "restricted" environments, especially when such principles / >> policies have ambitions of broader adoption; as well as, relatedly, >> on the approach to be taken towards broader settings. >> >> Please note that I'm not taking a position either on the OECD >> principles or on the related debate re: broader settings. >> >> P.S. I would not be so sure that people outside of the rather small >> IG circle (which are, according to some, stakeholders as well) are so >> clear on the details of who signed what, when and for which reason. >> >> On Sunday, November 24, 2013, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> >> Again: The two principles which did not get a CISAC endorsement >> was IPR and intermediarities. The opposition of CISAC to the two >> principles was ere outspoken but ignored by an article in the >> Washington Post by David Weitzer. This was corrected later when >> CISAC reconfirmed that it had its own position and did not change >> it. In contrary, as the statement - re-distributed by Andrea - >> says clearly, CISAC expected a continuation of the debate around >> the two controvrsial principles with the aim to improve the >> lanague and to make it acceptable to civil society. This OECD >> debate did influence also the final stage of the elaboration of >> the Council of Europe principles - which was negotiated in >> parallel. In the COE we avoided controversial OECD language and >> got the full endorsement by all parties. >> >> w >> >> >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> im Auftrag von Adam Peake >> Gesendet: So 24.11.2013 15:07 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Andrea >> Glorioso >> Cc: parminder; Dixie Hawtin; Andrew Puddephatt; >> <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >, >> Betreff: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Proposal by the >> Government of India to the WGEC >> >> I think we know what was endorsed and what wasn't. Please, just >> read the documents, it's pretty clear. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Nov 24, 2013, at 10:51 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: >> >> > As far as I understood when I used to follow this process, >> CSISAC did support a modified version of these principles. I'm >> happy to stand corrected by those who know more. >> > >> > http://csisac.org/2011/12/oecd_principles_internet_policy.php >> > >> > CSISAC Welcomes OECD Recommendation on Principles for Internet >> Policy Making >> > In a press release published on 19 December 2011, the CSISAC >> welcomes the Recommendation on Principles for Internet Policy >> Making adoped by the OECD Council on 13 December 2011, which >> reaffirms OECD commitment to a free, open and inclusive Internet. >> > >> > Most critically, this Recommendation envisions a collaborative >> decision-making process that is inclusive of civil society issues >> and concerns, such as those expressed by CSISAC when it declined >> to support a previous Communique resulting from the OECD High >> Level Meeting of June 2011. >> > >> > CSISAC looks forward to working with the OECD in order to >> develop the Principles itemized in the December Recommendation in >> greater detail and in a manner that promotes openness, is >> grounded in respect for human rights and the rule of law, and >> strengthens the capacity to improve the quality of life for all >> citizens. >> > >> > >> > On Sunday, November 24, 2013, Adam Peake wrote: >> > >> > On Nov 24, 2013, at 9:42 PM, parminder wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > On Thursday 21 November 2013 10:54 PM, Dixie Hawtin wrote: >> > >> I've never ever entered these debates before either, but I >> want to add my 2 cents too! >> > >> >> > >> On the OECD principles - CSISAC did not endorse the >> principles, on the basis of the intellectual property rights >> provision. >> > >> >> > > >> > > This is not true, Dixie. CSISAC did endorse them. >> > > >> > >> > >> > No Parminder, you're wrong. Civil society (CSISAC: Civil >> Society Information Society Advisory Council) did not endorse the >> OECD principles on Internet policy making (June 2011 >> ) Read the >> document. >> > >> > No point in any further discussion, the document is what it is. >> > >> > Adam >> > >> > >> > >> > > However, I have stayed away from discussing the substantive >> merit of the outcomes of OECD kind of 'global' public policy >> processes. I only spoke about their procedural aspects - like >> inclusiveness, multistakeholder versus multilateral, etc . That >> these processes >> > > >> > > 1. do not involve all countries/ governments, and >> > > 2. are no less multilateral, and no more multistakeholder , >> than some of the proposed UN based Internet policy fora, like >> India's CIRP proposal. >> > > >> > > And the fact that civil society seems never to bother with >> this particular problem of global Internet governance. As for >> instance we are fond of regularly writing to ITU about its >> processes, and have even started to speak against proposed WSIS + >> 10, which is supposed to follow WSIS model which was one of the >> most participatory of processes that I have ever seen. >> > > >> > > Can you show me an instance where we have addressed the above >> problem of global governance - something which is a constant >> refrain in most discussions of global governance in the South . >> How can we simply dismiss this concern. >> > > >> > > Ok, to make it topical: The mandate of OCED's CCICP (OECD's >> Internet policy organ) is up for renewal sometime now ( I think >> it is supposed to be this December). As they renew their mandate, >> I propose that we write to them, that >> > > >> > > 1. CCICP should seek "full and equal' engagement with UN and >> other regional bodies on Internet policy issues that really have >> implications across the globe, to ensure global democracy. >> > > 2. CCICP should never seek to post facto push their policy >> frameworks on other countries - if they indeed think/ know that >> a particular Internet policy issue is of a global dimension they >> should from the start itself take it up at a global forum and >> accordingly develop policies regarding it . >> > > 3. CCICP should be made fully multistakeholder on the same >> principles of multistakeholderism that OECD countries seek for >> global Internet policy related bodies. In this regard, OECD >> should clearly specify the role of different stakeholders in >> terms of Internet policy making by OECD/ CCICP, and whether they >> are same or different than what they > >> Development House, >> 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >> > >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: >> andrewpuddephatt >> > >> gp-digital.org >> > >> >> > >> From: parminder [ >> > >> mailto:parminder at itforchange.net >> > >> ] >> > >> Sent: 21 November 2013 11:38 >> > >> To: Andrew Puddephatt >> > >> Cc: >> > >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; >> <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> >> > >> , >> > >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Proposal by the >> Government of India to the WGEC >> > >> >> > >> Andrew >> > >> >> > >> I have a strong feeling that you asking me to shut up, and I >> am not quite sure that is a good thing to do. >> > >> >> > >> Many here in the last few weeks posted their views on the >> proceedings of the WGEC, triggering a very legitimate and needed >> debate. Some of them directly referred by name to positions >> presented by me/ my organisation which is also quite fair >> because we are all in a public space and people need to be able >> to say whatever they want to (apart from some obnoxious personal >> comments by Adam which is where I think IGC and BB group >> responsibility-holders should be focussing; which they >> regrettably have let pass.) What I cant understand is why in your >> view should I not be able to present and defend my views, the >> below being my very first email on the issue. >> > >> >> > >> my responses below... >> > >> On Tuesday 19 November 2013 08:37 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >> > >> >> > >> I don't normally respond to these discussions but >> occasionally I feel >> > >> >> > >> I think one should enter a debate with enough respect for >> those who are engaging in it.... >> > >> >> > >> >> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > > >> > > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > > >> > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > -- >> > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with >> myself. Keep it in mind. >> > Twitter: @andreaglorioso >> > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso >> > LinkedIn: >> http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.go >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. >> Keep it in mind. >> Twitter: @andreaglorioso >> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Dec 1 15:12:22 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 09:12:22 +1300 Subject: [governance] IGC Correspondence to UNDESA [Submission of MAG Nominees] Message-ID: Dear All, This email serves to confirm that further to the invitation to submit MAG Nominees, we have sent the names furnished to the IGC by the NomCom. See the email below. I have removed the MAG form attachments that were sent to UNDESA. The letter is up on the website: http://igcaucus.org/igc-letter-undesa-mag-nominees Thank you to the 26 volunteers who put themselves up for participating on the NomCom, the six that were selected and did a sterling job. Thank you Norbert for handling the random selection process. To all the candidates that had put their names forward, thank you very much. We wish the Nominees well. This process is now closed. Kind Regards, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro (co-coordinator) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Date: Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:59 AM Subject: IGC Submission of MAG Nominees To: magrenewal2014 at intgovforum.org Cc: Jeremy Malcolm Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) T: +679 9982851 E: coordinators at igcaucus.org W:http://igcaucus.org/ His Excellency WU Hongbo Under-Secretary-General Economic and Social Affairs Secretary-General for the International Conference on Small Island Developing States United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) Re: IGC Slate of Nominees for Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) Greetings from the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) ! Kindly find the following attached: 1) IGC Letter to UNDESA on MAG Nominees; 2)MAG forms of Nominees. Thank you. Yours faithfully, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro (co-coordinator of IGC) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGC Letter to UNDESA (MAG Nominees) (1).pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 116419 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sun Dec 1 15:29:41 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 18:29:41 -0200 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25744DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <054001ceed39$1ce87c00$56b97400$@gmail.com> <0F52BC21-747B-456D-9B3A-D1F5BD8778F3@hserus.net> <4EEDB265-C354-4DFC-82FF-D8ACD590C0D7@apnic.net> <529AF58D.4080205@ITforChange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574449@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25744DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: This was a very interesting exhange. It's a pity that we are so scattered in different lists, that the dialogue about similar issues is becoming broken in parallel tracks. Milton, I have two doubts: > > Two possible roles. > > 1. One would be to provide a generic legal framework (e.g., > incorporation law for nonprofits or INGOs). With that in place governments > can simply formally recognize a non-state MS process as authoritative in > its domain and then stay out of it. > In your view, what would be the domains or the thematic areas suitable for that? In addition, would there be a space for governmental frameworks that do not only aim to "organize" the scenario, but also to provide substantive guidelines, or general principles on the public interest? My question would be if governments would still be able to occasionally intervene when problems arise, such as deviation from public interest, monopolies, unjustifiable asymmetries, etc > 2. Govts can also be 'stakeholders' and participate as 'stakeholders' > but only if they abandon the pretense of being a unitary actor, > disaggregate their representation, and allow any and every agency to pursue > its organizational self-interest in an open MS process. > Every governmental agency or department? What about the coherence that governments must strive to pursuit? Ideally, the "best position" comes after counterposing different positions of different Ministers. In your proposal, we would disregard the important of this internal dialogue. So then? Internal Ministers would do foreign policy? What if gov end up moving completely different agendas in different bodies, depending on which department is participating? How to ensure a stable regime? I thought at first that you were talking about disaggregating State's internal stakeholder groups - ex: having national CS, business participating in their capacity, more or less like ILO, but with bottom-up choice of representatives. The problem is what is "national" business or CS? Marília > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Dec 1 15:37:17 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 15:37:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25744FF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <054001ceed39$1ce87c00$56b97400$@gmail.com> <0F52BC21-747B-456D-9B3A-D1F5BD8778F3@hserus.net> <4EEDB265-C354-4DFC-82FF-D8ACD590C0D7@apnic.net> <529AF58D.4080205@ITforChange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574449@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25744DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25744FF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I might add one other thing. > > When Paul Wilson and other representatives of I* governance organizations > happily concede that 'governments are stakeholders too' I believe that what > they are doing is proposing a political bargain, not a coherent mode of > governance. > or perhaps simply describing reality as they experience it? As a member of the ARIN AC, you have first hand experience with Government types being active in RIR policy formation. IS this not a "coherent form' of IG? > > In other words, they are trying to reach an accommodation with > nation-states that will preserve key elements of the status quo by > reassuring state actors that they will not be left out of or excluded from > the system. By calling states-as-unitary-actors "stakeholders" who must be > specially accommodated through contradictory and dysfunctional arrangements > like the GAC, they are literally compromising what we know about how MS > governance works in order to buy greater political support for the new > institutions from the old institutions. > I agree that "separate and unequal" a la GAC, is suboptimal -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Dec 1 16:02:12 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 13:02:12 -0800 Subject: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment In-Reply-To: <86599A99-2EA4-4A0A-8DFF-2FF28D290BD6@gmail.com> References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> <0b2401cee944$d3877180$7a965480$@gmail.com> <86599A99-2EA4-4A0A-8DFF-2FF28D290BD6@gmail.com> Message-ID: <04e901ceeed8$9bcdb760$d3692620$@gmail.com> Thanks George, I’ll intersperse comments below From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 3:31 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Peter Ian'; 'Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro' Subject: Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment Mike, and all, Thanks, Mike, for your patience in obtaining a reply. Real life sometimes interferes with what one would prefer to do. I welcome the opportunity to respond, in part because it really forces e tho think how I feel about the points raised. It's quite easy for any of us to become used to living in environments of like-minded people, akin to an echo chamber that amplifies what we think instead of challenging. The interaction of the political parties in the U.S, parliament is a very visible, and destructive, example of that. Unfortunately there is good evidence that the Internet itself encourages such echo chambers to form and to encapsulate people. [MG>] yes I've thought about "Snowden" in my own personal context, and can't come down strongly on either side of the argument. It's clear that there are "big data" specialists working for intelligence agencies who have the feeling that if something can be done to increase the density of intelligence information available, they should do it. Their motivations may be good in the sense of enhancing security, but their disregard of law, societal mores, and even sometimes common sense is evident. It's also clear that the methods of judicial oversight of the NSA, the FISA and parts of our Congress, have failed rather badly. I hope that this can be fixed, but I admit that I'm not sure what exactly I mean by 'fixed.' [MG>] yes It's also clear that there are people in the world who would like to kill me and my countrymen (and possibly you and yours also), simply because we have different beliefs, if they could get away with it. Given the turmoil, largely based upon religious differences, there is a lot of hate that translates into daily violence in many places in the world. This is a fact. Now the question needs to be asked: how much intelligence is needed in order to keep people safe? The question is compounded by the fact that most intelligence operations must be deeply secret in order to be effective, so that unless one is part of a privileged few, one cannot possibly hope to address the question. That causes me some anxiety, as well as re-examining the level of trust that I place in the actors involved. [MG>] yes I don't have quite the level of moral outrage as some regarding NSA's intelligence mandate; my concern is with both the extent of their activities, as well as their skirting or breaking the laws under which they operate. I take it as a given that all moderately developed countries have intelligence operations, and that all of them use the Internet to some extent, perhaps some to a large extent, to gather their information and perform other functions. Some of the events uncovered by Snowden relating to spying on non-hostile countries have led to discoveries that those countries were themselves spying on each other. So there is some phony outrage involved in the ensuing charges. I wish that the world were different, and that we could all rust each other, but that is not the world that we live in. [MG>] yes But three things First, I think that Internet/ICT based surveillance and subsequent analysis is of such a different magnitude and substance that it has to be treated differently from earlier such activities and also the differences in quality and quantity as between the most advanced countries in these areas and the rest means that this is something new that needs a global response. Second, one of the things I get from Snowden is how central is the significance of the Internet to security (and other?) concerns and aspirations and that too has to be taken into consideration in such areas as IG including or especially in areas of anticipation of “trust” and expectations of “good will” and “public mindedness”. Third, I think a “passive” response is inappropriate given how significant the Internet is for so many spheres, how this significance is increasing at an accelerating rate, and what we see revealed about the subversion of the Internet that appears to be going on We – (and I’m not quite sure who “we” is in this context) – can’t not do something (or at least make our most valiant efforts One of my colleagues who works with multiple governments tells me that the Snowden affair has divided governments into two groups: (1) those that have NSA-like capabilities, although they may utilize them differently; and (2) those that don't have such capabilities, and are envious of NSA and want to acquire them. I believe that statement is largely correct, and it highlights that governments themselves are heterogeneous organizations. For example, the U.S. State Department funds projects in countries that provide TOR and useful encryption tools so that civil society activists in those countries can be more effective, while the NSA tries to decode TOR traffic. I suspect that many other countries have the same mixed objectives. This is the world in which we live, whether we like it or not. [MG>] yes, but see my points 2 and 3 above Thinking about "Snowden" in an Internet governance context leads me to other lines of thought, and your comments are relevant. It's probably more understandable if I insert my remarks at the relevant places in your text below [MG>] okay On Nov 24, 2013, at 1:41 PM, michael gurstein wrote: [MG>] more below Thanks George for a very sober, serious, insightful and dare I say generous piece. And there is little there that I disagree with including your overall aspirations for and comments on civil society. There are however, two issue themes that aren`t included in your discussion which come from two separate pieces of my own personal ecology in these matters that I feel have to be addressed if we are to get to the space that you are urging us toward. The first is that you don`t mention Snowden or what we have learned (or perhaps for some, found to be confirmed) through his actions. What we have seen in the starkest of terms in the Snowden documents is how important `control` over the Internet is seen in some quarters, and to what lengths those quarters and presumably others will go to ensure their `dominance` in matters having to do with how the Internet is deployed and used. I think that some may see in this wording an implied connection between ICANN's relationship with the U.S. government and NSA's ability to use the Internet for its extreme surveillance activities. I hope not, because the implication is false. The control that the US government has over ICANN is the result of a completely independent history, and does not confer any advantage to NSA. With sufficient resources, any other government's intelligence service could do the same thing as NSA does -- although I hope that doesn't happen. I can understand that the correlation between NSA/US and ICANN/US can arouse suspicion in people's minds, but those who take the time to understand the facts will allay the suspicion. [MG>] actually I was not referring to ICANN here although I can see someone more actively involved with ICANN than myself interpreting this in that way. Rather I was referring to a more general level of interventions in support of attempts to “control” the Internet as for example, interventions to weaken security features (or dare I say, the possibility of attempts to intervene in surreptitious ways in IG discussions via surrogates or otherwise Your technical community colleagues have characterized this as an ``attack`` on the Internet. From my perspective I see it as a full-on attempt to subvert the Internet in support of certain interests—and at this point it is unclear whether those interests are national security, national strategic, economic, political or some seamless integration of all of these. My technical colleagues are quite unhappy, as am I. For me, the worst part of what has happened, if true, is the covert seeding of weaknesses into encryption and similar software designed to enhance privacy and protect confidentiality of communication. I don't see any specific proof of such accusations yet, but I am sure that this is going to be thoroughly examined by technical people who are independent of the US government. If such seeding is confirmed, there will be people and agencies in the technical community who will never be trusted again. [MG>] yes You'll note that the IETF is starting a concerted effort to build new tools that are, by community inspection, much more likely to be free of such intrusions. I welcome this effort, and I would like to think think that civil society actors would welcome it also. [MG>] yes for sure something to most definitely be welcomed and supported Among the most damaging outcomes from Snowden is a general breakdown in trust (or confirmation of the reasons for an on-going lack of trust) concerning I would say, all matters having to do with the core elements of the Internet of which certainly, Internet governance is one. Again your technical community colleagues well recognize this development (as of course does the Business Community) and the extremely corrosive and destructive elements that this lack of trust has introduced into what had previously been on-going collaborative relationships of all sorts with respect to Internet related activities. This lack of trust is certainly no less in Civil Society (and dare I say no less warranted) than for the other stakeholder groups and given the lack of normative coherence and even of a shared self- definition that we witness in Civil Society discussions on a daily basis it is perhaps even more explicable for CS, even if no less damaging. I agree that the loss of trust, very important in being able to work together, is a major casualty from Snowden's disclosures and the reactions in the U.S. Congress [MG>] yes One of the things that I have heard over and over as a consequence of this affair is that we have to re-examne the balance between privacy and security. I agree with the sentiment, but I think that the rebalancing is not something that can be discussed as if it were an intellectual exercise. That side of governments concerned with security, and possibly espionage also, has probably learned a different lesson from this affair: don't get caught! They are likely to continue their undercover activities, perhaps in a more limited fashion, but they will continue. The balance in this case comes from the Snowden revelations that empowers many people to push back agains such excesses. That is, the balance will never be established as a static balance, but depends upon both an intelligent intelligence agency and an active citizenry to maintain it in a position that both can accept. [MG>] I agree with this overall but there is another point that needs to be made. “Security” for a weaker party is about setting up effective defenses “Security” for the dominant party is about finding ways of effectively and efficiently maintaining that dominance. Much of the initial set of responses to Snowden which inevitably came from within the US were of th – it’s not okay to do this to us Americans but its okay as long as its just being done to “foreigners” – variety. That sort of explicit rhetoric is now certainly passé in most circles but regrettably it is still implicit in a lot of discussions such as yours which evoke the national security interests of the US (and its allies) which in these contexts becomes an argument in support of “Information dominance”. I don`t know what to do about this. Perhaps given the lack of resources for facilitating the kinds of (generally face to face and purpose driven) encounters in neutral disinterested spaces that are usually involved in `trust building` perhaps nothing can be done, but I do know that not facing the issue of trust directly and recognizing it in its full (and very ugly) reality means I think that it is more or less impossible to go forward in the ways that you are not unreasonably suggesting. I understand, but think that we need to understand exactly what bonds of trust have been weakened, between whom, and by which actions. I worry that there is a tendency to associate actions taken by or in the US to impute blame on all actions and actors associated with the US. I understand that it is a convenient thing to do, and it's a correct thing to do with respect to some actors and some events, but not all. [MG>] yes, but given how pervasive is what is being revealed by Snowden (and this, it should noted, is simply pointing to the SigInt (signals intelligence) side of things and not the HumInt (Human Intelligence—CIA etc.) side), the scale of resources that are available, and the significance that the Internet apparently has what would you consider to be the appropriate default position At the same time, I can understand that understanding the logic of a situation may not be sufficient to overcoming the emotion associated with the judgment. [MG>] not, I think “emotion” but rather something based on a fairly reasonable risk assessment The second issue that I would want to add to your commentary is a different one and comes from quite a different background. Many here began this particular odyssey in relation one way or another to WSIS. And certainly for me working in the grassroots use and among grassroots users of ICTs, WSIS was the doorway into these broader Internet Governance concerns. Notably, many in CS see WSIS as a significant success and one whose gains they currently appear reluctant to put in jeopardy by re-opening those discussions. I see it rather differently in that for me WSIS was largely a continuation of the pattern of top-down processes (the DotForce, the ICT4D Task Force etc.etc.) trying to solve ICT for Development issues without giving those most directly involved a chance to participate and provide their own insight into these matters. This is interesting, and I think that we have discussed this before. I myself have never seen any significant positive output from the Dot Force, which was clearly a top down effort to stimulate the use of ICT for development. That was the era of the dot-com bubble, and there was a wave of optimism at certain levels that we had identified a panacea. Of course, it was far from it. [MG>] yes I was on the Markle Foundation -UNDP advisory group, and I saw first hand how their attempt to address the ICT4D question stumbled badly due to lack of knowledge and experience, and the inability of the sectors to understand each other. UNDP was, at least, in transition to take more input from the countries in which they worked, which helped them to be reasonably effective. [MG>] yes, although the UNDP was (and is) hindered by being required to work through governments and government agencies which in many instances were either unable or unwilling to incorporate the real experience/reality/knowledge of development processes on the ground into their planning and actions And later, we were both associated with GAID, a sorry initiative that served as the retirement program for certain UN officials, and never really produced anything of value. At the same time it occupied official center stage at the top, and thereby pre-empted any other effort from being recognized as a possible improvement to offer leadership in the ICT4D sphere. [MG>] complete agreement of course J Few (if any) of the organizations (including it must be said the CS organizations) most directly involved with WSIS were in fact, in a position to give voice to the concerns of the grassroots users or activists/practitioners and unfortunately the train of failed ICT4D policies and programs (and more recently the quite evident donor fatigue with these failed programs) is a direct result. I think that in the area of ICT4D, the road to hell is surely paved, multiple times, with good donor intentions. The path to development appears to be deceptively easy at the top, where the real on the ground issues are not clearly observed. We have discussed this, and as you know, many donor efforts produced but a prototype of some intervention, and then have declared their work a success even though it may not have been sustainable or even capable of replication. [MG>] yes The ICT4D field was littered with 'successful' pilot projects that went nowhere, and a lot of this was due to the top down incentive structure of those who had money to fund them. [MG>] yes I believe even my first intervention into the IG discussion space articulated much of the above and very very regrettably I see little if any, progress having been made in the activities and interventions which have followed. Rather I see the matters which would be of greatest interest to grassroots users and communities perhaps characterized best through the term ``Internet Justice*`` derided, marginalized and ignored; even dare I say, to the extent that a number of CS groups appear to be opposing a revisiting of WSIS specifically because issues relating to Internet Justice might be introduced including by the G77. I'm not sure if we have a difference of opinion here or not, and I guess that depends in part upon how you would define the term 'Internet justice.' [MG>] Internet Justice >From the point of ICT4D, I see as import the ability to access a reliable, safe, secure, and affordable Internet to accomplish their aims. Certainly some of that has to do with Internet governance, but I'd argue that the substantial majority of what it takes to produce that environment is a function of national or local policy, not global issues or actors. [MG>] yes, I agree. The link though comes through the possible/actual influence which the global has on the national and local (see the message which follows concerning Jeff Sachs and then recognize the overall deplorable influence which that type of top down approach is having in the range of upcoming global fora—WSIS, MDG’s and SDG’s among others. The “Internet Freedom” crusade for example, didn’t to my knowledge go anywhere beyond extremely mild references to enhanced “access” and pointing to the already failed programs When I ran with GIPI, we worked in multiple countries to bring sectors together to understand and work fora regime of legislation and regulation that would empower use of the Internet by local actors, whether they were from business, academia, or civil society, at least as much as some governments were willing to allow. Perhaps our projects were in some sense the forerunners of the national IGFs. I regard these new IGFs at the local level as more important that the global meetings because they can concentrate upon specific local issues, and the people and organizations that can contribute directly to solutions are there. [MG>] yes, I think there is significant potential there My very limited experience with regional IGF’s though is that the rather baleful influence of the global IGF and the pre-occupation of regional/national IGF’s with the discussion/issues from there (and not incidentally the extremely visible presence and participation of IGF oriented national NGO’s or national instantiations of more global NGO’s) tends to skew the result such that local voices/concerns in these areas often get drowned out (but I would be delighted to be proven wrong on this I am suggesting that if our focus is on ICT4D, and by 'D' I include both economic and social development encompassing at least some of civil society's concerns, then what happens at the global level may be less important than what happens at the local level. It is at the local level that the issues are most meaningful to people and where the greatest gains may be capable of being achieved. I don't write off the relevance of global governance issues, but they fall into a somewhat different category. [MG>] I tend to agree but only to a point. My own experience and the experience of my community informatics colleagues is that you can only go so far with local development/empowerment and for any real structural change/development to occur you need to be able to influence/have access to the policy level. Since the policy level in many developing countries is highly influenced/responsive to what happens in global fora such as the WSIS, MDG’s, SDG’s and particularly the bi and multi-lateral funding programs by governments, agencies and foundations that tend to follow/mirror those fora to my mind there is an absolute need for all of these—development policy, development practice and Internet governance understood in it’s (WSIS) sense, to all be linked. Not incidentally the attempts by various of the OECD countries (and their allies within civil society and elsewhere) to suppress a revisiting of WSIS and to redirect the MDG and SDG objectives in ideologically compliant directions only serves to reinforce this as a priority. I think it would be very desirable for CS broadly to move in the directions indicated in George`s piece below but only if done in full recognition, awareness and responsiveness to the issues that I have just attempted to articulate. Mike, I've responded as best I could. If we do still have points of disagreement, I'd like to understand them. [MG>] As I read it only a few relatively minor but not inconsequential points of differing priorities rather than disagreements J Best, Mike Regards, George Best, Mike *Notably the term ``Internet Justice`` follows on from our Environmental CS colleagues who are now characterizing much of their concerns under the rubric of ``Environmental Justice``. From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 8:59 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Peter Ian; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Subject: Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment All, Please note that the opinions that follow are my own personal opinions and are independent of any of the organizations with which I am affiliated. I'm suggesting that we should modify both the words and concept of Sala's suggestions and my response. Let's not think of doing anything formal; I think that both ends would balk at that, and for good reason. Instead, I'll just be somewhat more active on this list, and if anything comes up with respect to the technical community that I can clarify or help with on an informal and personal basis, I'll try to do that. So with that understanding, I'd like to throw out some thoughts to see if any of them resonate with any of you. First, I believe that the introduction of the idea of multi-stakeholder approaches has had a significant negative effect between the Internet technical community and the community that has coalesced to represent classical civil society concerns. As I recall in the 1990s, these communities were considerably intermingled; the promise of the Internet encouraged us not only to help it evolve in beneficial ways but also to explore how to exploit it for social and economic benefits. The solidification of different stakeholder groups resulting from the WSIS process, caused informal differences to formalize. Issues of representation, power, time at the microphone, visibility on (sometimes competing) lists and victory in arguments on those lists grew, while informal discussion gradually declined. Polarization of opinion grew as willingness to respect others' opinions and to agree civilly to disagree suffered. Second, I believe that the specific role of the Internet technical community as a stakeholder group for the purposes of participating in the MAG and in the IGF is not properly understood. At this point in its evolution, the Internet is a very complex system at most levels. In order to understand fully the implications of policies that have to do with Internet administration, operation and governance, one has have a good technical understand of what the effect of those policies will be at a detailed level. The primary role of representatives of the Internet technical community, in a MAG and IGF setting, is to study and understand such effects and to inform those deliberating about them. That function may well extend toward consideration of broader thematic areas and suggestions of what needs to be discussed for continued Internet health, either short or long term, or both. In the grand scheme of things, this is a moderately narrow focus, but it is extremely important. Third, I believe that one result of formalized multi-stakeholderism appears to have been to separate groups of people rather than separating groups of ideas. A couple of examples illustrate the point. To the extent that the Internet technical community does its work in guiding the MAG well to enhance Internet evolution, I believe that involved representatives of civil society benefit and should encourage their participation. Conversely, representatives of the Internet technical community are people, and many are very likely to have beliefs that are quite consistent with the positions espoused by those same civil society representatives. The multi-stakeholder approach, however, seems to create a silo effect that minimizes or even denies the overlap of commonality of interest regarding issues by separating people into different silos. So instead of recognizing positive overlap of beliefs, the approach encourages a focus on inter-stakeholder group separation. Fourth, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being siloed. An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in the world and remove government involvement, the private sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences. To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals. Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder group. We have interactions with government and may work for it. Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector organization. Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet. Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in the civil society stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do. This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the underlying reality, I conclude that the multi-stakeholder approach that is accepted to be an approach to bring us together, has not insignificant negative externalities that serve to keep us apart. We need to assess the multi-stakeholder approach with that in mind If it is retained as an organizing principle, we need to recognize and understand those negative effects so that we can minimize them and can exploit the positive aspects of that approach. This is a much longer note than I ordinarily write, but it has helped me to understand some of the roots of the often unnecessarily antagonistic relationship between proponents of issues important to civil society and technical community experts guiding the evolution of the Internet. Thank you for taking the time to read it. I realize that what I have written, and any discussion of it, is considerably more nuanced than what I have presented above. However, I have tried to present the core of some ideas that I think may be useful. The more nuanced discussion can and will come later. Your comments are welcome. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Nov 23, 2013, at 1:53 PM, michael gurstein wrote: Thanks George and it is a potentially interesting proposition. But I must say that I’m unclear as to precisely what role is being suggested here. If the role is to attempt to frame the diversity of voices being articulated in civil society (in my case including those of the community informatics community for example) in a manner in which it can be more readily understood/assimilated/responded to by the technical community I think that is very useful. If it is, on the other hand, to act as a more or less “authoritative”/designated “filter” of communications/voices from Civil Society to the Technical Community then I can see quite considerable difficulty and controversy resulting, if nothing else, from a concern within certain CS elements of being “silenced/ignored”. (The same clarification would need to be made if the role is perceived as being more of an “honest broker”—i.e. the question being, particularly on the CS side, how inclusive of all CS interests/voices is the “brokerage” committed/able to be. Perhaps some clarification is in order here either from yourself in how you perceive the role, or from Ian or Sala on how they presented the role (and perceive it from a CS perspective). (I should also possibly add here that a significant number of those active in the Community Informatics community would, by their background, qualifications, experience and current activities qualify as being “techies” of one sort or another. Whether they would qualify as being members of the “Technical Community” (TC) under what I understand to be the criteria for inclusion within the TC as currently defined by the formal TC structures I’m not sure, as their orientation tends to be towards technical design and fabrication in support of social/digital inclusion and social justice.) Best to all, M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 8:04 AM To: Ian Peter Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Fadi Speech to ALAC, Brazil 2014 Meeting and need for IGC and civil society Liaisons Hi, Ian, Sala and I talked while we were both in Buenos Aires. Perhaps I can clarify my sense of what she may have been proposing. There is at the moment somewhat of a gulf between the technical community and the list(s) used by the proclaimed representatives of civil society. Sometimes such differences of opinion, as well as fact, can be resoled rather quickly if they are discussed directly by people on both sides of the issue, rather than being left to fester and feed growing suspicion and/or discontent. I think that Sala thought that having some announced or implied line of communication, clearly non-exclusive, might be helpful at times. I thought so, too. Having seen little response from anyone on this list, perhaps the idea isn't welcome in the more formalized sense in which it has been presented, and I can understand that. I think that perhaps I could be more active from time to time in the discussions that occur, and that might help to bridge some differences between the communities. Although I consider myself more technical in the context of Internet governance discussions, I do have roots in development activities that are quite consistent with some of the expressions of opinion posted to this and similar lists. George <> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 1 16:25:19 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 13:25:19 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: Broadband Manifesto In-Reply-To: <033801ceeb99$2f08e9c0$8d1abd40$@gmail.com> References: <8CBC2521-BEEB-45C5-A8DE-B0248CCC272C@1st-mile.org> <033801ceeb99$2f08e9c0$8d1abd40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <052701ceeedb$d73471b0$859d5510$@gmail.com> Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look at this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be done with no attention being given to how it might actually be accomplished on the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements and failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. M http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become critical to driving growth, delivering social services, improving environmental management, and transforming people's lives, according to a new Manifesto released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and signed by 48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from industry, civil society and the United Nations. "Overcoming the digital divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness and justice; connecting the world makes sound commercial sense," the Manifesto reads. "The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the core of any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all countries - developed and developing alike - are empowered to participate in the global digital economy." Supporting Document http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce- report.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jovank at diplomacy.edu Sun Dec 1 16:53:46 2013 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 22:53:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <20131130124309.086175a8@quill> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <52995529.4090403@cavebear.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25740E6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52996EE7.5020506@itforchange.net> <5299CB40.5040905@cafonso.ca> <20131130124309.086175a8@quill> Message-ID: Hi Norbert, It would be useful to have the exact reference to Fadi's comment in order to provide a precise legal analysis. Multiple jurisdictions would lead towards conflict of laws (regulated by international private law). The Law of the Sea has many examples of concurrent, parallel, and overlapping jurisdictions due to the complex interplay of three core jurisdiction elements: territoriality (coastal state, territorial sea), nationality (flag State jurisdiction), and universality (e.g. against piracy). So far, one of the broadest lists of concurrent jurisdictions is in article 109 of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (1982): ‘Any person engaged in unauthorized broadcasting may be prosecuted before the court of: (a) the flag State of the ship; (b) the State of registry of the installation; (c) the State of which the person is a national; (d) any State where the transmissions can be received; or (e) any State where authorized radio communication is suffering interference.’ BTW: I usually send this article to enthusiasts about extending the Law of the Sea to the Internet based on a rather simplistic analogy between the high sea and the Internet (beyond jurisdiction). The Law of the Sea is not very sympathetic to ‘unauthorised broadcasting’ and free flow of information. Back to the question of multiple jurisdiction… While one can think on various solutions with multiple jurisdictions, it is not clear how various jurisdictions can be exercised ‘simultaneously’. It would be in breach of the general legal principle ‘ne bis in idem’ (nobody should be prosecuted twice for the same offense). This is just a quick reflection. If you can provide more precise questions, it could help in deepening the discussion on IG, jurisdiction, and ICANN. Best regards, Jovan On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > > I risk to be bitten by (no, not monkeys, Milton) scorpions here, but > > if "removal of the source of authority from a single national > > government and the linkage of its authority over the DNS root zone > > file to a global polity" is achieved, the need to > > change/globalize/internationalize ICANN (the organization) becomes a > > relatively minor issue, n'est pas? > > My perspective on this is that the "removal of the source of authority > from a single national government and the linkage of its authority over > the DNS root zone file to a global polity" is IMO primarily of > symbolic importance, as we have discussed in depth some time ago that > the degree of real-world power that the executive branch of the US > government has in the current arrangement is rather limited if it is of > any significance at all. > > I think that the aspect of jurisdiction is much more important and also > much more difficult. > > Fadi said in Bali that ICANN could be made subject to multiple > jurisdictions simultaneously. > > I absolutely don't see how that could possibly work, but maybe someone > can enlighten me. > > 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Dec 1 17:14:09 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 03:14:09 +0500 Subject: [governance] Coordinator elections In-Reply-To: <20131130134112.13e9976b@quill> References: <20131130134112.13e9976b@quill> Message-ID: <5757114F-ECBB-4A33-BC00-065DCBEA17FD@gmail.com> Shouldn't there be a call for two coordinator positions now? If that is the case can we have another announcement put out? I think we should have the date for nominations extended for another week. People might want to consider on the present circumstances. Best Regards Fouad Bajwa Sent from my mobile device On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Dear all > > In response to my recent posting in which I mentioned a Dec 1 > deadline in relation to the coordinator elections, I've been asked > off-list whether that had been formally announced. > > Since it's a general rule of thumb that when one person explicitly > asks, probably several others were wondering the same thing, here's > a copy pf the posting in question... > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > --snip----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 01:23:30 +1300 > Message-ID: > > From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > Subject: [governance] Calls for Nominations for IGC Coordinator > [2014-2016] > > > Dear Colleagues, > > Further to the *June 6, 2013* notice for calls for coordinator, we are > happy to announce that we will close the calls for nominations on > December 1, 2013. > > For several years now each time there has been a coordinator elections, > there has often been dissatisfaction with the candidates or selection of > candidates. We would like to change the pattern this year and this was > why we gave the community ample opportunity to start thinking about > candidates. This year, we started making early calls to start thinking > about nominating someone or standing for the elections for the > 2014-2016 term. > > We would like to invite you to consider standing by either nominating > yourself or if you think someone would be great for the task, please > liaise with them and nominate them on the list. > > *The call for nominations on December, 1, 2013 *to allow for elections. > having served in this position for what will soon be two years, I > thought I should add some reflections that may help those who are > thinking of standing or to encourage people to stand. > > *Reflections * > The responsibilities of a co-coordinator is to assist in the > facilitation of discussions, encouraging diverse views to be heard, and > encouraging members to initiate initiatives within the ambit of the > Charter and providing a platform for advocacy. The role and > responsibilities will be an opportunity to manage diverse and sometimes > antagonistic views. It requires strength, courage and emotional > intelligence to manage the responsibilities. For me personally, it has > been an incredible opportunity learning about dealing with diverse > voices and I can say that I have learnt the discipline of restraint > where at times I have had to hold back my view because facilitators > have to have some form of neutrality and act in the best interests of > the IGC community. > > Whoever gets elected, you can rest assured that you can count on the > assistance of former coordinators when from time to time things needs > to be clarified or you would like to draw from the counsel of the > majority before deliberating on decisions. It is also an exciting time > for Internet Governance. > > The co-coordinator will be immersed in intense preparation with the IGC > community as it prepares for things to commit to next year, generally > with the IGC, Rio Meeting and other foras. > > *Current Nominations Received* > > 1. Deirdre Williams > 2. x > 3. x > > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Sun Dec 1 17:25:29 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 22:25:29 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC In-Reply-To: References: <054001ceed39$1ce87c00$56b97400$@gmail.com> <0F52BC21-747B-456D-9B3A-D1F5BD8778F3@hserus.net> <4EEDB265-C354-4DFC-82FF-D8ACD590C0D7@apnic.net> <529AF58D.4080205@ITforChange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574449@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25744DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25746CA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> ________________________________ In your view, what would be the domains or the thematic areas suitable for that? In addition, would there be a space for governmental frameworks that do not only aim to "organize" the scenario, but also to provide substantive guidelines, or general principles on the public interest? My question would be if governments would still be able to occasionally intervene when problems arise, such as deviation from public interest, monopolies, unjustifiable asymmetries, etc Monopolies? Are there no antitrust laws in your jurisdiction that can be applied? Can they not be applied regardless of whether it is an internet company, a bicycle producer or a farm supply company? Are there no consumer protection laws? This is something I do not understand about much of the IG dialogue, esp in GAC. Governments have the crazy idea that they must load up domain name-specific rules and regulations to achieve goals that are already quite achievable via existing laws. They literally seem to think that they can regulate the health sector by passing rules governing the domain name .HEALTH. As for "deviation from the public interest," that is exactly the kind of vague, ex post policy direction that we don't want national governments to invoke in global Internet governance. First, because it is not a well-defined rule or prescription but just a feeling (usually a product of political lobbying) that the outcome of a process doesn't satisfy some organized interest group. Second, because national governments cannot speak for the global public interest, only (at best) their own national interest, and since there are 192 of these national interests, any public interest standard driven by governments is likely to produce chaos. Every governmental agency or department? What about the coherence that governments must strive to pursuit? Ideally, the "best position" comes after counterposing different positions of different Ministers. In your proposal, we would disregard the important of this internal dialogue. So then? Internal Ministers would do foreign policy? What if gov end up moving completely different agendas in different bodies, depending on which department is participating? How to ensure a stable regime? Your discussion above assumes that the relevant dialogue only occurs _within_ a national government, with the _national_ interest being the main criterion. The whole point of MS and of transnational internet is to push the dialogue into a global context and achieve agreement on the best position for everyone. Again, your thinking seems to be so state-centric that you elevate the national interest to the top and forget about the rest of us. If we are talking about governance of the global Internet why shouldn't a Brazilian Minister of Communications have to argue with an Asian LEA or a European and American ISP as well as the Brazilian foreign ministry in coming up with his/her position? Assuming that an agreement can be reached, this kind of dialogue _improves_ stability over the purely national, internal-government dialogue.It will be very easy for the Brazilians, or the Americans, to agree among themselves and argue a position against each other that may be incompatible; but if they have to do it together, with both sides seeing the variation in their country's position, the final outcome will command more consensus worldwide. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sun Dec 1 17:32:34 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 22:32:34 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC In-Reply-To: References: <054001ceed39$1ce87c00$56b97400$@gmail.com> <0F52BC21-747B-456D-9B3A-D1F5BD8778F3@hserus.net> <4EEDB265-C354-4DFC-82FF-D8ACD590C0D7@apnic.net> <529AF58D.4080205@ITforChange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574449@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25744DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25744FF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25746DC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> I have direct experience in ARIN of individuals affiliated with government _agencies_ making a policy proposal and participating as peers in the process. I have also seen specific agencies of national govts contract with experts to represent their positions in bottom up processes. Mostly, that's ok with me. But this is the "disaggregated" model I referred to. There is no system of representation of "government" in ARIN, or RIPE, afaik. I think it is dangerous to speak of "government" as a stakeholder, if by government one means things like "Australia" or "the United States of America" or "China." I would not want to see any RIR's representational or participatory structure modified to incorporate representation of a government qua government - as I said, such a system is fundamentally incompatible with bottom up MSM. --MM ________________________________ From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 3:37 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller Cc: Andrea Glorioso Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: I might add one other thing. When Paul Wilson and other representatives of I* governance organizations happily concede that 'governments are stakeholders too' I believe that what they are doing is proposing a political bargain, not a coherent mode of governance. or perhaps simply describing reality as they experience it? As a member of the ARIN AC, you have first hand experience with Government types being active in RIR policy formation. IS this not a "coherent form' of IG? In other words, they are trying to reach an accommodation with nation-states that will preserve key elements of the status quo by reassuring state actors that they will not be left out of or excluded from the system. By calling states-as-unitary-actors "stakeholders" who must be specially accommodated through contradictory and dysfunctional arrangements like the GAC, they are literally compromising what we know about how MS governance works in order to buy greater political support for the new institutions from the old institutions. I agree that "separate and unequal" a la GAC, is suboptimal -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Dec 1 17:35:50 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 11:35:50 +1300 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by Paul Wilson of APNIC In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25746DC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <054001ceed39$1ce87c00$56b97400$@gmail.com> <0F52BC21-747B-456D-9B3A-D1F5BD8778F3@hserus.net> <4EEDB265-C354-4DFC-82FF-D8ACD590C0D7@apnic.net> <529AF58D.4080205@ITforChange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574449@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25744DA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25744FF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25746DC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I have direct experience in ARIN of individuals affiliated with > government _agencies_ making a policy proposal and participating as peers > in the process. I have also seen specific agencies of national govts > contract with experts to represent their positions in bottom up processes. > > Mostly, that's ok with me. > > But this is the "disaggregated" model I referred to. There is no system > of representation of "government" in ARIN, or RIPE, afaik. I think it is > dangerous to speak of "government" as a stakeholder, if by government one > means things like "Australia" or "the United States of America" or "China." > I would not want to see any RIR's representational or participatory > structure modified to incorporate representation of a government qua > government - as I said, such a system is fundamentally incompatible with > bottom up MSM. > > --MM > > [Sala: +1 MM] > ------------------------------ > *From:* McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, December 01, 2013 3:37 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller > *Cc:* Andrea Glorioso > *Subject:* Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] What is 1Net? Blog post by > Paul Wilson of APNIC > > > > > On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> I might add one other thing. >> >> When Paul Wilson and other representatives of I* governance organizations >> happily concede that 'governments are stakeholders too' I believe that what >> they are doing is proposing a political bargain, not a coherent mode of >> governance. >> > > or perhaps simply describing reality as they experience it? > > As a member of the ARIN AC, you have first hand experience with > Government types being active in RIR policy formation. IS this not a > "coherent form' of IG? > > > > >> >> In other words, they are trying to reach an accommodation with >> nation-states that will preserve key elements of the status quo by >> reassuring state actors that they will not be left out of or excluded from >> the system. By calling states-as-unitary-actors "stakeholders" who must be >> specially accommodated through contradictory and dysfunctional arrangements >> like the GAC, they are literally compromising what we know about how MS >> governance works in order to buy greater political support for the new >> institutions from the old institutions. >> > > I agree that "separate and unequal" a la GAC, is suboptimal > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ecology2001 at gmail.com Sun Dec 1 18:21:44 2013 From: ecology2001 at gmail.com (Robert Pollard) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 18:21:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: Broadband Manifesto In-Reply-To: <052701ceeedb$d73471b0$859d5510$@gmail.com> References: <8CBC2521-BEEB-45C5-A8DE-B0248CCC272C@1st-mile.org> <033801ceeb99$2f08e9c0$8d1abd40$@gmail.com> <052701ceeedb$d73471b0$859d5510$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Corrected url for Press Release http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.aspx Robert On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 4:25 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is > necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look at > this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be done > with no attention being given to how it might actually be accomplished on > the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements and > failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. > > > > M > > > > http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp > > > > Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become critical > to driving growth, delivering social services, improving environmental > management, and transforming people’s lives, according to a new Manifesto > released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and signed by > 48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from > industry, civil society and the United Nations. “Overcoming the digital > divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness and > justice; connecting the world makes sound commercial sense,” the Manifesto > reads. “The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the core of > any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all > countries – developed and developing alike – are empowered to participate > in the global digital economy.” > > > > Supporting Document > > > > > http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce-report.pdf > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at consensus.pro Sun Dec 1 19:04:42 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 05:49:42 +0545 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto In-Reply-To: <052701ceeedb$d73471b0$859d5510$@gmail.com> References: <8CBC2521-BEEB-45C5-A8DE-B0248CCC272C@1st-mile.org> <033801ceeb99$2f08e9c0$8d1abd40$@gmail.com> <052701ceeedb$d73471b0$859d5510$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3644866f-2f33-488f-ab5c-4275d34327d8@email.android.com> The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I believe strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, because the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level action plans, drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared like-for-like as to results internationally so countries can learn from what works in other countries. The irony is that this model is how "Agenda 21" the climate change process from the first Rio conference works; sadly WSIS didn't pick this up despite it postdating Rio by more than a decade. In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not going to be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where INGOs (however well-meaning) compare notes and report cards - it will be met at the grassroots level, with buyin from that level. michael gurstein wrote: >Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is >necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look >at >this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be >done >with no attention being given to how it might actually be accomplished >on >the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements and >failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. > > > >M > > > >http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp > > > >Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become >critical to >driving growth, delivering social services, improving environmental >management, and transforming people's lives, according to a new >Manifesto >released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and signed >by >48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from >industry, civil society and the United Nations. "Overcoming the digital >divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness and >justice; connecting the world makes sound commercial sense," the >Manifesto >reads. "The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the >core of >any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all >countries - developed and developing alike - are empowered to >participate in >the global digital economy." > > > >Supporting Document > > > >http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce- >report.pdf > > -- Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sun Dec 1 19:31:23 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 01:31:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <52995529.4090403@cavebear.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25740E6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52996EE7.5020506@itforchange.net> <5299CB40.5040905@cafonso.ca> <20131130124309.086175a8@quill> Message-ID: <20131202013123.1c1f64cf@quill> Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > It would be useful to have the exact reference to Fadi's comment in > order to provide a precise legal analysis. Alas it was said in a meeting which was neither transcribed nor recorded (a side meeting of Fadi with civil society representatives). Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Dec 1 19:36:05 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 16:36:05 -0800 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto In-Reply-To: <3644866f-2f33-488f-ab5c-4275d34327d8@email.android.com> References: <8CBC2521-BEEB-45C5-A8DE-B0248CCC272C@1st-mile.org> <033801ceeb99$2f08e9c0$8d1abd40$@gmail.com> <052701ceeedb$d73471b0$859d5510$@gmail.com> <3644866f-2f33-488f-ab5c-4275d34327d8@email.android.com> Message-ID: <05ec01ceeef6$878f3d00$96adb700$@gmail.com> +1 M From: nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 PM To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I believe strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, because the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level action plans, drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared like-for-like as to results internationally so countries can learn from what works in other countries. The irony is that this model is how "Agenda 21" the climate change process from the first Rio conference works; sadly WSIS didn't pick this up despite it postdating Rio by more than a decade. In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not going to be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where INGOs (however well-meaning) compare notes and report cards - it will be met at the grassroots level, with buyin from that level. michael gurstein wrote: Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look at this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be done with no attention being given to how it might actually be accomplished on the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements and failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. M http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become critical to driving growth, delivering social services, improving environmental management, and transforming people’s lives, according to a new Manifesto released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and signed by 48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from industry, civil society and the United Nations. “Overcoming the digital divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness and justice; connecting the world makes soun d commercial sense,” the Manifesto reads. “The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the core of any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all countries – developed and developing alike – are empowered to participate in the global digital economy.” Supporting Document http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce-report.pdf -- Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sun Dec 1 20:22:07 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 10:22:07 +0900 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <52995529.4090403@cavebear.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25740E6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52996EE7.5020506@itforchange.net> <5299CB40.5040905@cafonso.ca> <20131130124309.086175a8@quill> Message-ID: Hi Jovan, I think the first mention was during APrIGF , saying "legal structure" to describe the geneva "engagement office" (having Tarek Kamel there. who is "advisor on governmental engagement") which opened the door to many interpretations about the purpose and the meaning http://domainincite.com/14390-no-icann-isnt-moving-to-switzerland we can add to those offices (Montevideo for example) the new hubs in Singapore and Istanbul Best, Rafik 2013/12/2 Jovan Kurbalija > Hi Norbert, > > It would be useful to have the exact reference to Fadi's comment in order > to provide a precise legal analysis. Multiple jurisdictions would lead > towards conflict of laws (regulated by international private law). The > Law of the Sea has many examples of concurrent, parallel, and overlapping > jurisdictions due to the complex interplay of three core jurisdiction > elements: territoriality (coastal state, territorial sea), nationality > (flag State jurisdiction), and universality (e.g. against piracy). > > > > So far, one of the broadest lists of concurrent jurisdictions is in > article 109 of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (1982): > > > > ‘Any person engaged in unauthorized broadcasting may be prosecuted before > the court of: > > (a) the flag State of the ship; > > (b) the State of registry of the installation; > > (c) the State of which the person is a national; > > (d) any State where the transmissions can be received; or > > (e) any State where authorized radio communication is suffering > interference.’ > > > > BTW: I usually send this article to enthusiasts about extending the Law of > the Sea to the Internet based on a rather simplistic analogy between the > high sea and the Internet (beyond jurisdiction). The Law of the Sea is not > very sympathetic to ‘unauthorised broadcasting’ and free flow of > information. > > > > Back to the question of multiple jurisdiction… > > > > While one can think on various solutions with multiple jurisdictions, it > is not clear how various jurisdictions can be exercised ‘simultaneously’. > It would be in breach of the general legal principle ‘ne bis in idem’ > (nobody should be prosecuted twice for the same offense). > > > > This is just a quick reflection. If you can provide more precise > questions, it could help in deepening the discussion on IG, jurisdiction, > and ICANN. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Jovan > > > > > On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >> > I risk to be bitten by (no, not monkeys, Milton) scorpions here, but >> > if "removal of the source of authority from a single national >> > government and the linkage of its authority over the DNS root zone >> > file to a global polity" is achieved, the need to >> > change/globalize/internationalize ICANN (the organization) becomes a >> > relatively minor issue, n'est pas? >> >> My perspective on this is that the "removal of the source of authority >> from a single national government and the linkage of its authority over >> the DNS root zone file to a global polity" is IMO primarily of >> symbolic importance, as we have discussed in depth some time ago that >> the degree of real-world power that the executive branch of the US >> government has in the current arrangement is rather limited if it is of >> any significance at all. >> >> I think that the aspect of jurisdiction is much more important and also >> much more difficult. >> >> Fadi said in Bali that ICANN could be made subject to multiple >> jurisdictions simultaneously. >> >> I absolutely don't see how that could possibly work, but maybe someone >> can enlighten me. >> >> >> 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 suresh at hserus.net Sun Dec 1 20:45:36 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 07:15:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto Message-ID: Fully agree --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Nick Ashton-Hart" To: "michael gurstein" , , "bestbits" Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto Date: Mon, Dec 2, 2013 5:34 AM The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I believe strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, because the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level action plans, drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared like-for-like as to results internationally so countries can learn from what works in other countries. The irony is that this model is how "Agenda 21" the climate change process from the first Rio conference works; sadly WSIS didn't pick this up despite it postdating Rio by more than a decade. In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not going to be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where INGOs (however well-meaning) compare notes and report cards - it will be met at the grassroots level, with buyin from that level. michael gurstein wrote: >Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is >necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look >at >this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be >done >with no attention being given to how it might actually be accomplished >on >the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements and >failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. > > > >M > > > >http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp > > > >Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become >critical to >driving growth, delivering social services, improving environmental >management, and transforming people's lives, according to a new >Manifesto >released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and signed >by >48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from >industry, civil society and the United Nations. "Overcoming the digital >divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness and >justice; connecting the world makes sound commercial sense," the >Manifesto >reads. "The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the >core of >any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all >countries - developed and developing alike - are empowered to >participate in >the global digital economy." > > > >Supporting Document > > > >http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce- >report.pdf > > -- Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Dec 2 00:35:39 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 05:35:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <52995529.4090403@cavebear.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25740E6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52996EE7.5020506@itforchange.net> <5299CB40.5040905@cafonso.ca> <20131130124309.086175a8@quill>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BA3E4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, Belatedly joining the discussion again. First, agreeing with Milton we need to be precise about which -level of analysis - and which - laws - we are talking about. As Karl points out, again, California non-profit law is not bad; he only wishes ICANN would follow it more closely : ) Second, disagreeing with Jovan, on how an 'organization' can be subject to many, and conflicting, laws simultaneously. For example, any business or non-profit entity must adhere to the laws of every nation it operates in, even when those laws conflict; and in US context, every state, county and city, in which it operates. Naturally, a 'conflict of laws' can arise readily, and among other things, impede business. Hence the EU. And international commercial lawyers bread and butter. In our present discussion of ICANN, of course ICANN-Singapore, and its staff, are subject to all laws and regulations of Singapore; likewise ICANN-Turkey. The question then arises, whether mothership ICANN from California and its 501-C-3 status trump Turkish and Singaporean law, in all relevant cases? By contract it can, by legal jurisdiction, it is not so straightforward. As no doubt clever lawyers are studying right now. But in any case, as McTim points out, this mainly gets down to choice of the fine print of non-profit administrative procedures which are not terribly interesting or significant, in most cases. Third, more significant is first, ending the IANA function oversight role of USG, which is completely orthoganal to everything above. For example, ICANN could be reincorporated and operate solely under Turkish non-profit law, while leaving USG in charge of IANA oversight. Which as McTim notes, also hardly matters in practice these days, with GAC exhibiting more willingness to veto entries into the root zone file than USG (ok cough cough, there are notable exceptions XXX. Nonetheless, it does matter, and sooner or later will be internationalized I expect.) Fourth, while Parminder may be correct to note that we are all more of less in agreement that the baby has grown up and the residual role of NTIA as guarantor of good - administrative procedures - in handling changes to the root zone file, what we don't have is a plan. Milton's suggestion of an INGO has been bandied about before; we cannot expect NTIA to walk away from the table until CS and other - multistakeholders - have a coherent plan and proposal on the table for what would come next. More than that, the alternative would have to be essentially up and running, or no way would the the USG, - or businesses anywhere in all honesty - want NTIA to walk away from the table. It's trivial but important at same time. Summarizing, we might wish to prioritize which objectives are of primary importance and require international action, and which ICANN and IGF can further evolve towards more or less readily with existing momentum. ICANN has chosen to subject itself in part to Turkish and Singaporean law; is that international enough? Perhaps not. Going INGO however will as noted require much more analysis and debate - and note an INGO could -still - have its staff whether in US. Turkey, Singapore, wherever - subject to various national ngo/non-profit laws. UNLESS we wanted Fadi to have Sepp Blatter-like powers, in which national governments have to kiss...his ring. Is that the plan? Anyway, no doubt most of you are aware of what I have reviewed here already, but now that we are getting into the muck and details, I thought it perhaps helpful to remind us of prior discussions and conclusions. Ideally, we could have a half-way sensible plan/process to address some of these elements cooked in coming months, whose blessing would be the crowning achievement of the Brazil photo op, as I call the Brazil meeting for short, to avoid the now-dreaded multistakeholder word. ; ). Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Jovan Kurbalija [jovank at diplomacy.edu] Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:53 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance Hi Norbert, It would be useful to have the exact reference to Fadi's comment in order to provide a precise legal analysis. Multiple jurisdictions would lead towards conflict of laws (regulated by international private law). The Law of the Sea has many examples of concurrent, parallel, and overlapping jurisdictions due to the complex interplay of three core jurisdiction elements: territoriality (coastal state, territorial sea), nationality (flag State jurisdiction), and universality (e.g. against piracy). So far, one of the broadest lists of concurrent jurisdictions is in article 109 of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (1982): ‘Any person engaged in unauthorized broadcasting may be prosecuted before the court of: (a) the flag State of the ship; (b) the State of registry of the installation; (c) the State of which the person is a national; (d) any State where the transmissions can be received; or (e) any State where authorized radio communication is suffering interference.’ BTW: I usually send this article to enthusiasts about extending the Law of the Sea to the Internet based on a rather simplistic analogy between the high sea and the Internet (beyond jurisdiction). The Law of the Sea is not very sympathetic to ‘unauthorised broadcasting’ and free flow of information. Back to the question of multiple jurisdiction… While one can think on various solutions with multiple jurisdictions, it is not clear how various jurisdictions can be exercised ‘simultaneously’. It would be in breach of the general legal principle ‘ne bis in idem’ (nobody should be prosecuted twice for the same offense). This is just a quick reflection. If you can provide more precise questions, it could help in deepening the discussion on IG, jurisdiction, and ICANN. Best regards, Jovan On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Norbert Bollow > wrote: Carlos A. Afonso > wrote: > I risk to be bitten by (no, not monkeys, Milton) scorpions here, but > if "removal of the source of authority from a single national > government and the linkage of its authority over the DNS root zone > file to a global polity" is achieved, the need to > change/globalize/internationalize ICANN (the organization) becomes a > relatively minor issue, n'est pas? My perspective on this is that the "removal of the source of authority from a single national government and the linkage of its authority over the DNS root zone file to a global polity" is IMO primarily of symbolic importance, as we have discussed in depth some time ago that the degree of real-world power that the executive branch of the US government has in the current arrangement is rather limited if it is of any significance at all. I think that the aspect of jurisdiction is much more important and also much more difficult. Fadi said in Bali that ICANN could be made subject to multiple jurisdictions simultaneously. I absolutely don't see how that could possibly work, but maybe someone can enlighten me. 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 drc at virtualized.org Mon Dec 2 00:54:23 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 21:54:23 -0800 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: McTim, On Nov 30, 2013, at 6:29 AM, McTim wrote: > I was referring to those ICANN processes that are still immune from GAC/Board/Staff interference. Namely the ASO, but perhaps the ccNSO, but I can't testify to that area. Neither the ASO nor the the ccNSO are 'immune" from "interference". In the case of the ASO, the ICANN Board of Trustees has a duty to abide by ICANN's Bylaws. Item 1.b. of the ICANN Bylaws states that ICANN 'coordinates the allocation and assignment of ... Internet Protocol ("IP") addresses and autonomous system ("AS") numbers ...". Far from being immune, in the past, the ICANN Board has investigated particulars of policies the ASO has put forward in order to understand the rationale/implications (I know this from personal experience: while I was manager of IANA, I was tasked to provide input to help the board understand a global addressing policy proposal). While, to date, ICANN's Board has seen fit to approve every policy put forth by the ASO, it can be argued that this is the case because the few policies the ASO has put forward have abided by the overarching mission ICANN has been chartered to undertake. As for the ccNSO, it has not (to my knowledge but will admit I'm a bit dazed by antihistamines due to a cold) put forth any policy proposal, however the board has (at least in the past) reviewed each and every redelegation request to ensure it meets the requirements specified in ICP-1/RFC 1591 and has, in fact, refused to move redelegations forward, requiring IANA staff to provide further rational/justification (in the cases I'm familiar with, requiring additional information with regards to "local Internet community support" for the redelegation). In both cases, the ICANN board has (at least to my knowledge) taken advantage of _advice_ provided to it by the GAC and _input_ it has requested from staff to make its decisions. As far as I am aware, neither of those inputs are definitive -- the board makes its decisions and (now) documents its rationale for those decisions based on its own processes. In the case of decisions that have direct/immediate impact on the operations of the Internet, there is are additional processes and other validation steps that are imposed (specifically in the case of changes to the root zone, NTIA authorizes changes and Verisign provides technical checks, many of which duplicate what IANA staff perform prior to the delegation request even hitting the board). My understanding (which may be wrong) of the reason for the board being involved in these sorts of policy decisions is to ensure there is broader input than just the singular community of interest requesting the change. That is, if you assume that changes to the Internet's system of unique identifiers has impact beyond a single community, it is important that those changes be understood from more than simply a single community's viewpoint. This would be true both of the addressing aspect of the Internet's system of unique identifiers as well as the ccTLDs. 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 Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Mon Dec 2 01:01:38 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 01:01:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] Coordinator elections In-Reply-To: <5757114F-ECBB-4A33-BC00-065DCBEA17FD@gmail.com> References: <20131130134112.13e9976b@quill> <5757114F-ECBB-4A33-BC00-065DCBEA17FD@gmail.com> Message-ID: Ian had a good proposal, to extend the call by one week, say upto 8th December, then use the results of the elections where number one will serve two terms, and number two one term to preserve the odd/even year rotation and continuity of coordinators. Probably Salanieta and Norbert can clarify, and if possible issue a fresh call for nominations. Regards On 01/12/2013, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Shouldn't there be a call for two coordinator positions now? If that is the > case can we have another announcement put out? I think we should have the > date for nominations extended for another week. People might want to > consider on the present circumstances. > > Best Regards > Fouad Bajwa > > Sent from my mobile device > > On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> In response to my recent posting in which I mentioned a Dec 1 >> deadline in relation to the coordinator elections, I've been asked >> off-list whether that had been formally announced. >> >> Since it's a general rule of thumb that when one person explicitly >> asks, probably several others were wondering the same thing, here's >> a copy pf the posting in question... >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> --snip----------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 01:23:30 +1300 >> Message-ID: >> >> From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >> >> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >> Subject: [governance] Calls for Nominations for IGC Coordinator >> [2014-2016] >> >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> Further to the *June 6, 2013* notice for calls for coordinator, we are >> happy to announce that we will close the calls for nominations on >> December 1, 2013. >> >> For several years now each time there has been a coordinator elections, >> there has often been dissatisfaction with the candidates or selection of >> candidates. We would like to change the pattern this year and this was >> why we gave the community ample opportunity to start thinking about >> candidates. This year, we started making early calls to start thinking >> about nominating someone or standing for the elections for the >> 2014-2016 term. >> >> We would like to invite you to consider standing by either nominating >> yourself or if you think someone would be great for the task, please >> liaise with them and nominate them on the list. >> >> *The call for nominations on December, 1, 2013 *to allow for elections. >> having served in this position for what will soon be two years, I >> thought I should add some reflections that may help those who are >> thinking of standing or to encourage people to stand. >> >> *Reflections * >> The responsibilities of a co-coordinator is to assist in the >> facilitation of discussions, encouraging diverse views to be heard, and >> encouraging members to initiate initiatives within the ambit of the >> Charter and providing a platform for advocacy. The role and >> responsibilities will be an opportunity to manage diverse and sometimes >> antagonistic views. It requires strength, courage and emotional >> intelligence to manage the responsibilities. For me personally, it has >> been an incredible opportunity learning about dealing with diverse >> voices and I can say that I have learnt the discipline of restraint >> where at times I have had to hold back my view because facilitators >> have to have some form of neutrality and act in the best interests of >> the IGC community. >> >> Whoever gets elected, you can rest assured that you can count on the >> assistance of former coordinators when from time to time things needs >> to be clarified or you would like to draw from the counsel of the >> majority before deliberating on decisions. It is also an exciting time >> for Internet Governance. >> >> The co-coordinator will be immersed in intense preparation with the IGC >> community as it prepares for things to commit to next year, generally >> with the IGC, Rio Meeting and other foras. >> >> *Current Nominations Received* >> >> 1. Deirdre Williams >> 2. x >> 3. x >> >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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, Nairobi, Kenya 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 Guru at ITforChange.net Mon Dec 2 01:40:06 2013 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 12:10:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BA3E4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <52995529.4090403@cavebear.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25740E6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52996EE7.5020506@itforchange.net> <5299CB40.5040905@cafonso.ca> <20131130124309.086175a8@quill>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BA3E4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <529C2B46.9040000@ITforChange.net> On 12/02/2013 11:05 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > Belatedly joining the discussion again. > > First, agreeing with Milton we need to be precise about which -level > of analysis - and which - laws - we are talking about. As Karl points > out, again, California non-profit law is not bad; he only wishes ICANN > would follow it more closely : ) > Whether good or bad, Californian law is CALIFORNIAN law. When I have no role in making that law, why should I follow it (a very basic political principle). (Dear Lee, If I had not met/interacted with you, I would have thought you were a neo-colonialist:-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism) for developing countries, resisting digital colonialism is an important imperative, something global civil society could/should be sensitive to. regards, Guru -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Dec 2 01:48:36 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 12:18:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <529C2B46.9040000@ITforChange.net> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <52995529.4090403@cavebear.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25740E6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52996EE7.5020506@itforchange.net> <5299CB40.5040905@cafonso.ca> <20131130124309.086175a8@quill> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BA3E4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <529C2B46.9040000@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: Guru - I am afraid this is a case of "listening to the Ramayana epic all night and then asking how sita is related to Rama" [or to pick a wider known analogy outside india, read the bible all night long and then ask who Jesus' mother was] ICANN is already subject to the jurisdictions of whichever countries it operates in - Turkey and Singapore, right now. The converse doesn't apply here. You are not subject to those laws either, any more than you are subject to California law because ICANN is a California nonprofit. Also, do please resist the impulse to speak "for developing countries". It would be a good idea to represent that as your personal or organizational viewpoint, especially where you may not be able to find consensus for your argument. --srs (iPad) > On 02-Dec-2013, at 12:10, Guru गुरु wrote: > >> On 12/02/2013 11:05 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Belatedly joining the discussion again. >> >> First, agreeing with Milton we need to be precise about which -level of analysis - and which - laws - we are talking about. As Karl points out, again, California non-profit law is not bad; he only wishes ICANN would follow it more closely : ) > > Whether good or bad, Californian law is CALIFORNIAN law. When I have no role in making that law, why should I follow it (a very basic political principle). > > (Dear Lee, > If I had not met/interacted with you, I would have thought you were a neo-colonialist :-) > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism) > > for developing countries, resisting digital colonialism is an important imperative, something global civil society could/should be sensitive to. > > regards, > Guru > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Mon Dec 2 01:49:05 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2013 22:49:05 -0800 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573F76@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529A0E33.50400@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4644BCB3-3D3E-409C-94A4-27AD1BD42F67@virtualized.org> > On Dec 1, 2013, at 5:45 AM, McTim wrote: >> ..... Then the question comes; (a) should the role then be exercised directly and finally by ICANN itself, or (b) another body to undertake this role (and just this role and nothing else) is needed. > Actually the question that must precede the above is: "Does this auth role need to be filled". In other words, can we trust IANA to do their job according to their own processes (which is what NTIA looks at). Personally speaking (as always), I believe that oversight is important. While I have no fears of the current IANA staff running off the rails, it is important to remember that in the past when there was less focus on what IANA did, it did run off the rails. One of the roles I believe NTIA performs is to ensure the mistakes of the past aren't repeated. It is worth noting that in the case of the protocol parameter stuff, this has been taken care of/augmented by the establishment of contractual SLAs between the IETF and ICANN regarding IANA performance (see the IANA section of http://iaoc.ietf.org/contracts.html). >> A lot of people - including i* group - are of the opinion that (a) above is the best option. Some others think that every significant decision pertaining to a crucial global infrastructure should be subject to a second opinion or confirmation, as a normal prudence, by a body different from the executive authority (ICANN Board). > > These "decisions" are mainly minor administtrivia. Changing the IP address of a ccTLDs nameserver for example. In most cases, yes, the decisions are minor administrivia, but I personally believe even administrivia needs to be constrained to mutually agreed service level commitments. It is also worth noting that there is a fraction of cases, namely redelegations, that most decidedly are not administrivia. > When it comes to deciding what can go in the root, that is clearly now the role of the GAC (see GAC Communnique's from Beijing, Durban). Oversimplification. The GAC provides input; they are not the sole determiner of what can go in the root. >> One way would be to have some kind of international oversight board (not necessarily inter-gov) undertaking the same role as undertaken by US-NTIA today. Another way is to allow ICANN to make root changes but all such decisions are post facto reviewed and confirmed by such an international oversight board. ( Whether with a pre facto or post facto role, such an oversight board will exercise its role within clearly set our parameters and rules.) A third way is to only have an appellate board which reviews root change decisions only if an appeal is made to it through a due process. My personal impression has always been that one of the sources of ... irritation was the involvement (however minor) of US Dept. of Commerce, NTIA in decisions that were held to be questions of national sovereignty. Specifically, in the case of modifications to ccTLDs (be they name server changes or full redelegations), my impression was that much of the concern was the imposition of a third party in what some folks felt to be a national internal decision. I'm unclear how moving the role of NTIA (which as far as I could tell was merely making sure ICANN followed documented processes) to an "international oversight board" is going to significantly improve matters for the requesters -- won't that just change who is causing the irritation from the US government to the "international oversight board" (regardless of what that board would be in the process)? (note that I'm ignoring the potential bureaucratic red tape implications of an "international oversight board" -- people already complain that TLD changes going through IANA take too long: it would be interesting to see how a multi-party board would improve that situation) 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 kabani.asif at gmail.com Mon Dec 2 02:45:54 2013 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 12:45:54 +0500 Subject: [governance] Coordinator elections In-Reply-To: References: <20131130134112.13e9976b@quill> <5757114F-ECBB-4A33-BC00-065DCBEA17FD@gmail.com> Message-ID: +1 Ian proposal On Monday, December 2, 2013, Kivuva wrote: > Ian had a good proposal, to extend the call by one week, say upto 8th > December, then use the results of the elections where number one will > serve two terms, and number two one term to preserve the odd/even year > rotation and continuity of coordinators. Probably Salanieta and > Norbert can clarify, and if possible issue a fresh call for > nominations. > > Regards > > On 01/12/2013, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > Shouldn't there be a call for two coordinator positions now? If that is > the > > case can we have another announcement put out? I think we should have the > > date for nominations extended for another week. People might want to > > consider on the present circumstances. > > > > Best Regards > > Fouad Bajwa > > > > Sent from my mobile device > > > > On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > >> Dear all > >> > >> In response to my recent posting in which I mentioned a Dec 1 > >> deadline in relation to the coordinator elections, I've been asked > >> off-list whether that had been formally announced. > >> > >> Since it's a general rule of thumb that when one person explicitly > >> asks, probably several others were wondering the same thing, here's > >> a copy pf the posting in question... > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Norbert > >> > >> > >> --snip----------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 01:23:30 +1300 > >> Message-ID: > >> > >> From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > >> > >> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > >> Subject: [governance] Calls for Nominations for IGC Coordinator > >> [2014-2016] > >> > >> > >> Dear Colleagues, > >> > >> Further to the *June 6, 2013* notice for calls for coordinator, we are > >> happy to announce that we will close the calls for nominations on > >> December 1, 2013. > >> > >> For several years now each time there has been a coordinator elections, > >> there has often been dissatisfaction with the candidates or selection of > >> candidates. We would like to change the pattern this year and this was > >> why we gave the community ample opportunity to start thinking about > >> candidates. This year, we started making early calls to start thinking > >> about nominating someone or standing for the elections for the > >> 2014-2016 term. > >> > >> We would like to invite you to consider standing by either nominating > >> yourself or if you think someone would be great for the task, please > >> liaise with them and nominate them on the list. > >> > >> *The call for nominations on December, 1, 2013 *to allow for elections. > >> having served in this position for what will soon be two years, I > >> thought I should add some reflections that may help those who are > >> thinking of standing or to encourage people to stand. > >> > >> *Reflections * > >> The responsibilities of a co-coordinator is to assist in the > >> facilitation of discussions, encouraging diverse views to be heard, and > >> encouraging members to initiate initiatives within the ambit of the > >> Charter and providing a platform for advocacy. The role and > >> responsibilities will be an opportunity to manage diverse and sometimes > >> antagonistic views. It requires strength, courage and emotional > >> intelligence to manage the responsibilities. For me personally, it has > >> been an incredible opportunity learning about dealing with diverse > >> voices and I can say that I have learnt the discipline of restraint > >> where at times I have had to hold back my view because facilitators > >> have to have some form of neutrality and act in the best interests of > >> the IGC community. > >> > >> Whoever gets elected, you can rest assured that you can count on the > >> assistance of former coordinators when from time to time things needs > >> to be clarified or you would like to draw from the counsel of the > >> majority before deliberating on decisions. It is also an exciting time > >> for Internet Governance.-- > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya > twitter.com/lordmwesh > kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know > > -- 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 nb at bollow.ch Mon Dec 2 03:38:50 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 09:38:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Coordinator elections In-Reply-To: References: <20131130134112.13e9976b@quill> <5757114F-ECBB-4A33-BC00-065DCBEA17FD@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20131202093850.2c4f74be@quill> Kivuva wrote: > Probably Salanieta and Norbert can clarify, and if possible issue a > fresh call for nominations. The only clarification I can offer at this point is that since I no longer have a coordinator hat, such decisions are in Sala's hands alone now. 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Mon Dec 2 03:43:54 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 09:43:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <52995529.4090403@cavebear.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25740E6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52996EE7.5020506@itforchange.net> <5299CB40.5040905@cafonso.ca> <20131130124309.086175a8@quill> Message-ID: Hi Um, I mean this in the nicest possible way, as I like Fadi and support what he’s trying to do e.g. with Brazil, but personally I wouldn’t spend a lot of cycles doing deep deconstructions of his every utterance before he’s gotten around to a second or third iteration in which there’s further specification. He’s an ideas guy with a lot of stuff percolating and a politician who shakes 50 hands and hour and wants each person to go away happy. In consequence, he sometimes says things off the cuff that he’s not anticipated people will go off and try to interpret in order to draw strong immediate conclusions and action plans. As Rafik notes, his comment on internationalization and Geneva was misreported and had to be clarified. His comment about welcoming suggestion of a name for the HLP led to a flurry of CS activity and demands that two people be added. His comments about multi-equal-stakeholderism were I think meant simply to imply a recognition that there needs to be a better balance of influence among players (everyone in ICANN thinks ICANN’s been captured, but nobody agrees by whom). Similarly, the comment about ICANN being subject to multiple jurisdictions probably wasn’t a thought out proposal for a new and more complex legal architecture as much as a comment about having different offices in different places. This tendency has helped to stimulate some ribbing, usually good natured, such as the tweet tag #shitfadisays. So depending on how people like to spend their time, one can either debate back and forth about possible meanings, or you could just shoot him a note and ask what he meant. In general, I’d think the latter might be more efficient. Best, Bill On Dec 2, 2013, at 2:22 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Jovan, > > I think the first mention was during APrIGF , saying "legal structure" to describe the geneva "engagement office" (having Tarek Kamel there. who is "advisor on governmental engagement") which opened the door to many interpretations about the purpose and the meaning http://domainincite.com/14390-no-icann-isnt-moving-to-switzerland > > we can add to those offices (Montevideo for example) the new hubs in Singapore and Istanbul > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2013/12/2 Jovan Kurbalija > Hi Norbert, > > It would be useful to have the exact reference to Fadi's comment in order to provide a precise legal analysis. Multiple jurisdictions would lead towards conflict of laws (regulated by international private law). The Law of the Sea has many examples of concurrent, parallel, and overlapping jurisdictions due to the complex interplay of three core jurisdiction elements: territoriality (coastal state, territorial sea), nationality (flag State jurisdiction), and universality (e.g. against piracy). > > > So far, one of the broadest lists of concurrent jurisdictions is in article 109 of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (1982): > > > ‘Any person engaged in unauthorized broadcasting may be prosecuted before the court of: > (a) the flag State of the ship; > (b) the State of registry of the installation; > (c) the State of which the person is a national; > (d) any State where the transmissions can be received; or > (e) any State where authorized radio communication is suffering interference.’ > > BTW: I usually send this article to enthusiasts about extending the Law of the Sea to the Internet based on a rather simplistic analogy between the high sea and the Internet (beyond jurisdiction). The Law of the Sea is not very sympathetic to ‘unauthorised broadcasting’ and free flow of information. > > > Back to the question of multiple jurisdiction… > > > While one can think on various solutions with multiple jurisdictions, it is not clear how various jurisdictions can be exercised ‘simultaneously’. It would be in breach of the general legal principle ‘ne bis in idem’ (nobody should be prosecuted twice for the same offense). > > > This is just a quick reflection. If you can provide more precise questions, it could help in deepening the discussion on IG, jurisdiction, and ICANN. > > > Best regards, > > > Jovan > > > > > On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > > I risk to be bitten by (no, not monkeys, Milton) scorpions here, but > > if "removal of the source of authority from a single national > > government and the linkage of its authority over the DNS root zone > > file to a global polity" is achieved, the need to > > change/globalize/internationalize ICANN (the organization) becomes a > > relatively minor issue, n'est pas? > > My perspective on this is that the "removal of the source of authority > from a single national government and the linkage of its authority over > the DNS root zone file to a global polity" is IMO primarily of > symbolic importance, as we have discussed in depth some time ago that > the degree of real-world power that the executive branch of the US > government has in the current arrangement is rather limited if it is of > any significance at all. > > I think that the aspect of jurisdiction is much more important and also > much more difficult. > > Fadi said in Bali that ICANN could be made subject to multiple > jurisdictions simultaneously. > > I absolutely don't see how that could possibly work, but maybe someone > can enlighten me. > > > 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 jovank at diplomacy.edu Mon Dec 2 03:49:54 2013 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 09:49:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BA3E4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <52995529.4090403@cavebear.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25740E6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52996EE7.5020506@itforchange.net> <5299CB40.5040905@cafonso.ca> <20131130124309.086175a8@quill> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BA3E4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear Lee, There is no disagreement. There is a difference between incorporation and operations. The Yahoo! case – one of early Internet law cases – illustrated this difference. The case in the French court was not against Yahoo!-France (incorporated under French law), but against Yahoo!-USA based on the effect principle (the possibility that French users can access materials at Yahoo!.com which are prohibited by French law). It is clear that any entity should adhere to the laws of the country where it is INCORPORATED. ICANN-Singapore is a separate legal entity to ICANN-California. Thus whatever it does is subject to Singaporean law. ICANN-California may have indirect legal responsibility as a founding partner. It is a simple situation. A much more complicated situation is when the SAME entity (e.g. ICANN-California) OPERATES in different jurisdictions either intentionally (signing contracts) or unintentionally (creating legal effects by its actions – for example, similar to the Yahoo! case). Here we enter the terrain of potential multiple jurisdiction. Volumes have been written on it in international private law. There is rich jurisprudence. After Rafik's and Norbert's comments it seems that Fadi was referring to legal incorporation in different jurisdictions (opening new legal entities in Turkey and Singapore with specific functions – for example, regional cooperation, training). It is not clear if these new entities will have any legal responsibility over ICANN's core functions. Regards, Jovan On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > Belatedly joining the discussion again. > > First, agreeing with Milton we need to be precise about which -level of > analysis - and which - laws - we are talking about. As Karl points out, > again, California non-profit law is not bad; he only wishes ICANN would > follow it more closely : ) > > Second, disagreeing with Jovan, on how an 'organization' can be subject to > many, and conflicting, laws simultaneously. For example, any business or > non-profit entity must adhere to the laws of every nation it operates in, > even when those laws conflict; and in US context, every state, county and > city, in which it operates. Naturally, a 'conflict of laws' can arise > readily, and among other things, impede business. Hence the EU. And > international commercial lawyers bread and butter. > > In our present discussion of ICANN, of course ICANN-Singapore, and its > staff, are subject to all laws and regulations of Singapore; likewise > ICANN-Turkey. The question then arises, whether mothership ICANN from > California and its 501-C-3 status trump Turkish and Singaporean law, in all > relevant cases? By contract it can, by legal jurisdiction, it is not so > straightforward. As no doubt clever lawyers are studying right now. > > But in any case, as McTim points out, this mainly gets down to choice of > the fine print of non-profit administrative procedures which are not > terribly interesting or significant, in most cases. > > Third, more significant is first, ending the IANA function oversight role > of USG, which is completely orthoganal to everything above. For example, > ICANN could be reincorporated and operate solely under Turkish non-profit > law, while leaving USG in charge of IANA oversight. Which as McTim notes, > also hardly matters in practice these days, with GAC exhibiting more > willingness to veto entries into the root zone file than USG (ok cough > cough, there are notable exceptions XXX. Nonetheless, it does matter, and > sooner or later will be internationalized I expect.) > > Fourth, while Parminder may be correct to note that we are all more of > less in agreement that the baby has grown up and the residual role of NTIA > as guarantor of good - administrative procedures - in handling changes to > the root zone file, what we don't have is a plan. Milton's suggestion of an > INGO has been bandied about before; we cannot expect NTIA to walk away from > the table until CS and other - multistakeholders - have a coherent plan and > proposal on the table for what would come next. More than that, the > alternative would have to be essentially up and running, or no way would > the the USG, - or businesses anywhere in all honesty - want NTIA to walk > away from the table. It's trivial but important at same time. > > Summarizing, we might wish to prioritize which objectives are of primary > importance and require international action, and which ICANN and IGF can > further evolve towards more or less readily with existing momentum. > > ICANN has chosen to subject itself in part to Turkish and Singaporean law; > is that international enough? Perhaps not. Going INGO however will as noted > require much more analysis and debate - and note an INGO could -still - > have its staff whether in US. Turkey, Singapore, wherever - subject to > various national ngo/non-profit laws. > > UNLESS we wanted Fadi to have Sepp Blatter-like powers, in which national > governments have to kiss...his ring. Is that the plan? > > Anyway, no doubt most of you are aware of what I have reviewed here > already, but now that we are getting into the muck and details, I thought > it perhaps helpful to remind us of prior discussions and conclusions. > > Ideally, we could have a half-way sensible plan/process to address some of > these elements cooked in coming months, whose blessing would be the > crowning achievement of the Brazil photo op, as I call the Brazil meeting > for short, to avoid the now-dreaded multistakeholder word. ; ). > > Lee > ------------------------------ > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Jovan Kurbalija [ > jovank at diplomacy.edu] > *Sent:* Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:53 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow > *Subject:* Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for > the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance > > Hi Norbert, > > It would be useful to have the exact reference to Fadi's comment in order > to provide a precise legal analysis. Multiple jurisdictions would lead > towards conflict of laws (regulated by international private law). The > Law of the Sea has many examples of concurrent, parallel, and overlapping > jurisdictions due to the complex interplay of three core jurisdiction > elements: territoriality (coastal state, territorial sea), nationality > (flag State jurisdiction), and universality (e.g. against piracy). > > > > So far, one of the broadest lists of concurrent jurisdictions is in > article 109 of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (1982): > > > > ‘Any person engaged in unauthorized broadcasting may be prosecuted before > the court of: > > (a) the flag State of the ship; > > (b) the State of registry of the installation; > > (c) the State of which the person is a national; > > (d) any State where the transmissions can be received; or > > (e) any State where authorized radio communication is suffering > interference.’ > > > > BTW: I usually send this article to enthusiasts about extending the Law of > the Sea to the Internet based on a rather simplistic analogy between the > high sea and the Internet (beyond jurisdiction). The Law of the Sea is not > very sympathetic to ‘unauthorised broadcasting’ and free flow of > information. > > > > Back to the question of multiple jurisdiction… > > > > While one can think on various solutions with multiple jurisdictions, it > is not clear how various jurisdictions can be exercised ‘simultaneously’. > It would be in breach of the general legal principle ‘ne bis in idem’ > (nobody should be prosecuted twice for the same offense). > > > > This is just a quick reflection. If you can provide more precise > questions, it could help in deepening the discussion on IG, jurisdiction, > and ICANN. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Jovan > > > > > On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >> > I risk to be bitten by (no, not monkeys, Milton) scorpions here, but >> > if "removal of the source of authority from a single national >> > government and the linkage of its authority over the DNS root zone >> > file to a global polity" is achieved, the need to >> > change/globalize/internationalize ICANN (the organization) becomes a >> > relatively minor issue, n'est pas? >> >> My perspective on this is that the "removal of the source of authority >> from a single national government and the linkage of its authority over >> the DNS root zone file to a global polity" is IMO primarily of >> symbolic importance, as we have discussed in depth some time ago that >> the degree of real-world power that the executive branch of the US >> government has in the current arrangement is rather limited if it is of >> any significance at all. >> >> I think that the aspect of jurisdiction is much more important and also >> much more difficult. >> >> Fadi said in Bali that ICANN could be made subject to multiple >> jurisdictions simultaneously. >> >> I absolutely don't see how that could possibly work, but maybe someone >> can enlighten me. >> >> 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 Mon Dec 2 03:56:56 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 14:26:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <52995529.4090403@cavebear.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25740E6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52996EE7.5020506@itforchange.net> <5299CB40.5040905@cafonso.ca> <20131130124309.086175a8@quill> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BA3E4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <0CBD35ED-BA21-4E43-AD07-8EF7472E5C6E@hserus.net> Several national cybercrime / antispam laws apply this "country link" concept - such as, for a spam campaign to attract Australian law, one or more of these has to apply 1. An austalian citizen is spammed or 2. An australian computer / australia hosted server is used to send the spam or 3. Spam sent or commissioned by an australian company #1 or #2 would attract australian law even if the criminal is in, say, the Netherlands. --srs (iPad) > On 02-Dec-2013, at 14:19, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > > Dear Lee, > > > > There is no disagreement. There is a difference between incorporation and operations. The Yahoo! case – one of early Internet law cases – illustrated this difference. The case in the French court was not against Yahoo!-France (incorporated under French law), but against Yahoo!-USA based on the effect principle (the possibility that French users can access materials at Yahoo!.com which are prohibited by French law). > > > > It is clear that any entity should adhere to the laws of the country where it is INCORPORATED. ICANN-Singapore is a separate legal entity to ICANN-California. Thus whatever it does is subject to Singaporean law. ICANN-California may have indirect legal responsibility as a founding partner. It is a simple situation. > > > > A much more complicated situation is when the SAME entity (e.g. ICANN-California) OPERATES in different jurisdictions either intentionally (signing contracts) or unintentionally (creating legal effects by its actions – for example, similar to the Yahoo! case). Here we enter the terrain of potential multiple jurisdiction. Volumes have been written on it in international private law. There is rich jurisprudence. > > > > After Rafik's and Norbert's comments it seems that Fadi was referring to legal incorporation in different jurisdictions (opening new legal entities in Turkey and Singapore with specific functions – for example, regional cooperation, training). It is not clear if these new entities will have any legal responsibility over ICANN's core functions. > > > > Regards, Jovan > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Belatedly joining the discussion again. >> >> First, agreeing with Milton we need to be precise about which -level of analysis - and which - laws - we are talking about. As Karl points out, again, California non-profit law is not bad; he only wishes ICANN would follow it more closely : ) >> >> Second, disagreeing with Jovan, on how an 'organization' can be subject to many, and conflicting, laws simultaneously. For example, any business or non-profit entity must adhere to the laws of every nation it operates in, even when those laws conflict; and in US context, every state, county and city, in which it operates. Naturally, a 'conflict of laws' can arise readily, and among other things, impede business. Hence the EU. And international commercial lawyers bread and butter. >> >> In our present discussion of ICANN, of course ICANN-Singapore, and its staff, are subject to all laws and regulations of Singapore; likewise ICANN-Turkey. The question then arises, whether mothership ICANN from California and its 501-C-3 status trump Turkish and Singaporean law, in all relevant cases? By contract it can, by legal jurisdiction, it is not so straightforward. As no doubt clever lawyers are studying right now. >> >> But in any case, as McTim points out, this mainly gets down to choice of the fine print of non-profit administrative procedures which are not terribly interesting or significant, in most cases. >> >> Third, more significant is first, ending the IANA function oversight role of USG, which is completely orthoganal to everything above. For example, ICANN could be reincorporated and operate solely under Turkish non-profit law, while leaving USG in charge of IANA oversight. Which as McTim notes, also hardly matters in practice these days, with GAC exhibiting more willingness to veto entries into the root zone file than USG (ok cough cough, there are notable exceptions XXX. Nonetheless, it does matter, and sooner or later will be internationalized I expect.) >> >> Fourth, while Parminder may be correct to note that we are all more of less in agreement that the baby has grown up and the residual role of NTIA as guarantor of good - administrative procedures - in handling changes to the root zone file, what we don't have is a plan. Milton's suggestion of an INGO has been bandied about before; we cannot expect NTIA to walk away from the table until CS and other - multistakeholders - have a coherent plan and proposal on the table for what would come next. More than that, the alternative would have to be essentially up and running, or no way would the the USG, - or businesses anywhere in all honesty - want NTIA to walk away from the table. It's trivial but important at same time. >> >> Summarizing, we might wish to prioritize which objectives are of primary importance and require international action, and which ICANN and IGF can further evolve towards more or less readily with existing momentum. >> >> ICANN has chosen to subject itself in part to Turkish and Singaporean law; is that international enough? Perhaps not. Going INGO however will as noted require much more analysis and debate - and note an INGO could -still - have its staff whether in US. Turkey, Singapore, wherever - subject to various national ngo/non-profit laws. >> >> UNLESS we wanted Fadi to have Sepp Blatter-like powers, in which national governments have to kiss...his ring. Is that the plan? >> >> Anyway, no doubt most of you are aware of what I have reviewed here already, but now that we are getting into the muck and details, I thought it perhaps helpful to remind us of prior discussions and conclusions. >> >> Ideally, we could have a half-way sensible plan/process to address some of these elements cooked in coming months, whose blessing would be the crowning achievement of the Brazil photo op, as I call the Brazil meeting for short, to avoid the now-dreaded multistakeholder word. ; ). >> >> Lee >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Jovan Kurbalija [jovank at diplomacy.edu] >> Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:53 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow >> Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance >> >> Hi Norbert, >> >> It would be useful to have the exact reference to Fadi's comment in order to provide a precise legal analysis. Multiple jurisdictions would lead towards conflict of laws (regulated by international private law). The Law of the Sea has many examples of concurrent, parallel, and overlapping jurisdictions due to the complex interplay of three core jurisdiction elements: territoriality (coastal state, territorial sea), nationality (flag State jurisdiction), and universality (e.g. against piracy). >> >> >> >> So far, one of the broadest lists of concurrent jurisdictions is in article 109 of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (1982): >> >> >> >> ‘Any person engaged in unauthorized broadcasting may be prosecuted before the court of: >> (a) the flag State of the ship; >> (b) the State of registry of the installation; >> (c) the State of which the person is a national; >> (d) any State where the transmissions can be received; or >> (e) any State where authorized radio communication is suffering interference.’ >> >> >> BTW: I usually send this article to enthusiasts about extending the Law of the Sea to the Internet based on a rather simplistic analogy between the high sea and the Internet (beyond jurisdiction). The Law of the Sea is not very sympathetic to ‘unauthorised broadcasting’ and free flow of information. >> >> >> >> Back to the question of multiple jurisdiction… >> >> >> >> While one can think on various solutions with multiple jurisdictions, it is not clear how various jurisdictions can be exercised ‘simultaneously’. It would be in breach of the general legal principle ‘ne bis in idem’ (nobody should be prosecuted twice for the same offense). >> >> >> >> This is just a quick reflection. If you can provide more precise questions, it could help in deepening the discussion on IG, jurisdiction, and ICANN. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Jovan >> >> >> >> >>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> >>> > I risk to be bitten by (no, not monkeys, Milton) scorpions here, but >>> > if "removal of the source of authority from a single national >>> > government and the linkage of its authority over the DNS root zone >>> > file to a global polity" is achieved, the need to >>> > change/globalize/internationalize ICANN (the organization) becomes a >>> > relatively minor issue, n'est pas? >>> >>> My perspective on this is that the "removal of the source of authority >>> from a single national government and the linkage of its authority over >>> the DNS root zone file to a global polity" is IMO primarily of >>> symbolic importance, as we have discussed in depth some time ago that >>> the degree of real-world power that the executive branch of the US >>> government has in the current arrangement is rather limited if it is of >>> any significance at all. >>> >>> I think that the aspect of jurisdiction is much more important and also >>> much more difficult. >>> >>> Fadi said in Bali that ICANN could be made subject to multiple >>> jurisdictions simultaneously. >>> >>> I absolutely don't see how that could possibly work, but maybe someone >>> can enlighten me. >>> >>> 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 jovank at diplomacy.edu Mon Dec 2 04:20:15 2013 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 10:20:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <0CBD35ED-BA21-4E43-AD07-8EF7472E5C6E@hserus.net> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <52995529.4090403@cavebear.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25740E6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52996EE7.5020506@itforchange.net> <5299CB40.5040905@cafonso.ca> <20131130124309.086175a8@quill> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BA3E4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <0CBD35ED-BA21-4E43-AD07-8EF7472E5C6E@hserus.net> Message-ID: Thank you Suresh for a good illustration of three main jurisdictional principles: effect of the action(1), territoriality (2) and nationality/legal personality (3). It is not not clear how the option 2 could be related to the other country if the computer/server are located in Australia (botnet for denial of services?). Is there any court case on the option 2 in Australia? Regards, Jovan On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Several national cybercrime / antispam laws apply this "country link" > concept - such as, for a spam campaign to attract Australian law, one or > more of these has to apply > > 1. An austalian citizen is spammed or > 2. An australian computer / australia hosted server is used to send the > spam or > 3. Spam sent or commissioned by an australian company > > #1 or #2 would attract australian law even if the criminal is in, say, the > Netherlands. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 02-Dec-2013, at 14:19, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > > Dear Lee, > > > > There is no disagreement. There is a difference between incorporation and > operations. The Yahoo! case – one of early Internet law cases – illustrated > this difference. The case in the French court was not against Yahoo!-France > (incorporated under French law), but against Yahoo!-USA based on the effect > principle (the possibility that French users can access materials at > Yahoo!.com which are prohibited by French law). > > > > It is clear that any entity should adhere to the laws of the country where > it is INCORPORATED. ICANN-Singapore is a separate legal entity to > ICANN-California. Thus whatever it does is subject to Singaporean law. > ICANN-California may have indirect legal responsibility as a founding > partner. It is a simple situation. > > > > A much more complicated situation is when the SAME entity (e.g. > ICANN-California) OPERATES in different jurisdictions either intentionally > (signing contracts) or unintentionally (creating legal effects by its > actions – for example, similar to the Yahoo! case). Here we enter the > terrain of potential multiple jurisdiction. Volumes have been written on it > in international private law. There is rich jurisprudence. > > > > After Rafik's and Norbert's comments it seems that Fadi was referring to > legal incorporation in different jurisdictions (opening new legal entities > in Turkey and Singapore with specific functions – for example, regional > cooperation, training). It is not clear if these new entities will have any > legal responsibility over ICANN's core functions. > > > > Regards, Jovan > > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Belatedly joining the discussion again. >> >> First, agreeing with Milton we need to be precise about which -level of >> analysis - and which - laws - we are talking about. As Karl points out, >> again, California non-profit law is not bad; he only wishes ICANN would >> follow it more closely : ) >> >> Second, disagreeing with Jovan, on how an 'organization' can be subject >> to many, and conflicting, laws simultaneously. For example, any business or >> non-profit entity must adhere to the laws of every nation it operates in, >> even when those laws conflict; and in US context, every state, county and >> city, in which it operates. Naturally, a 'conflict of laws' can arise >> readily, and among other things, impede business. Hence the EU. And >> international commercial lawyers bread and butter. >> >> In our present discussion of ICANN, of course ICANN-Singapore, and its >> staff, are subject to all laws and regulations of Singapore; likewise >> ICANN-Turkey. The question then arises, whether mothership ICANN from >> California and its 501-C-3 status trump Turkish and Singaporean law, in all >> relevant cases? By contract it can, by legal jurisdiction, it is not so >> straightforward. As no doubt clever lawyers are studying right now. >> >> But in any case, as McTim points out, this mainly gets down to choice of >> the fine print of non-profit administrative procedures which are not >> terribly interesting or significant, in most cases. >> >> Third, more significant is first, ending the IANA function oversight role >> of USG, which is completely orthoganal to everything above. For example, >> ICANN could be reincorporated and operate solely under Turkish non-profit >> law, while leaving USG in charge of IANA oversight. Which as McTim notes, >> also hardly matters in practice these days, with GAC exhibiting more >> willingness to veto entries into the root zone file than USG (ok cough >> cough, there are notable exceptions XXX. Nonetheless, it does matter, and >> sooner or later will be internationalized I expect.) >> >> Fourth, while Parminder may be correct to note that we are all more of >> less in agreement that the baby has grown up and the residual role of NTIA >> as guarantor of good - administrative procedures - in handling changes to >> the root zone file, what we don't have is a plan. Milton's suggestion of an >> INGO has been bandied about before; we cannot expect NTIA to walk away from >> the table until CS and other - multistakeholders - have a coherent plan and >> proposal on the table for what would come next. More than that, the >> alternative would have to be essentially up and running, or no way would >> the the USG, - or businesses anywhere in all honesty - want NTIA to walk >> away from the table. It's trivial but important at same time. >> >> Summarizing, we might wish to prioritize which objectives are of primary >> importance and require international action, and which ICANN and IGF can >> further evolve towards more or less readily with existing momentum. >> >> ICANN has chosen to subject itself in part to Turkish and Singaporean >> law; is that international enough? Perhaps not. Going INGO however will as >> noted require much more analysis and debate - and note an INGO could -still >> - have its staff whether in US. Turkey, Singapore, wherever - subject to >> various national ngo/non-profit laws. >> >> UNLESS we wanted Fadi to have Sepp Blatter-like powers, in which national >> governments have to kiss...his ring. Is that the plan? >> >> Anyway, no doubt most of you are aware of what I have reviewed here >> already, but now that we are getting into the muck and details, I thought >> it perhaps helpful to remind us of prior discussions and conclusions. >> >> Ideally, we could have a half-way sensible plan/process to address some >> of these elements cooked in coming months, whose blessing would be the >> crowning achievement of the Brazil photo op, as I call the Brazil meeting >> for short, to avoid the now-dreaded multistakeholder word. ; ). >> >> Lee >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ >> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Jovan Kurbalija [ >> jovank at diplomacy.edu] >> *Sent:* Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:53 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for >> the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance >> >> Hi Norbert, >> >> It would be useful to have the exact reference to Fadi's comment in order >> to provide a precise legal analysis. Multiple jurisdictions would lead >> towards conflict of laws (regulated by international private law). The >> Law of the Sea has many examples of concurrent, parallel, and overlapping >> jurisdictions due to the complex interplay of three core jurisdiction >> elements: territoriality (coastal state, territorial sea), nationality >> (flag State jurisdiction), and universality (e.g. against piracy). >> >> >> >> So far, one of the broadest lists of concurrent jurisdictions is in >> article 109 of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (1982): >> >> >> >> ‘Any person engaged in unauthorized broadcasting may be prosecuted before >> the court of: >> >> (a) the flag State of the ship; >> >> (b) the State of registry of the installation; >> >> (c) the State of which the person is a national; >> >> (d) any State where the transmissions can be received; or >> >> (e) any State where authorized radio communication is suffering >> interference.’ >> >> >> >> BTW: I usually send this article to enthusiasts about extending the Law >> of the Sea to the Internet based on a rather simplistic analogy between the >> high sea and the Internet (beyond jurisdiction). The Law of the Sea is not >> very sympathetic to ‘unauthorised broadcasting’ and free flow of >> information. >> >> >> >> Back to the question of multiple jurisdiction… >> >> >> >> While one can think on various solutions with multiple jurisdictions, it >> is not clear how various jurisdictions can be exercised ‘simultaneously’. >> It would be in breach of the general legal principle ‘ne bis in idem’ >> (nobody should be prosecuted twice for the same offense). >> >> >> >> This is just a quick reflection. If you can provide more precise >> questions, it could help in deepening the discussion on IG, jurisdiction, >> and ICANN. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Jovan >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> >>> > I risk to be bitten by (no, not monkeys, Milton) scorpions here, but >>> > if "removal of the source of authority from a single national >>> > government and the linkage of its authority over the DNS root zone >>> > file to a global polity" is achieved, the need to >>> > change/globalize/internationalize ICANN (the organization) becomes a >>> > relatively minor issue, n'est pas? >>> >>> My perspective on this is that the "removal of the source of authority >>> from a single national government and the linkage of its authority over >>> the DNS root zone file to a global polity" is IMO primarily of >>> symbolic importance, as we have discussed in depth some time ago that >>> the degree of real-world power that the executive branch of the US >>> government has in the current arrangement is rather limited if it is of >>> any significance at all. >>> >>> I think that the aspect of jurisdiction is much more important and also >>> much more difficult. >>> >>> Fadi said in Bali that ICANN could be made subject to multiple >>> jurisdictions simultaneously. >>> >>> I absolutely don't see how that could possibly work, but maybe someone >>> can enlighten me. >>> >>> 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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Dec 2 04:28:22 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 14:58:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574510@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> ,<52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574510@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <529C52B6.7020204@itforchange.net> On Sunday 01 December 2013 11:45 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Parminder, > 2 questions for you. > > 1. By US laws you mean merely that ICANN is incorporated in California > under its nonprofit corp law? That, but more importantly, the fact that as a US entity it is subject to each and every law of the US.... (The jurisdiction and nature of incorporation does also impact the nature of application of other laws in various domains to any given organisation). Well, I have asked this question here often, but let me ask you directly one more time. You know that .xxx has been challenged in a US court on anti-competitive grounds. The basic merit of the case has been judicially tested and the case has been found prima facie admissible. Obvious it is quite likely that a US court could find ICANN's decision to institute the .xxx domain as violating US competition laws (or some other laws). It would be within the court's competence to strike down ICANN's decision on .xxx. In fact, it can even go further and ask ICANN to review/ change some of its polices and procedures in light of such an judgement, which as a precedence establishes a kind of law... If this is to happen, which is a very plausible scenario, my question to you is, what happens to ICANN's status as a global governance body , .. In fact with the onrush of new gTLDs sooner or later some negative US court rulings on ICANN's decisions are inevitable... Would we begin thinking only after the crisis strikes - which no doubt it will one day - how to insulate ICANN from such interference from the US jurisdiction? Another scenario: With closed generics being now allowed (something you supported enthusiastically), a gTLD space can become just an arm of of a corporation, a part of its private work and networking space... Now, lets say a generic drugs company in India was to start a global online generic drugs operation and use a closed gTLD, say, dot cheap-medicines, for that purpose - just to facilitate its global operations... Lets say that this operation falls foul with the Federal Trade Commission or IP commission or whoever and also US drug companies raise huge stink - and as a consequence, an executive, regulatory or court authority instructs the US Office of Foreign Assets Control to take measures to seize the company's digital assets in the US, the chief among which could be the concerned gTLD. Does ICANN have an option other than to comply? Hundreds of such scenarios can be presented.... > That law does not make ICANN subject to US policy (although the MoU > did, the IANA contract still does to some extent, and the Affirmation > of Commitments also incorporates elements of US policy). It makes it subject to US law. Also any policy can any time be converted into a law. > Are you confusing policy with law? :) > > 2. If ICANN is incorporated under any other nation's laws, including > Switzerland's, is it not also subject to a specific state's laws? We all know there is something called incorporation under international law, and corresponding immunity from domestic jurisdictions... WIPO and WTO can freely take substantive international decisions that may violate Swiss law. They are not subject to Swiss law... And you know it as well.. parminder > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder > [parminder at itforchange.net] > *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 11:56 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives > for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet > Governance > > > On Saturday 30 November 2013 10:19 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> yes Milton it will make it the FIFA of IG world >> >> Rafik > > Rafik, do you in that case agree that ICANN should remain an US > organisation, subject solely to US laws... parminder > >> >> 2013/11/30 Milton L Mueller > >> >> No, no, no, please. That level of specificity is >> counterproductive at this stage. Many people who have studied >> this issue believe that turning ICANN into an INGO is the surest >> way for it to escape what little accountability it currently has. >> Those willing to go along with a general call for reform in >> ICANN’s US-centered oversight need not commit themselves to a >> particular solution at this point, and the language below does that. >> >> Please don’t come up with off the cuff quickie solutions for >> this. It will take more than a scan of Wikipedia to solve. >> >> *From:*michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com >> ] >> *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 7:49 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> ; 'Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google' >> *Cc:* 'Norbert Bollow'; Milton L Mueller >> *Subject:* RE: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and >> Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future >> of Internet Governance >> >> What about >> >> 1)Transitioning ICANN and IANA to an International >> Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) status: The Global Meeting >> should aim at developing a suitable and widely acceptable means >> to achieve the desired transition of ICANN and IANA away from its >> links to the USG and >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_nongovernmental_organization >> >> M >> >> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of >> *Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google >> *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 2:39 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> *Cc:* Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and >> Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future >> of Internet Governance >> >> ICANN (and its President/CEO) have been "encouraged" at several >> opportunities to adjust its "internationalization" >> rhetoric/terminology and thus its resulting INTERNATIONALIZATION >> thrust to one which is significantly more embrasive of the >> objectives of, and indeed, spirit of what GLOBALIZATION in >> theory, intends to achieve. >> >> I believe therefore that Milton's recommendation is timely and >> appropriate ... whether we use the term "Globalization" or a >> perhaps more compromising and less economics/free-market linked >> phrase or term such as "Global Integration", or more radically, >> "Glocalization". >> >> ------ >> Rgds, >> >> Tracy >> >> On Nov 29, 2013 4:52 PM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global >> Journal" > > wrote: >> >> Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, >> >> If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual >> perspective, and in my humble Global Governance >> observer capacity, for the pleasure of the reflection: >> >> *Internationalization*: one wants to have a larger international >> basis: more offices, more representatives, more of a network of >> local branches that, being put together, creates an international >> network. Still each element is mostly comparable to the starting >> point in terms of culture, thinking... Clones spread around the >> world? 'One for all' kind of uniformity. /Meaning many little >> ICANNs all around. / >> >> *Globalization*: this could happen without a network of offices >> around the world. You can observe a very globalized entity >> containing so many different elements, co-exisiting, still >> assembling one strong outlet with a governance of its own, but >> embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than one single >> corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a >> single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the >> many in a global manner of thinking. >> >> /Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind./ >> >> *Transnationalization*: this tends to establish a community of >> people based in various locations, trying to forget about their >> local identity, interest or belonging, with the objective to >> address a more common, regional, transnational, trans-sectorial >> issue. A way to achieve an understanding of global magnitude. >> >> /Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds./ >> >> - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater >> control over the network, and at the end of the day, you can >> pretend to be a global minded outlet. Good communication value. >> >> - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, >> specially if you are not starting from a fully independent >> culture. Very challenging when one starts from a private or >> national basis. >> >> - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts >> trust in the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable >> approach, and ultimately, one that could deliver a true global >> minded system. >> >> Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying >> to explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the >> IG debate. >> >> Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate >> objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged >> from the corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, >> executives would convene 'stakeholders' to the table for >> consultation (trade union, politician...). A pure communication >> tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable definition and >> understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something that >> usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... >> >> All the best, >> >> __________________________ >> >> Jean-Christophe Nothias >> Editor in Chief >> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net >> >> >> @jc_nothias >> >> Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : >> >> Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 >> schrieb Milton L Mueller >: >> >> Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family >> >> holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word >> >> "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we >> live in >> >> a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" >> is not >> >> an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena >> >> >> That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their >> governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has >> certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global >> phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of >> decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is >> happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national >> relations. >> >> On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are >> very >> wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often >> increased >> social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of >> concerns >> that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to >> address. >> >> Maybe yet another term could be used??? >> >> 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 Mon Dec 2 04:34:03 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 15:04:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <52995529.4090403@cavebear.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25740E6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52996EE7.5020506@itforchange.net> <5299CB40.5040905@cafonso.ca> <20131130124309.086175a8@quill> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BA3E4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <0CBD35ED-BA21-4E43-AD07-8EF7472E5C6E@hserus.net> Message-ID: <796CD429-68E3-4319-9437-77C98D276C76@hserus.net> The criminal has to be located in some third country - Australia would seek to apply their laws to him if, for example, as you say, he rented a server in Australia to send spam, or hacked into an Australian server / botted an Australian PC. There is some australian case law about an offshore marketer hired by an australian company to send SMS spam - http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/spam-case-studies#racing And then this australian resident was sanctioned by the FTC, the New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs and the Australian ACMA, for sending spam advertising herbal "enlargement" pills, fake swiss watches etc. http://www.acma.gov.au/theACMA/acma-media-release-1872009-22-december-penalties-awarded-in-email-spam-case http://ftc.gov/os/caselist/0723085/ http://www.dia.govt.nz/press.nsf/d77da9b523f12931cc256ac5000d19b6/fc151f432926dba2cc2574e200723e07 --srs (iPad) > On 02-Dec-2013, at 14:50, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > > Thank you Suresh for a good illustration of three main jurisdictional principles: effect of the action(1), territoriality (2) and nationality/legal personality (3). > > It is not not clear how the option 2 could be related to the other country if the computer/server are located in Australia (botnet for denial of services?). Is there any court case on the option 2 in Australia? > > Regards, Jovan > > > >> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:56 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Several national cybercrime / antispam laws apply this "country link" concept - such as, for a spam campaign to attract Australian law, one or more of these has to apply >> >> 1. An austalian citizen is spammed or >> 2. An australian computer / australia hosted server is used to send the spam or >> 3. Spam sent or commissioned by an australian company >> >> #1 or #2 would attract australian law even if the criminal is in, say, the Netherlands. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >>> On 02-Dec-2013, at 14:19, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: >>> >>> Dear Lee, >>> >>> >>> >>> There is no disagreement. There is a difference between incorporation and operations. The Yahoo! case – one of early Internet law cases – illustrated this difference. The case in the French court was not against Yahoo!-France (incorporated under French law), but against Yahoo!-USA based on the effect principle (the possibility that French users can access materials at Yahoo!.com which are prohibited by French law). >>> >>> >>> >>> It is clear that any entity should adhere to the laws of the country where it is INCORPORATED. ICANN-Singapore is a separate legal entity to ICANN-California. Thus whatever it does is subject to Singaporean law. ICANN-California may have indirect legal responsibility as a founding partner. It is a simple situation. >>> >>> >>> >>> A much more complicated situation is when the SAME entity (e.g. ICANN-California) OPERATES in different jurisdictions either intentionally (signing contracts) or unintentionally (creating legal effects by its actions – for example, similar to the Yahoo! case). Here we enter the terrain of potential multiple jurisdiction. Volumes have been written on it in international private law. There is rich jurisprudence. >>> >>> >>> >>> After Rafik's and Norbert's comments it seems that Fadi was referring to legal incorporation in different jurisdictions (opening new legal entities in Turkey and Singapore with specific functions – for example, regional cooperation, training). It is not clear if these new entities will have any legal responsibility over ICANN's core functions. >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, Jovan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Belatedly joining the discussion again. >>>> >>>> First, agreeing with Milton we need to be precise about which -level of analysis - and which - laws - we are talking about. As Karl points out, again, California non-profit law is not bad; he only wishes ICANN would follow it more closely : ) >>>> >>>> Second, disagreeing with Jovan, on how an 'organization' can be subject to many, and conflicting, laws simultaneously. For example, any business or non-profit entity must adhere to the laws of every nation it operates in, even when those laws conflict; and in US context, every state, county and city, in which it operates. Naturally, a 'conflict of laws' can arise readily, and among other things, impede business. Hence the EU. And international commercial lawyers bread and butter. >>>> >>>> In our present discussion of ICANN, of course ICANN-Singapore, and its staff, are subject to all laws and regulations of Singapore; likewise ICANN-Turkey. The question then arises, whether mothership ICANN from California and its 501-C-3 status trump Turkish and Singaporean law, in all relevant cases? By contract it can, by legal jurisdiction, it is not so straightforward. As no doubt clever lawyers are studying right now. >>>> >>>> But in any case, as McTim points out, this mainly gets down to choice of the fine print of non-profit administrative procedures which are not terribly interesting or significant, in most cases. >>>> >>>> Third, more significant is first, ending the IANA function oversight role of USG, which is completely orthoganal to everything above. For example, ICANN could be reincorporated and operate solely under Turkish non-profit law, while leaving USG in charge of IANA oversight. Which as McTim notes, also hardly matters in practice these days, with GAC exhibiting more willingness to veto entries into the root zone file than USG (ok cough cough, there are notable exceptions XXX. Nonetheless, it does matter, and sooner or later will be internationalized I expect.) >>>> >>>> Fourth, while Parminder may be correct to note that we are all more of less in agreement that the baby has grown up and the residual role of NTIA as guarantor of good - administrative procedures - in handling changes to the root zone file, what we don't have is a plan. Milton's suggestion of an INGO has been bandied about before; we cannot expect NTIA to walk away from the table until CS and other - multistakeholders - have a coherent plan and proposal on the table for what would come next. More than that, the alternative would have to be essentially up and running, or no way would the the USG, - or businesses anywhere in all honesty - want NTIA to walk away from the table. It's trivial but important at same time. >>>> >>>> Summarizing, we might wish to prioritize which objectives are of primary importance and require international action, and which ICANN and IGF can further evolve towards more or less readily with existing momentum. >>>> >>>> ICANN has chosen to subject itself in part to Turkish and Singaporean law; is that international enough? Perhaps not. Going INGO however will as noted require much more analysis and debate - and note an INGO could -still - have its staff whether in US. Turkey, Singapore, wherever - subject to various national ngo/non-profit laws. >>>> >>>> UNLESS we wanted Fadi to have Sepp Blatter-like powers, in which national governments have to kiss...his ring. Is that the plan? >>>> >>>> Anyway, no doubt most of you are aware of what I have reviewed here already, but now that we are getting into the muck and details, I thought it perhaps helpful to remind us of prior discussions and conclusions. >>>> >>>> Ideally, we could have a half-way sensible plan/process to address some of these elements cooked in coming months, whose blessing would be the crowning achievement of the Brazil photo op, as I call the Brazil meeting for short, to avoid the now-dreaded multistakeholder word. ; ). >>>> >>>> Lee >>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Jovan Kurbalija [jovank at diplomacy.edu] >>>> Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:53 PM >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance >>>> >>>> Hi Norbert, >>>> >>>> It would be useful to have the exact reference to Fadi's comment in order to provide a precise legal analysis. Multiple jurisdictions would lead towards conflict of laws (regulated by international private law). The Law of the Sea has many examples of concurrent, parallel, and overlapping jurisdictions due to the complex interplay of three core jurisdiction elements: territoriality (coastal state, territorial sea), nationality (flag State jurisdiction), and universality (e.g. against piracy). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So far, one of the broadest lists of concurrent jurisdictions is in article 109 of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (1982): >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ‘Any person engaged in unauthorized broadcasting may be prosecuted before the court of: >>>> (a) the flag State of the ship; >>>> (b) the State of registry of the installation; >>>> (c) the State of which the person is a national; >>>> (d) any State where the transmissions can be received; or >>>> (e) any State where authorized radio communication is suffering interference.’ >>>> >>>> >>>> BTW: I usually send this article to enthusiasts about extending the Law of the Sea to the Internet based on a rather simplistic analogy between the high sea and the Internet (beyond jurisdiction). The Law of the Sea is not very sympathetic to ‘unauthorised broadcasting’ and free flow of information. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Back to the question of multiple jurisdiction… >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> While one can think on various solutions with multiple jurisdictions, it is not clear how various jurisdictions can be exercised ‘simultaneously’. It would be in breach of the general legal principle ‘ne bis in idem’ (nobody should be prosecuted twice for the same offense). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This is just a quick reflection. If you can provide more precise questions, it could help in deepening the discussion on IG, jurisdiction, and ICANN. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Jovan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>> Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > I risk to be bitten by (no, not monkeys, Milton) scorpions here, but >>>>> > if "removal of the source of authority from a single national >>>>> > government and the linkage of its authority over the DNS root zone >>>>> > file to a global polity" is achieved, the need to >>>>> > change/globalize/internationalize ICANN (the organization) becomes a >>>>> > relatively minor issue, n'est pas? >>>>> >>>>> My perspective on this is that the "removal of the source of authority >>>>> from a single national government and the linkage of its authority over >>>>> the DNS root zone file to a global polity" is IMO primarily of >>>>> symbolic importance, as we have discussed in depth some time ago that >>>>> the degree of real-world power that the executive branch of the US >>>>> government has in the current arrangement is rather limited if it is of >>>>> any significance at all. >>>>> >>>>> I think that the aspect of jurisdiction is much more important and also >>>>> much more difficult. >>>>> >>>>> Fadi said in Bali that ICANN could be made subject to multiple >>>>> jurisdictions simultaneously. >>>>> >>>>> I absolutely don't see how that could possibly work, but maybe someone >>>>> can enlighten me. >>>>> >>>>> 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 nb at bollow.ch Mon Dec 2 04:53:29 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 10:53:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <52995529.4090403@cavebear.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25740E6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52996EE7.5020506@itforchange.net> <5299CB40.5040905@cafonso.ca> <20131130124309.086175a8@quill> Message-ID: <20131202105329.4e272b90@quill> William Drake wrote: > Similarly, the comment about ICANN being subject to multiple > jurisdictions probably wasn’t a thought out proposal for a new and > more complex legal architecture I agree that it probably wasn't thought out at all, and if there is no concrete proposal anywhere, and no-one has strong interest in working out the specifics on how the idea could be implemented in a way that actually solves any problems (as opposed to changing the current situation of inheriting the problems of one jurisdiction into one where we don't only create additional problems from mixing jurisdictions but also inherit all the problems of multiple jurisdictions - Jovan has IMO made a very good point that increasing the number of jurisidctions whose requirements all have to be satisfied is probably not a good strategy for maximizing public interest benefits from sharing digital goods) we can simply ignore this proposal and look for better ideas. I'm glad that we had a bit of discussion of this idea here now, but from my perspective, we have discussed this particular idea sufficiently now and can move on. (When I brought up that Fadi had talked about this, my context was that I claim that the jurisdiction aspect of ICANN internationalization / transnationalization / whateverization is neither easy to solve nor unimportant.) > as much as a comment about having different offices in different > places. In the context in which the comment was made, it was clearly intended to communicate willingness, even eagerness, for the concerns about ICANN being subject to US (California) jurisdiction to be addressed; it was presented as a step beyond having offices in different places. Greetings, Norbert P.S. Maybe it would be good to get back to the original purpose of this thread, to try to reach consensus around some statement that could be based on http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/brazil2014-process-objectives - right now there is a version of the text there which avoids the word "internationalization" speaking instead of "desired transition of ICANN and IANA away from its links to the USG and towards a global INGO status." Now I believe that there have been concerns raised also about the "INGO status" wording. So how could the draft be further improved? -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 2 04:56:18 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 15:26:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> ,<529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <529C5942.8090809@itforchange.net> On Monday 02 December 2013 12:07 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > It's a basic error to equate a generic incorporation law with > comprehensive regulatory "oversight by the US legal system" as > Parminder is doing. No, I am not equating them. You are just imagining that I am doing it. Both hold independently - (1) ICANN is incorporated under a US law, and (2) it is under full oversight of the US legal system. Are you denying this fact? > I am not sure whether Parminder is just using a rhetorical ploy at > this point. But I am not averse to host-country type agreements that > would protect ICANN from legislative interference. A host country agreement requires international incorporation of ICANN which requires at least an elementary international law for that purpose. Now, if you agree to it, we are almost agreed on everything. BTW, since you have often said that ICANN cannot be allowed to escape accountability (and thus cannot be left as a free float organisation) then this basic international law for incorporating ICANN and issuing it its mandate will also require listing some basic processes of transparency and accountability. you have also maintained that ICANN should be clearly subject to work within some basic human rights principles, and some other such stuff, and therefore this international law will also need to have those basic principles written into it... That almost completes it. Can we agree on this. > > An honest argument makes a compa rison based on current facts. > Regardless of where ICANN is incorporated now, it has to be > incorporated somewhere. We are presented so far with 3 choices: > 1. a Geneva-based INGO like FIFA or the Red Cross > 2. California NPPBL > 3. Some new international public law (treaty-based) that we have no > experience with and no concrete guarantees regarding its content > (because it doesn't exist yet) and which might take 3-10 years to conclude Now this is a strange argument.. Actually 2 strange arguments. Dismissing some option because we dont have it at present! But it is you who speaks eloquently about post-internationalism, and to get transnational.... Arent you afraid of such talking about something which we dont even have a shred of at present, in any proper way? If not, why are you afraid of simply trying out a treaty, many of which exist at present. While this one we know would be certainly new and unique - but the international system is up to such evolution... And we can certainly stretch it, especially since the IG space has developed some unique percepts and elements of it own which have a widespread acceptability. Second strange argument is that it will take 3-10 years... Other than the fact that we have been having this argument for about 10 years now, (1) it can indeed be done in less than 3 years, and (2) why should we be afraid how much time doing a right thing will take. Once we sign on the dotted lines agreeing to the basic involved principles and pathway to operational-ise them, we can always find an interim structure which is as close to the agreed principles as possible.... > > Take your pick. Open to good arguments for any, as well as hybrids and > other ideas. And if you can bring yourself to ignore the commentor's > nationality, Karl's argument that any feasible transitional > arrangement has to deal with real contracts and assets must be taken > into account. Yes, we will take that into account as we write the international law... parminder > > --MM > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder > [parminder at itforchange.net] > *Sent:* Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:24 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives > for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet > Governance > > > On Saturday 30 November 2013 11:10 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> it is up to Milton to defend his position and I don't think that he >> defended an continuity of any kind of US control. anyway you can >> read his ideas in details at his blog. > > For sure, I have read them. Yes, he does advocate continued oversight > ('control' if you like) by US legal system, or broadly, the US polity, > over ICANN, but extinguishing executive controls exercised through US > DoC. > > But of course Milton can tell us if I am wrong in saying the above... > parminder > > >> I made the analogy to FIFA because it is international organisation >> too if you mean diversity etc but also for the level of corruption >> and no accountability there. I think that you can see the point here . >> we can argue a lot about the legal status of the organisation but >> what matters at the end is the mechanism for accountability, >> transparency , openness, inclusiveness . >> >> >> And as you say if you are not arguing that ICANN "should be an >> US org under US laws ", then the question is "what kind of org >> and under what kind of law" do you advocate. Thanks. >> >> >> I don't have an answer about the legal framework to be used or any >> other organisational complexity, however I am thinking on how to >> avoid situation where interests group try to expand trademark law >> there or governments use GAC to push for content policy through gTLD >> or eroding privacy rights to match LEA requests without any oversight >> or in contradiction to ehir own data protection law. I am thinking on >> how we make the organisation developing users-driven policies and not >> to respond to narrow governmental or private interests. >> coming from a small developing country struggling with a complicated >> and painful democratic transition, I am more keen to defend citizen >> interests and not by any geopolitical interests of some governments >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> parminder >> >>> I have a question, maybe naive: if we have problem with one >>> state to have dominant role as assumed by mant, how adding more >>> states will solve the problem , a kind of zero sum game? >>> another question, what benefit for the average users far from >>> any geopolitical consideration in such case? >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2013/11/30 parminder >> > >>> >>> >>> On Saturday 30 November 2013 10:19 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> yes Milton it will make it the FIFA of IG world >>>> >>>> Rafik >>> >>> Rafik, do you in that case agree that ICANN should remain an >>> US organisation, subject solely to US laws... parminder >>> >>>> >>>> 2013/11/30 Milton L Mueller >>> > >>>> >>>> No, no, no, please. That level of specificity is >>>> counterproductive at this stage. Many people who have >>>> studied this issue believe that turning ICANN into an >>>> INGO is the surest way for it to escape what little >>>> accountability it currently has. Those willing to go >>>> along with a general call for reform in ICANN’s >>>> US-centered oversight need not commit themselves to a >>>> particular solution at this point, and the language >>>> below does that. >>>> >>>> Please don’t come up with off the cuff quickie >>>> solutions for this. It will take more than a scan of >>>> Wikipedia to solve. >>>> >>>> *From:*michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com >>>> ] >>>> *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 7:49 PM >>>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> ; 'Tracy F. >>>> Hackshaw @ Google' >>>> *Cc:* 'Norbert Bollow'; Milton L Mueller >>>> *Subject:* RE: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process >>>> and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting >>>> on the Future of Internet Governance >>>> >>>> What about >>>> >>>> 1)Transitioning ICANN and IANA to an International >>>> Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) status: The Global >>>> Meeting should aim at developing a suitable and widely >>>> acceptable means to achieve the desired transition of >>>> ICANN and IANA away from its links to the USG and >>>> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_nongovernmental_organization >>>> >>>> M >>>> >>>> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> >>>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On >>>> Behalf Of *Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google >>>> *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 2:39 PM >>>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> >>>> *Cc:* Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller >>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process >>>> and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting >>>> on the Future of Internet Governance >>>> >>>> ICANN (and its President/CEO) have been "encouraged" at >>>> several opportunities to adjust its >>>> "internationalization" rhetoric/terminology and thus >>>> its resulting INTERNATIONALIZATION thrust to one which >>>> is significantly more embrasive of the objectives of, >>>> and indeed, spirit of what GLOBALIZATION in theory, >>>> intends to achieve. >>>> >>>> I believe therefore that Milton's recommendation is >>>> timely and appropriate ... whether we use the term >>>> "Globalization" or a perhaps more compromising and less >>>> economics/free-market linked phrase or term such as >>>> "Global Integration", or more radically, "Glocalization". >>>> >>>> ------ >>>> Rgds, >>>> >>>> Tracy >>>> >>>> On Nov 29, 2013 4:52 PM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The >>>> Global Journal" >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, >>>> >>>> If I may contribute, with a somehow different and >>>> unusual perspective, and in my humble Global Governance >>>> observer capacity, for the pleasure of the reflection: >>>> >>>> *Internationalization*: one wants to have a larger >>>> international basis: more offices, more >>>> representatives, more of a network of local branches >>>> that, being put together, creates an international >>>> network. Still each element is mostly comparable to the >>>> starting point in terms of culture, thinking... Clones >>>> spread around the world? 'One for all' kind of >>>> uniformity. /Meaning many little ICANNs all around. / >>>> >>>> *Globalization*: this could happen without a network of >>>> offices around the world. You can observe a very >>>> globalized entity containing so many different >>>> elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong >>>> outlet with a governance of its own, but embracing >>>> 'solutions' that could fit more than one single >>>> corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many >>>> voices... in a single global body. So one ICANN >>>> speaking from one point to the many in a global manner >>>> of thinking. >>>> >>>> /Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind./ >>>> >>>> *Transnationalization*: this tends to establish a >>>> community of people based in various locations, trying >>>> to forget about their local identity, interest or >>>> belonging, with the objective to address a more common, >>>> regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way >>>> to achieve an understanding of global magnitude. >>>> >>>> /Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds./ >>>> >>>> - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a >>>> greater control over the network, and at the end of the >>>> day, you can pretend to be a global minded outlet. Good >>>> communication value. >>>> >>>> - The second option is probably the most difficult to >>>> achieve, specially if you are not starting from a fully >>>> independent culture. Very challenging when one starts >>>> from a private or national basis. >>>> >>>> - The third option might be a good compromise, if each >>>> one puts trust in the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe >>>> a more sustainable approach, and ultimately, one that >>>> could deliver a true global minded system. >>>> >>>> Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least >>>> worth trying to explore. And quiet appropriate with the >>>> current state of the IG debate. >>>> >>>> Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and >>>> the ultimate objective. A little bit like >>>> 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from the corporate >>>> jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, >>>> executives would convene 'stakeholders' to the table >>>> for consultation (trade union, politician...). A pure >>>> communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable >>>> definition and understanding, and an even looser legal >>>> impact. Something that usually brings a lot of >>>> misunderstandings, deadlocks... >>>> >>>> All the best, >>>> >>>> __________________________ >>>> >>>> Jean-Christophe Nothias >>>> Editor in Chief >>>> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net >>>> >>>> >>>> @jc_nothias >>>> >>>> Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : >>>> >>>> Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 >>>> schrieb Milton L Mueller >>> >: >>>> >>>> Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday >>>> a big family >>>> >>>> holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word >>>> >>>> "internationalization" with "globalization"? >>>> Increasingly we live in >>>> >>>> a world where nations, and by extension the >>>> "inter-national" is not >>>> >>>> an adequate term to define transborder, global >>>> phenomena >>>> >>>> >>>> That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation >>>> states and their >>>> governments of course continue to have a significant >>>> role, it has >>>> certainly become inadequate to try to understand >>>> transborder, global >>>> phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier >>>> times) of >>>> decomposing into what is happening at the national >>>> level plus what is >>>> happening in inter-national trade and other areas of >>>> inter-national >>>> relations. >>>> >>>> On the other hand, many civil society people including >>>> myself are very >>>> wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has >>>> often increased >>>> social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the >>>> kinds of concerns >>>> that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is >>>> intended to address. >>>> >>>> Maybe yet another term could be used??? >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: >>>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: >>>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: >>>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jovank at diplomacy.edu Mon Dec 2 09:19:11 2013 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 15:19:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Thank you, Milton, Parminder and others for raising this issue. CS and academia have the opportunity to contribute to more informed discussion on jurisdiction and institutional architecture in the preparation for Sao Paolo and beyond. There are two main options (IGO or private organisation) and a few possibilities in between (hybrids): 1. Intergovernmental organisations This option is clear. The organisation would have to be established by an intergovernmental agreement (convention, treaty, statute). The main advantage of this option is immunity and independence from any national jurisdiction. The main challenge is how to ensure accountability and inclusive governance (involvement of civil society, business, and users communities). It is important to keep in mind that while it can be inter-governmental in making, a new entity could have a much more flexible structure. For example, the ILO was established by governments, but it has a tripartite governance structure consisting of representatives of governments, employers and employees. 2. Private organisations (NGO, business, etc.) The other main option is to have private organisations registered under national laws; i.e. the current status of ICANN and most international non-profit organisations. They are international in their name and function, but legally speaking they are national entities. The main legal internationalisation of INGOs is provided by the European Convention on the Recognition of the Legal Personality of INGOs (Council of Europe, 1986). There are some arguments that UN-consultative status provides a ‘soft law’ legal basis, but it is a far-fetched argument. What are the in between options? 3. Quasi-international organisations This is part of an innovative legal development initiated in 2007 by the Swiss Federal Council (Ordinance OLEH from 7 December 2007). It provides certain fiscal and legal privileges. This quasi-international status has been granted to the International Air Transport Association, the International Olympic Committee, and the World Conservation Union. The main limitation of this status – so far – is that it does not provide jurisdictional immunity. 4. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) The ICRC model has been mentioned as a possible solution for ICANN. The ICRC is a private foundation established under Swiss law while it receives its mandate by international treaties (Geneva conventions). The ICRC together with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent (IFRC) creates a sometimes complex but carefully balanced system of Red Cross community. There are many checks and balances and accountability mechanisms involving national governments and Red Cross/Red Crescent National Societies (non-governmental entities). The Red Cross model – especially when it comes to accountability – could provide a number of inspiring elements for the future ‘IG architecture’ 5. Montreaux model Some ideas for IG could be borrowed from the ‘Montreaux model’ which deals with international governance of private and security companies. The privatisation of security sector led some countries to request international treaty (so-called Mercenaries convention). Others resisted it. While there were differences in how to regulate them, there was consensus that private security companies should observe human rights and humanitarian law. Based on this convergence point, Switzerland (via DCAF) initiated the private-public process with the Montreaux Document (2008) which outlined the main principles. The next step was the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers (November 2010) which operationalised the principles. In October this year, the oversight mechanism was established involving government, private sector and civil society. This oversight mechanism is an interesting organisational construct that may inspire some solutions for Internet governance. 6. On a more conceptual level, a solution could be found in identifying the jurisdictional immunities of ICANN for specific activities (not general immunity enjoyed by IGOs). Such a solution could relate well to the modern trend in international law to distinguish immunities of states and IOs for iure imperii (core public function) and iure gestionies (no immunity for contracts and other activities of the organisation). In 2014, we plan to organise a few brainstorming events in Geneva on the interplay between the Internet, jurisdiction and institutional law. There is a lot of expertise in both the humanitarian and institutional law that could help in finding some innovative solutions for the IG institutional architecture. Best regards, Jovan *Jovan Kurbalija, Phd* Director, DiploFoundation Rue de Lausanne 56 *| *1202 Geneva *|* Switzerland *Tel.* +41 (0) 22 7410435 *| **Mobile.* +41 (0) 797884226 *Email: *jovank at diplomacy.edu *| **Twitter:* @jovankurbalija *Note: *If you have been waiting for a reply from me, this might explain my tardiness. Thank you for your patience! On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > It's a basic error to equate a generic incorporation law with > comprehensive regulatory "oversight by the US legal system" as Parminder is > doing. I am not sure whether Parminder is just using a rhetorical ploy at > this point. But I am not averse to host-country type agreements that would > protect ICANN from legislative interference. > > An honest argument makes a comparison based on current facts. Regardless > of where ICANN is incorporated now, it has to be incorporated somewhere. We > are presented so far with 3 choices: > 1. a Geneva-based INGO like FIFA or the Red Cross > 2. California NPPBL > 3. Some new international public law (treaty-based) that we have no > experience with and no concrete guarantees regarding its content (because > it doesn't exist yet) and which might take 3-10 years to conclude > > Take your pick. Open to good arguments for any, as well as hybrids and > other ideas. And if you can bring yourself to ignore the commentor's > nationality, Karl's argument that any feasible transitional arrangement has > to deal with real contracts and assets must be taken into account. > > --MM > > ------------------------------ > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder [ > parminder at itforchange.net] > *Sent:* Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:24 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for > the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance > > > On Saturday 30 November 2013 11:10 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > > > >> >> > it is up to Milton to defend his position and I don't think that he > defended an continuity of any kind of US control. anyway you can read his > ideas in details at his blog. > > > For sure, I have read them. Yes, he does advocate continued oversight > ('control' if you like) by US legal system, or broadly, the US polity, over > ICANN, but extinguishing executive controls exercised through US DoC. > > But of course Milton can tell us if I am wrong in saying the above... > parminder > > > > I made the analogy to FIFA because it is international organisation too > if you mean diversity etc but also for the level of corruption and no > accountability there. I think that you can see the point here . > we can argue a lot about the legal status of the organisation but what > matters at the end is the mechanism for accountability, transparency , > openness, inclusiveness . > > > And as you say if you are not arguing that ICANN "should be an US org >> under US laws ", then the question is "what kind of org and under what kind >> of law" do you advocate. Thanks. >> > > I don't have an answer about the legal framework to be used or any other > organisational complexity, however I am thinking on how to avoid situation > where interests group try to expand trademark law there or governments use > GAC to push for content policy through gTLD or eroding privacy rights to > match LEA requests without any oversight or in contradiction to ehir own > data protection law. I am thinking on how we make the organisation > developing users-driven policies and not to respond to narrow governmental > or private interests. > coming from a small developing country struggling with a complicated and > painful democratic transition, I am more keen to defend citizen interests > and not by any geopolitical interests of some governments > > > Rafik > >> >> >> parminder >> >> I have a question, maybe naive: if we have problem with one state to >> have dominant role as assumed by mant, how adding more states will solve >> the problem , a kind of zero sum game? >> another question, what benefit for the average users far from any >> geopolitical consideration in such case? >> >> Rafik >> >> 2013/11/30 parminder >> >>> >>> On Saturday 30 November 2013 10:19 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> yes Milton it will make it the FIFA of IG world >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> Rafik, do you in that case agree that ICANN should remain an US >>> organisation, subject solely to US laws... parminder >>> >>> >>> 2013/11/30 Milton L Mueller >>> >>>> No, no, no, please. That level of specificity is counterproductive at >>>> this stage. Many people who have studied this issue believe that turning >>>> ICANN into an INGO is the surest way for it to escape what little >>>> accountability it currently has. Those willing to go along with a general >>>> call for reform in ICANN’s US-centered oversight need not commit themselves >>>> to a particular solution at this point, and the language below does that. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please don’t come up with off the cuff quickie solutions for this. It >>>> will take more than a scan of Wikipedia to solve. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >>>> *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 7:49 PM >>>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google' >>>> *Cc:* 'Norbert Bollow'; Milton L Mueller >>>> *Subject:* RE: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives >>>> for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> What about >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1) Transitioning ICANN and IANA to an International >>>> Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) status: The Global Meeting should aim >>>> at developing a suitable and widely acceptable means to achieve the desired >>>> transition of ICANN and IANA away from its links to the USG and >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_nongovernmental_organization >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> M >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ >>>> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] >>>> *On Behalf Of *Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google >>>> *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 2:39 PM >>>> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> *Cc:* Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller >>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives >>>> for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ICANN (and its President/CEO) have been "encouraged" at several >>>> opportunities to adjust its "internationalization" rhetoric/terminology and >>>> thus its resulting INTERNATIONALIZATION thrust to one which is >>>> significantly more embrasive of the objectives of, and indeed, spirit of >>>> what GLOBALIZATION in theory, intends to achieve. >>>> >>>> I believe therefore that Milton's recommendation is timely and >>>> appropriate ... whether we use the term "Globalization" or a perhaps more >>>> compromising and less economics/free-market linked phrase or term such as >>>> "Global Integration", or more radically, "Glocalization". >>>> >>>> ------ >>>> Rgds, >>>> >>>> Tracy >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 29, 2013 4:52 PM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual perspective, >>>> and in my humble Global Governance observer capacity, for the pleasure of >>>> the reflection: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Internationalization*: one wants to have a larger international >>>> basis: more offices, more representatives, more of a network of local >>>> branches that, being put together, creates an international network. Still >>>> each element is mostly comparable to the starting point in terms of >>>> culture, thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' kind of >>>> uniformity. *Meaning many little ICANNs all around. * >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Globalization*: this could happen without a network of offices around >>>> the world. You can observe a very globalized entity containing so many >>>> different elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet with a >>>> governance of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than >>>> one single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a >>>> single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the many in a >>>> global manner of thinking. >>>> >>>> *Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind.* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Transnationalization*: this tends to establish a community of people >>>> based in various locations, trying to forget about their local identity, >>>> interest or belonging, with the objective to address a more common, >>>> regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an >>>> understanding of global magnitude. >>>> >>>> *Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds.* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater control >>>> over the network, and at the end of the day, you can pretend to be a global >>>> minded outlet. Good communication value. >>>> >>>> - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, >>>> specially if you are not starting from a fully independent culture. Very >>>> challenging when one starts from a private or national basis. >>>> >>>> - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts trust >>>> in the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable approach, and >>>> ultimately, one that could deliver a true global minded system. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to >>>> explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG debate. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate >>>> objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from the >>>> corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, executives would >>>> convene 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade union, >>>> politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable >>>> definition and understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something >>>> that usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> All the best, >>>> >>>> __________________________ >>>> >>>> Jean-Christophe Nothias >>>> Editor in Chief >>>> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net >>>> >>>> @jc_nothias >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 >>>> schrieb Milton L Mueller : >>>> >>>> Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family >>>> >>>> holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word >>>> >>>> "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in >>>> >>>> a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not >>>> >>>> an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena >>>> >>>> >>>> That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their >>>> governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has >>>> certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global >>>> phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of >>>> decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is >>>> happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national >>>> relations. >>>> >>>> On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very >>>> wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased >>>> social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns >>>> that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to address. >>>> >>>> Maybe yet another term could be used??? >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 2 09:50:38 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 22:50:38 +0800 Subject: [I-coordination] [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment In-Reply-To: References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> <5BDB0B33-2010-4E2C-9750-04CB82B5C6E2@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257073F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529591D1.7060409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <9C57CF9E-B332-4F73-8831-F70F258CF9BD@ciroap.org> -- 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 2 Dec 2013, at 10:48 pm, Alexandrine Pirlot de Corbion wrote: > > Hello, > > I am contacting you from Privacy International (PI) based in London. Here is a quick introduction of Pl for those who are not familiar with our work. > PI is committed to fighting for the right to privacy across the world. Working with 19 partners worldwide, we are doing research and advocacy activities on promoting the right to privacy and doing an analysis on the legal, institutional framework upholding the rights to privacy and the protection of personal data advocating for strong national, regional, and international laws that protect privacy. Additionally, we investigate the secret world of government surveillance and expose the companies enabling it. We litigate to ensure that surveillance is consistent with the rule of law. We conduct research to catalyse policy change. We raise awareness about technologies and laws that place privacy at risk, to ensure that the public is informed and engaged. > > I was present in Bali at the IGF and have been following the discussions within this forum and others on Brazil and internet governance in general since. First of all, we are glad to being following the intense and productive discussions happening through this mailing list which we sincerely hope will contribute towards ensuring the multi-stakeholder nature of the process as well as the event as promised by Brazil but also those who are leading the discussions for its organisation. > > As the broad scope of the Brazil meeting, the development of internet governance as an issue, and the on-going international debate since the Snowden revelations have shown (i.e. recently passed UNGA on right to privacy to be voted in early December), the issue has expanded to have to consider the right to privacy and the protection of personal data, and the use of surveillance technologies or if I may say so, the abuse of communication mediums and technologies for surveillance purposes. > > Hence I was wondering what opportunities and space there will be for organisations like PI (i.e. not part of Best Bits and other internet governance focused groups as such) to be involved in the decision making process of the civil society reps for the committees but in general in the discussion leading up to and beyond this meeting. > > We look forward to hearing people’s thoughts and welcome suggestions. > > Best, > > Alexandrine > > > Alexandrine Pirlot de Corbion > > Advocacy Officer > Privacy International > 62 Britton Street > London, EC1M 5UY > United Kingdom > > E: alex at privacy.org > W: www.privacyinternational.org > T: + 44 (0) 203 422 4321 > Skype: alexpdec.pi > > Privacy International is a registered charity (No. 1147471). > >> On 27 Nov 2013, at 06:31, parminder wrote: >> >> >>> On Tuesday 26 November 2013 03:11 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> George >>> Normally I would be very much in favor of shifting attention to issues and substantive proposals. But in the present context, that constitutes a diversion from the real problem at hand. >>> >>> The preparations for the Brazil conference have pushed representational issues to the fore. Specifically, we have an entity called 1net that has been given the authority to appoint half of the members of the steering committees for the conference, >> >> I dont think such an authority was ever give to 1net.... Though there seems to have been a strong attempt to claim it - so strong that many people thought they already had it . parminder >> >>> and which has also promised that a fixed number of slots on these steering committees will be given to specific stakeholder groups. >>> >>> Because these steering committees will control the agenda of the conference, and hence will be in de facto control of our discussion of substantive issues at the Sao Paulo conference, it behooves even those of us exclusively interested in substan >> >> >> >> >>> tive issues to pay attention to the composition of those committees. >>> >>> In particular, the coordinating committee of 1net itself needs to be settled. Get that done, and yes, we can start to focus on substantive issues. >>> >>> --MM >>> >>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky >>> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 12:38 PM >>> To: Deirdre Williams >>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; gurstein michael; Peter Ian; bestbits; Akplogan Adiel A.; Swinehart Theresa; internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org; i-coordination at nro.net; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment >>> >>> Deirdre, and all, >>> >>> Thank you, Deirdre. I take your point that we should consider shifting the focus to issue-based discussions and away from stakeholder membership-based discussions. That is a very good way to phrase it. (Note that accepting such a shift does not imply that it should replace all other stakeholder membership activities.) >>> >>> Where should we have these issue-based discussions? There have been a number of good and provocative responses to what I wrote below, and I really don't know where to post them and my reactions to them. How can we get these conversations started in a productive and inclusive manner? >>> >>> We now have four relevant lists that I know of, and here may well be more: >>> >>> - the IGC list, >>> - the BestBits list, >>> - the ISOC policy list, and >>> - the new 1Net coordination list. >>> >>> Many of us subscribe to some or all of these list, and therefore see the same posting more than once. I subscribe to all four of the above. >>> >>> With some trepidation, I'm going to post this message on all of the above lists, with the hope that we can converge on an acceptable solution. [I have trimmed some early postings below that led to this point in the discussion.] I myself would favor the 1net list, simply because it is new and meant to be all-inclusive specifically for this purpose, whereas other lists may be (I think) somewhat restrictive and more focused and used for other purposes also. >>> >>> If you respond to this, please consider trimming the response significantly, since the content below will have been posted to all of the four lists. >>> >>> IMO the question to be answered is: on which list, or using which vehicle, can we collect broad involvement in issue-based threads that have to do with aspects of Internet governance? If we can converge on an answer, then we'll eliminate some redundancy and we'll have a more inclusive and more positive discussion of issues. If the redundancy is felt to be useful, then we can keep it; it's agreement on the focal point that's important here. >>> >>> Comments? Suggestions? Criticisms? >>> >>> George >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> On Nov 25, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> >>> >>> I began this message 12 days ago in response to a thread started by Michael Gurstein >>> Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society >>> >>> I gave up. Now I am encouraged to try again by this new thread >>> Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment >>> >>> begun by George Sadowsky. >>> >>> Is there any way to shift the focus from the people to the issues? >>> In the final analysis everyone belongs to civil society. That point was made by a representative of a local telecommunications company at a recent workshop on IXPs held in Saint Lucia. As he said, his children also query the speed of the Internet at home when they have to do their homework. The only people excluded from civil society are incarcerated prisoners, and that also is a statement that can be questioned. If I understand him correctly George Sadowsky is making the same point. Civil society is us - all of us. >>> >>> Instead of trying to disentangle the stakeholders from one another could we try to reach agreement on the aspects of the issues? If no one is wearing any particular hat then it should be possible to obtain a clearer picture of the issues that need to be discussed, and the multiple aspects of those issues. >>> >>> Surely at least a part of the "multistakeholder" configuration of WSIS was to provide a means of identifying and harnessing the different types of expertise available, to tackle the different aspects of the challenges created by the Internet and its proliferation. In hindsight the intention must have been partially collaboration and cooperation. Sadly the focus shifted to a third "c" - competition - so that instead of team-powered problem solving we ended up with separation and power struggles. And now on top of that comes betrayal and the death of trust. And the "little people" the "grassroots" become even further excluded from discussion of the interests that affect them, washed out in a wave of personalities and accusations. >>> >>> We do not need to let this breakdown continue. We CAN work together, we've done it before. Trust can be rebuilt. It is a hard slow process, but each of us retains threads of trust which we consider still to be viable. Otherwise we would not be communicating at all. Weave these threads together and we can build something stronger than what existed before, because we will be depending on one another instead of on abstract external factors. And together we will be able to disaggregate the issues into their component aspects and negotiate a point of balance among the differing needs of government, technicians, business and society. >>> >>> Deirdre >>> >>> >>> On 24 November 2013 12:59, George Sadowsky wrote: >>> >>> All, >>> >>> Please note that the opinions that follow are my own personal opinions and are independent of any of the organizations with which I am affiliated. >>> >>> <> >>> >>> >>> So with that understanding, I'd like to throw out some thoughts to see if any of them resonate with any of you. >>> >>> First, I believe that the introduction of the idea of multi-stakeholder approaches has had a significant negative effect between the Internet technical community and the community that has coalesced to represent classical civil society concerns. As I recall in the 1990s, these communities were considerably intermingled; the promise of the Internet encouraged us not only to help it evolve in beneficial ways but also to explore how to exploit it for social and economic benefits. >>> >>> The solidification of different stakeholder groups resulting from the WSIS process, caused informal differences to formalize. Issues of representation, power, time at the microphone, visibility on (sometimes competing) lists and victory in arguments on those lists grew, while informal discussion gradually declined. Polarization of opinion grew as willingness to respect others' opinions and to agree civilly to disagree suffered. >>> >>> Second, I believe that the specific role of the Internet technical community as a stakeholder group for the purposes of participating in the MAG and in the IGF is not properly understood. At this point in its evolution, the Internet is a very complex system at most levels. In order to understand fully the implications of policies that have to do with Internet administration, operation and governance, one has have a good technical understand of what the effect of those policies will be at a detailed level. The primary role of representatives of the Internet technical community, in a MAG and IGF setting, is to study and understand such effects and to inform those deliberating about them. That function may well extend toward consideration of broader thematic areas and suggestions of what needs to be discussed for continued Internet health, either short or long term, or both. >>> >>> In the grand scheme of things, this is a moderately narrow focus, but it is extremely important. >>> >>> Third, I believe that one result of formalized multi-stakeholderism appears to have been to separate groups of people rather than separating groups of ideas. A couple of examples illustrate the point. To the extent that the Internet technical community does its work in guiding the MAG well to enhance Internet evolution, I believe that involved representatives of civil society benefit and should encourage their participation. Conversely, representatives of the Internet technical community are people, and many are very likely to have beliefs that are quite consistent with the positions espoused by those same civil society representatives. The multi-stakeholder approach, however, seems to create a silo effect that minimizes or even denies the overlap of commonality of interest regarding issues by separating people into different silos. So instead of recognizing positive overlap of beliefs, the approach encourages a focus on inter-stakeholder group separation. >>> >>> Fourth, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being siloed. >>> >>> An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in the world and remove government involvement, the private sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences. To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals. >>> >>> Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder group. We have interactions with government and may work for it. Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector organization. Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet. Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in the civil society stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do. This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the underlying reality, >>> >>> I conclude that the multi-stakeholder approach that is accepted to be an approach to bring us together, has not insignificant negative externalities that serve to keep us apart. We need to assess the multi-stakeholder approach with that in mind If it is retained as an organizing principle, we need to recognize and understand those negative effects so that we can minimize them and can exploit the positive aspects of that approach. >>> >>> This is a much longer note than I ordinarily write, but it has helped me to understand some of the roots of the often unnecessarily antagonistic relationship between proponents of issues important to civil society and technical community experts guiding the evolution of the Internet. Thank you for taking the time to read it. I realize that what I have written, and any discussion of it, is considerably more nuanced than what I have presented above. However, I have tried to present the core of some ideas that I think may be useful. The more nuanced discussion can and will come later. >>> >>> Your comments are welcome. >>> >>> George >>> >>> >>> >>> <> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> I-coordination mailing list >>> I-coordination at nro.net >>> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination >> >> _______________________________________________ >> I-coordination mailing list >> I-coordination at nro.net >> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Dec 2 09:51:31 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 14:51:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <4644BCB3-3D3E-409C-94A4-27AD1BD42F67@virtualized.org> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573F76@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529A0E33.50400@itforchange.net> <4644BCB3-3D3E-409C-94A4-27AD1BD42F67@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574A1A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> David > Personally speaking (as always), I believe that oversight is important. While I have no > fears of the current IANA staff running off the rails, it is important to remember that in > the past when there was less focus on what IANA did, it did run off the rails. Are you referring here to the Jan 1998 Jon Postel "experiment" redirecting the root servers, or something else? If something else, please let me know; it is useful to have specific cases of what can go wrong. Btw if you do mean the Postel redirection, am I correct that this is _not_ what NTIA currently audits (which master root server is used)? When it comes to deciding what can go in the root, that is clearly now the role of the GAC (see GAC Communnique's from Beijing, Durban). > Oversimplification. Not an oversimplification: completely wrong. The GAC provides _advice_ to the Board on "public policy issues" that are supposed to emerge from ICANN's policy development process. GAC has no role in auditing or monitoring the actual changes that go into the root after they have been decided. Indeed, that is a pretty good example of something you do _not_ want a collection of mid-level bureaucrats with no technical expertise to do. There seems to be a deeper error embedded in both David's comments and the person he was responding to. It is important not to confuse the audit function of root zone changes performed by NTIA with a policy making function performed by ICANN's allegedly bottom up process. It is extremely dangerous to combine or confuse the two. In other words, we don't want some oversight/auditor refusing to approve a change in the zone file not because it is an error or a deviation from accepted process, but because she doesn't like the policy outcome of the ICANN process. To make this problem concrete, suppose (using an extreme & deliberately inflammatory example) that the .arab TLD meets all the criteria in ICANN's new gTLD program and is approved by the Board, but when it comes time to add .arab to the root, someone who doesn't like Arabs is providing "oversight/audit" function and refuses to approve the change. I think we can all agree that that is NOT something that should ever happen. The "oversight" provided by NTIA is not supposed to be a policy override function; it is simply meant to ensure that when policies that involve changes to the root zone are implemented that the changes conform to what was actually agreed by the community. The risk that it might become a policy override function is one of the main reasons why we want to get this function out of the hands of the USG (remember .xxx?). This should also makeit clear why we should not want this "oversight" function to be turned into a politicized multilateral organization in which governments play a big role. If the USG could not resist tampering with that power, adding 5, 12 or 100 other governments to the mix is only going to multiply the risk. --MM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 2 10:04:30 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 23:04:30 +0800 Subject: [I-coordination] [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment In-Reply-To: References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> <5BDB0B33-2010-4E2C-9750-04CB82B5C6E2@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257073F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529591D1.7060409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Sorry for the blank reply just now (replying from my phone and my finger slipped). Two options are to participate through one of the existing civil society networks that is engaged (though as you say they are a bit Internet-specific), or through 1net that is hoping to become a similar but cross-stakeholder (if not really multi-stakeholder) dialogue. The second option is that there is a broader civil society steering group in formation that is intended to bring in otherwise unrepresented CSOs who have a stake in Internet issues but aren't deeply involved in Internet governance discussions. Its role and processes are still being worked out but at least include facilitating nominations of civil society participants to the Brazil and related processes. It would be good for PI to be linked in with that somehow, if not with Best Bits, IGC or 1net. On 2 Dec 2013, at 10:48 pm, Alexandrine Pirlot de Corbion wrote: > > Hello, > > I am contacting you from Privacy International (PI) based in London. Here is a quick introduction of Pl for those who are not familiar with our work. > PI is committed to fighting for the right to privacy across the world. Working with 19 partners worldwide, we are doing research and advocacy activities on promoting the right to privacy and doing an analysis on the legal, institutional framework upholding the rights to privacy and the protection of personal data advocating for strong national, regional, and international laws that protect privacy. Additionally, we investigate the secret world of government surveillance and expose the companies enabling it. We litigate to ensure that surveillance is consistent with the rule of law. We conduct research to catalyse policy change. We raise awareness about technologies and laws that place privacy at risk, to ensure that the public is informed and engaged. > > I was present in Bali at the IGF and have been following the discussions within this forum and others on Brazil and internet governance in general since. First of all, we are glad to being following the intense and productive discussions happening through this mailing list which we sincerely hope will contribute towards ensuring the multi-stakeholder nature of the process as well as the event as promised by Brazil but also those who are leading the discussions for its organisation. > > As the broad scope of the Brazil meeting, the development of internet governance as an issue, and the on-going international debate since the Snowden revelations have shown (i.e. recently passed UNGA on right to privacy to be voted in early December), the issue has expanded to have to consider the right to privacy and the protection of personal data, and the use of surveillance technologies or if I may say so, the abuse of communication mediums and technologies for surveillance purposes. > > Hence I was wondering what opportunities and space there will be for organisations like PI (i.e. not part of Best Bits and other internet governance focused groups as such) to be involved in the decision making process of the civil society reps for the committees but in general in the discussion leading up to and beyond this meeting. > > We look forward to hearing people’s thoughts and welcome suggestions. > > Best, > > Alexandrine > > > Alexandrine Pirlot de Corbion > > Advocacy Officer > Privacy International > 62 Britton Street > London, EC1M 5UY > United Kingdom > > E: alex at privacy.org > W: www.privacyinternational.org > T: + 44 (0) 203 422 4321 > Skype: alexpdec.pi > > Privacy International is a registered charity (No. 1147471). > >> On 27 Nov 2013, at 06:31, parminder wrote: >> >> >>> On Tuesday 26 November 2013 03:11 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> George >>> Normally I would be very much in favor of shifting attention to issues and substantive proposals. But in the present context, that constitutes a diversion from the real problem at hand. >>> >>> The preparations for the Brazil conference have pushed representational issues to the fore. Specifically, we have an entity called 1net that has been given the authority to appoint half of the members of the steering committees for the conference, >> >> I dont think such an authority was ever give to 1net.... Though there seems to have been a strong attempt to claim it - so strong that many people thought they already had it . parminder >> >>> and which has also promised that a fixed number of slots on these steering committees will be given to specific stakeholder groups. >>> >>> Because these steering committees will control the agenda of the conference, and hence will be in de facto control of our discussion of substantive issues at the Sao Paulo conference, it behooves even those of us exclusively interested in substan >> >> >> >> >>> tive issues to pay attention to the composition of those committees. >>> >>> In particular, the coordinating committee of 1net itself needs to be settled. Get that done, and yes, we can start to focus on substantive issues. >>> >>> --MM >>> >>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of George Sadowsky >>> Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 12:38 PM >>> To: Deirdre Williams >>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; gurstein michael; Peter Ian; bestbits; Akplogan Adiel A.; Swinehart Theresa; internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org; i-coordination at nro.net; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment >>> >>> Deirdre, and all, >>> >>> Thank you, Deirdre. I take your point that we should consider shifting the focus to issue-based discussions and away from stakeholder membership-based discussions. That is a very good way to phrase it. (Note that accepting such a shift does not imply that it should replace all other stakeholder membership activities.) >>> >>> Where should we have these issue-based discussions? There have been a number of good and provocative responses to what I wrote below, and I really don't know where to post them and my reactions to them. How can we get these conversations started in a productive and inclusive manner? >>> >>> We now have four relevant lists that I know of, and here may well be more: >>> >>> - the IGC list, >>> - the BestBits list, >>> - the ISOC policy list, and >>> - the new 1Net coordination list. >>> >>> Many of us subscribe to some or all of these list, and therefore see the same posting more than once. I subscribe to all four of the above. >>> >>> With some trepidation, I'm going to post this message on all of the above lists, with the hope that we can converge on an acceptable solution. [I have trimmed some early postings below that led to this point in the discussion.] I myself would favor the 1net list, simply because it is new and meant to be all-inclusive specifically for this purpose, whereas other lists may be (I think) somewhat restrictive and more focused and used for other purposes also. >>> >>> If you respond to this, please consider trimming the response significantly, since the content below will have been posted to all of the four lists. >>> >>> IMO the question to be answered is: on which list, or using which vehicle, can we collect broad involvement in issue-based threads that have to do with aspects of Internet governance? If we can converge on an answer, then we'll eliminate some redundancy and we'll have a more inclusive and more positive discussion of issues. If the redundancy is felt to be useful, then we can keep it; it's agreement on the focal point that's important here. >>> >>> Comments? Suggestions? Criticisms? >>> >>> George >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> On Nov 25, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> >>> >>> I began this message 12 days ago in response to a thread started by Michael Gurstein >>> Let's Get Real Folks--Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] DISCLOSURE REQUEST Re: Funding Available for Strengthening Civil Society >>> >>> I gave up. Now I am encouraged to try again by this new thread >>> Re: [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment >>> >>> begun by George Sadowsky. >>> >>> Is there any way to shift the focus from the people to the issues? >>> In the final analysis everyone belongs to civil society. That point was made by a representative of a local telecommunications company at a recent workshop on IXPs held in Saint Lucia. As he said, his children also query the speed of the Internet at home when they have to do their homework. The only people excluded from civil society are incarcerated prisoners, and that also is a statement that can be questioned. If I understand him correctly George Sadowsky is making the same point. Civil society is us - all of us. >>> >>> Instead of trying to disentangle the stakeholders from one another could we try to reach agreement on the aspects of the issues? If no one is wearing any particular hat then it should be possible to obtain a clearer picture of the issues that need to be discussed, and the multiple aspects of those issues. >>> >>> Surely at least a part of the "multistakeholder" configuration of WSIS was to provide a means of identifying and harnessing the different types of expertise available, to tackle the different aspects of the challenges created by the Internet and its proliferation. In hindsight the intention must have been partially collaboration and cooperation. Sadly the focus shifted to a third "c" - competition - so that instead of team-powered problem solving we ended up with separation and power struggles. And now on top of that comes betrayal and the death of trust. And the "little people" the "grassroots" become even further excluded from discussion of the interests that affect them, washed out in a wave of personalities and accusations. >>> >>> We do not need to let this breakdown continue. We CAN work together, we've done it before. Trust can be rebuilt. It is a hard slow process, but each of us retains threads of trust which we consider still to be viable. Otherwise we would not be communicating at all. Weave these threads together and we can build something stronger than what existed before, because we will be depending on one another instead of on abstract external factors. And together we will be able to disaggregate the issues into their component aspects and negotiate a point of balance among the differing needs of government, technicians, business and society. >>> >>> Deirdre >>> >>> >>> On 24 November 2013 12:59, George Sadowsky wrote: >>> >>> All, >>> >>> Please note that the opinions that follow are my own personal opinions and are independent of any of the organizations with which I am affiliated. >>> >>> <> >>> >>> >>> So with that understanding, I'd like to throw out some thoughts to see if any of them resonate with any of you. >>> >>> First, I believe that the introduction of the idea of multi-stakeholder approaches has had a significant negative effect between the Internet technical community and the community that has coalesced to represent classical civil society concerns. As I recall in the 1990s, these communities were considerably intermingled; the promise of the Internet encouraged us not only to help it evolve in beneficial ways but also to explore how to exploit it for social and economic benefits. >>> >>> The solidification of different stakeholder groups resulting from the WSIS process, caused informal differences to formalize. Issues of representation, power, time at the microphone, visibility on (sometimes competing) lists and victory in arguments on those lists grew, while informal discussion gradually declined. Polarization of opinion grew as willingness to respect others' opinions and to agree civilly to disagree suffered. >>> >>> Second, I believe that the specific role of the Internet technical community as a stakeholder group for the purposes of participating in the MAG and in the IGF is not properly understood. At this point in its evolution, the Internet is a very complex system at most levels. In order to understand fully the implications of policies that have to do with Internet administration, operation and governance, one has have a good technical understand of what the effect of those policies will be at a detailed level. The primary role of representatives of the Internet technical community, in a MAG and IGF setting, is to study and understand such effects and to inform those deliberating about them. That function may well extend toward consideration of broader thematic areas and suggestions of what needs to be discussed for continued Internet health, either short or long term, or both. >>> >>> In the grand scheme of things, this is a moderately narrow focus, but it is extremely important. >>> >>> Third, I believe that one result of formalized multi-stakeholderism appears to have been to separate groups of people rather than separating groups of ideas. A couple of examples illustrate the point. To the extent that the Internet technical community does its work in guiding the MAG well to enhance Internet evolution, I believe that involved representatives of civil society benefit and should encourage their participation. Conversely, representatives of the Internet technical community are people, and many are very likely to have beliefs that are quite consistent with the positions espoused by those same civil society representatives. The multi-stakeholder approach, however, seems to create a silo effect that minimizes or even denies the overlap of commonality of interest regarding issues by separating people into different silos. So instead of recognizing positive overlap of beliefs, the approach encourages a focus on inter-stakeholder group separation. >>> >>> Fourth, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being siloed. >>> >>> An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in the world and remove government involvement, the private sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences. To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals. >>> >>> Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder group. We have interactions with government and may work for it. Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector organization. Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet. Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in the civil society stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do. This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the underlying reality, >>> >>> I conclude that the multi-stakeholder approach that is accepted to be an approach to bring us together, has not insignificant negative externalities that serve to keep us apart. We need to assess the multi-stakeholder approach with that in mind If it is retained as an organizing principle, we need to recognize and understand those negative effects so that we can minimize them and can exploit the positive aspects of that approach. >>> >>> This is a much longer note than I ordinarily write, but it has helped me to understand some of the roots of the often unnecessarily antagonistic relationship between proponents of issues important to civil society and technical community experts guiding the evolution of the Internet. Thank you for taking the time to read it. I realize that what I have written, and any discussion of it, is considerably more nuanced than what I have presented above. However, I have tried to present the core of some ideas that I think may be useful. The more nuanced discussion can and will come later. >>> >>> Your comments are welcome. >>> >>> George >>> >>> >>> >>> <> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> I-coordination mailing list >>> I-coordination at nro.net >>> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination >> >> _______________________________________________ >> I-coordination mailing list >> I-coordination at nro.net >> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Mon Dec 2 10:54:57 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 07:54:57 -0800 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574A1A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573F76@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529A0E33.50400@itforchange.net> <4644BCB3-3D3E-409C-94A4-27AD1BD42F67@virtualized.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574A1A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7B1514BE-4959-4C8B-A41A-630DFB74571C@virtualized.org> Milton, On Dec 2, 2013, at 6:51 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Personally speaking (as always), I believe that oversight is important. While I have no fears of the current IANA staff running off the rails, it is important to remember that in the past when there was less focus on what IANA did, it did run off the rails. > > Are you referring here to the Jan 1998 Jon Postel “experiment” redirecting the root servers, or something else? Something else. I was referring to the times when there was a perception that Jon didn't abide by his own rules (allocations of IP address blocks outside existing policies, at least as understood by the folks who ran the RIRs at the time, and redelegations that appeared not to follow the letter and/or spirit of RFC 1591) as well as later times (after ICANN was established) when IANA performance (in terms of response time to fulfill requests) was so bad that it threatened a complete fracturing of the IANA functions or the times when ICANN refused to perform IANA functions because the requesters didn't abide by then ICANN policies (e.g., refusal to update name servers when ccTLD admins didn't enter into agreements with ICANN). >>> When it comes to deciding what can go in the root, that is clearly now the role of the GAC (see GAC Communnique's from Beijing, Durban). >> Oversimplification. > > Not an oversimplification: completely wrong. I was trying to be diplomatic. :) More seriously, I took McTim's comment to be unrelated to the NTIA oversight role, but with relation to the gTLD policy development role in general. > The “oversight” provided by NTIA is not supposed to be a policy override function; If you change "supposed to" to "and can not", very much agreed. As currently constituted and exercised, the NTIA role simply verifies ICANN's conformance to documented policies -- they have no way of injecting policy other than by refusal to authorize a change (which they have never to my knowledge done). This is one reason I suspect some people might be a bit confused about what they're arguing for (or they are pushing a particular political agenda that extends beyond the existing roles). 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 mueller at syr.edu Mon Dec 2 12:20:02 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 17:20:02 +0000 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <7B1514BE-4959-4C8B-A41A-630DFB74571C@virtualized.org> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573F76@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529A0E33.50400@itforchange.net> <4644BCB3-3D3E-409C-94A4-27AD1BD42F67@virtualized.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574A1A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <7B1514BE-4959-4C8B-A41A-630DFB74571C@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257514A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org] >Something else. I was referring to the times when there was a perception that Jon didn't >abide by his own rules (allocations of IP address blocks outside existing policies, at least as >understood by the folks who ran the RIRs at the time, and redelegations that appeared not >to follow the letter and/or spirit of RFC 1591) as well as later times (after ICANN was > established) when IANA performance (in terms of response time to fulfill requests) was > so bad that it threatened a complete fracturing of the IANA functions or the times when >ICANN refused to perform IANA functions because the requesters didn't abide by then >ICANN policies (e.g., refusal to update name servers when ccTLD admins didn't enter >into agreements with ICANN). OK, interesting. The early problems with Postel acting ultra vires can be attributed to the informality of the early organizational arrangements. That is indeed what the audit function is supposed to prevent. Those later examples, however, are not things that could be corrected through an external oversight or audit authority. Such oversight merely assures that the changes conformed to established procedures and policies before being implemented. What you are talking about is some form of performance requirement in the first case, and bad policies in the second case. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Dec 2 12:27:01 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 17:27:01 +0000 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <7B1514BE-4959-4C8B-A41A-630DFB74571C@virtualized.org> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573F76@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529A0E33.50400@itforchange.net> <4644BCB3-3D3E-409C-94A4-27AD1BD42F67@virtualized.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574A1A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <7B1514BE-4959-4C8B-A41A-630DFB74571C@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2575162@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> By the way, when an RIR staff member assigns me an IP number block and enters it into its registry, no one looks over their shoulder other than the RIR governing board, which is elected by members. Do you think RIR number block assignments also need to be approved by an external authority? Just askin' From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org] Sent: Monday, December 2, 2013 10:55 AM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance Milton, On Dec 2, 2013, at 6:51 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: Personally speaking (as always), I believe that oversight is important. While I have no fears of the current IANA staff running off the rails, it is important to remember that in the past when there was less focus on what IANA did, it did run off the rails. Are you referring here to the Jan 1998 Jon Postel "experiment" redirecting the root servers, or something else? Something else. I was referring to the times when there was a perception that Jon didn't abide by his own rules (allocations of IP address blocks outside existing policies, at least as understood by the folks who ran the RIRs at the time, and redelegations that appeared not to follow the letter and/or spirit of RFC 1591) as well as later times (after ICANN was established) when IANA performance (in terms of response time to fulfill requests) was so bad that it threatened a complete fracturing of the IANA functions or the times when ICANN refused to perform IANA functions because the requesters didn't abide by then ICANN policies (e.g., refusal to update name servers when ccTLD admins didn't enter into agreements with ICANN). When it comes to deciding what can go in the root, that is clearly now the role of the GAC (see GAC Communnique's from Beijing, Durban). Oversimplification. Not an oversimplification: completely wrong. I was trying to be diplomatic. :) More seriously, I took McTim's comment to be unrelated to the NTIA oversight role, but with relation to the gTLD policy development role in general. The "oversight" provided by NTIA is not supposed to be a policy override function; If you change "supposed to" to "and can not", very much agreed. As currently constituted and exercised, the NTIA role simply verifies ICANN's conformance to documented policies -- they have no way of injecting policy other than by refusal to authorize a change (which they have never to my knowledge done). This is one reason I suspect some people might be a bit confused about what they're arguing for (or they are pushing a particular political agenda that extends beyond the existing roles). Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Dec 2 12:28:49 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 17:28:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257517A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Jovan Helpful, thanks. But remember, when we talk about ICANN we are only talking about the governance of unique identifiers (names and numbers) not governance of "the Internet." Can you elaborate more on what kind of "immunities" you think ICANN - as DNS governor only - would need? From: Jovan Kurbalija [mailto:jovank at diplomacy.edu] Sent: Monday, December 2, 2013 9:19 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller Cc: parminder Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance Thank you, Milton, Parminder and others for raising this issue. CS and academia have the opportunity to contribute to more informed discussion on jurisdiction and institutional architecture in the preparation for Sao Paolo and beyond. There are two main options (IGO or private organisation) and a few possibilities in between (hybrids): 1. Intergovernmental organisations This option is clear. The organisation would have to be established by an intergovernmental agreement (convention, treaty, statute). The main advantage of this option is immunity and independence from any national jurisdiction. The main challenge is how to ensure accountability and inclusive governance (involvement of civil society, business, and users communities). It is important to keep in mind that while it can be inter-governmental in making, a new entity could have a much more flexible structure. For example, the ILO was established by governments, but it has a tripartite governance structure consisting of representatives of governments, employers and employees. 2. Private organisations (NGO, business, etc.) The other main option is to have private organisations registered under national laws; i.e. the current status of ICANN and most international non-profit organisations. They are international in their name and function, but legally speaking they are national entities. The main legal internationalisation of INGOs is provided by the European Convention on the Recognition of the Legal Personality of INGOs (Council of Europe, 1986). There are some arguments that UN-consultative status provides a 'soft law' legal basis, but it is a far-fetched argument. What are the in between options? 3. Quasi-international organisations This is part of an innovative legal development initiated in 2007 by the Swiss Federal Council (Ordinance OLEH from 7 December 2007). It provides certain fiscal and legal privileges. This quasi-international status has been granted to the International Air Transport Association, the International Olympic Committee, and the World Conservation Union. The main limitation of this status - so far - is that it does not provide jurisdictional immunity. 4. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) The ICRC model has been mentioned as a possible solution for ICANN. The ICRC is a private foundation established under Swiss law while it receives its mandate by international treaties (Geneva conventions). The ICRC together with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent (IFRC) creates a sometimes complex but carefully balanced system of Red Cross community. There are many checks and balances and accountability mechanisms involving national governments and Red Cross/Red Crescent National Societies (non-governmental entities). The Red Cross model - especially when it comes to accountability - could provide a number of inspiring elements for the future 'IG architecture' 5. Montreaux model Some ideas for IG could be borrowed from the 'Montreaux model' which deals with international governance of private and security companies. The privatisation of security sector led some countries to request international treaty (so-called Mercenaries convention). Others resisted it. While there were differences in how to regulate them, there was consensus that private security companies should observe human rights and humanitarian law. Based on this convergence point, Switzerland (via DCAF) initiated the private-public process with the Montreaux Document (2008) which outlined the main principles. The next step was the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers (November 2010) which operationalised the principles. In October this year, the oversight mechanism was established involving government, private sector and civil society. This oversight mechanism is an interesting organisational construct that may inspire some solutions for Internet governance. 6. On a more conceptual level, a solution could be found in identifying the jurisdictional immunities of ICANN for specific activities (not general immunity enjoyed by IGOs). Such a solution could relate well to the modern trend in international law to distinguish immunities of states and IOs for iure imperii (core public function) and iure gestionies (no immunity for contracts and other activities of the organisation). In 2014, we plan to organise a few brainstorming events in Geneva on the interplay between the Internet, jurisdiction and institutional law. There is a lot of expertise in both the humanitarian and institutional law that could help in finding some innovative solutions for the IG institutional architecture. Best regards, Jovan Jovan Kurbalija, Phd Director, DiploFoundation Rue de Lausanne 56 | 1202 Geneva | Switzerland Tel. +41 (0) 22 7410435 | Mobile. +41 (0) 797884226 Email: jovank at diplomacy.edu | Twitter: @jovankurbalija Note: If you have been waiting for a reply from me, this might explain my tardiness. Thank you for your patience! On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: It's a basic error to equate a generic incorporation law with comprehensive regulatory "oversight by the US legal system" as Parminder is doing. I am not sure whether Parminder is just using a rhetorical ploy at this point. But I am not averse to host-country type agreements that would protect ICANN from legislative interference. An honest argument makes a comparison based on current facts. Regardless of where ICANN is incorporated now, it has to be incorporated somewhere. We are presented so far with 3 choices: 1. a Geneva-based INGO like FIFA or the Red Cross 2. California NPPBL 3. Some new international public law (treaty-based) that we have no experience with and no concrete guarantees regarding its content (because it doesn't exist yet) and which might take 3-10 years to conclude Take your pick. Open to good arguments for any, as well as hybrids and other ideas. And if you can bring yourself to ignore the commentor's nationality, Karl's argument that any feasible transitional arrangement has to deal with real contracts and assets must be taken into account. --MM ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:24 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance On Saturday 30 November 2013 11:10 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: it is up to Milton to defend his position and I don't think that he defended an continuity of any kind of US control. anyway you can read his ideas in details at his blog. For sure, I have read them. Yes, he does advocate continued oversight ('control' if you like) by US legal system, or broadly, the US polity, over ICANN, but extinguishing executive controls exercised through US DoC. But of course Milton can tell us if I am wrong in saying the above... parminder I made the analogy to FIFA because it is international organisation too if you mean diversity etc but also for the level of corruption and no accountability there. I think that you can see the point here . we can argue a lot about the legal status of the organisation but what matters at the end is the mechanism for accountability, transparency , openness, inclusiveness . And as you say if you are not arguing that ICANN "should be an US org under US laws ", then the question is "what kind of org and under what kind of law" do you advocate. Thanks. I don't have an answer about the legal framework to be used or any other organisational complexity, however I am thinking on how to avoid situation where interests group try to expand trademark law there or governments use GAC to push for content policy through gTLD or eroding privacy rights to match LEA requests without any oversight or in contradiction to ehir own data protection law. I am thinking on how we make the organisation developing users-driven policies and not to respond to narrow governmental or private interests. coming from a small developing country struggling with a complicated and painful democratic transition, I am more keen to defend citizen interests and not by any geopolitical interests of some governments Rafik parminder I have a question, maybe naive: if we have problem with one state to have dominant role as assumed by mant, how adding more states will solve the problem , a kind of zero sum game? another question, what benefit for the average users far from any geopolitical consideration in such case? Rafik 2013/11/30 parminder > On Saturday 30 November 2013 10:19 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: yes Milton it will make it the FIFA of IG world Rafik Rafik, do you in that case agree that ICANN should remain an US organisation, subject solely to US laws... parminder 2013/11/30 Milton L Mueller > No, no, no, please. That level of specificity is counterproductive at this stage. Many people who have studied this issue believe that turning ICANN into an INGO is the surest way for it to escape what little accountability it currently has. Those willing to go along with a general call for reform in ICANN's US-centered oversight need not commit themselves to a particular solution at this point, and the language below does that. Please don't come up with off the cuff quickie solutions for this. It will take more than a scan of Wikipedia to solve. From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 7:49 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google' Cc: 'Norbert Bollow'; Milton L Mueller Subject: RE: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance What about 1) Transitioning ICANN and IANA to an International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) status: The Global Meeting should aim at developing a suitable and widely acceptable means to achieve the desired transition of ICANN and IANA away from its links to the USG and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_nongovernmental_organization M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 2:39 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance ICANN (and its President/CEO) have been "encouraged" at several opportunities to adjust its "internationalization" rhetoric/terminology and thus its resulting INTERNATIONALIZATION thrust to one which is significantly more embrasive of the objectives of, and indeed, spirit of what GLOBALIZATION in theory, intends to achieve. I believe therefore that Milton's recommendation is timely and appropriate ... whether we use the term "Globalization" or a perhaps more compromising and less economics/free-market linked phrase or term such as "Global Integration", or more radically, "Glocalization". ------ Rgds, Tracy On Nov 29, 2013 4:52 PM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" > wrote: Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual perspective, and in my humble Global Governance observer capacity, for the pleasure of the reflection: Internationalization: one wants to have a larger international basis: more offices, more representatives, more of a network of local branches that, being put together, creates an international network. Still each element is mostly comparable to the starting point in terms of culture, thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' kind of uniformity. Meaning many little ICANNs all around. Globalization: this could happen without a network of offices around the world. You can observe a very globalized entity containing so many different elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet with a governance of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than one single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the many in a global manner of thinking. Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind. Transnationalization: this tends to establish a community of people based in various locations, trying to forget about their local identity, interest or belonging, with the objective to address a more common, regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an understanding of global magnitude. Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds. - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater control over the network, and at the end of the day, you can pretend to be a global minded outlet. Good communication value. - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, specially if you are not starting from a fully independent culture. Very challenging when one starts from a private or national basis. - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts trust in the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable approach, and ultimately, one that could deliver a true global minded system. Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG debate. Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from the corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, executives would convene 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade union, politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable definition and understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something that usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... All the best, __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias Editor in Chief jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net @jc_nothias Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 schrieb Milton L Mueller >: Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national relations. On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to address. Maybe yet another term could be used??? Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com Mon Dec 2 12:36:54 2013 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 18:36:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257517A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147 A7570370CA01ECD257517A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <913F4FEC-7BBA-420C-9713-F59365847A61@gmail.com> Milton, May I wonder about the 'we' you are referring to? (when we talk about ICANN) Always my constituency issue :-) More seriously, ICANN is now willing to become an international "governance of the Internet" body. We have all indications and declarations to give credit to that view. Don't you think it would fair to recognized this in order to face the real challenges at stake, today? JC Le 2 déc. 2013 à 18:28, Milton L Mueller a écrit : > Jovan > Helpful, thanks. But remember, when we talk about ICANN we are only talking about the governance of unique identifiers (names and numbers) not governance of “the Internet.” > > Can you elaborate more on what kind of “immunities” you think ICANN – as DNS governor only – would need? > > From: Jovan Kurbalija [mailto:jovank at diplomacy.edu] > Sent: Monday, December 2, 2013 9:19 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller > Cc: parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance > > Thank you, Milton, Parminder and others for raising this issue. CS and academia have the opportunity to contribute to more informed discussion on jurisdiction and institutional architecture in the preparation for Sao Paolo and beyond. There are two main options (IGO or private organisation) and a few possibilities in between (hybrids): > > 1. Intergovernmental organisations > > This option is clear. The organisation would have to be established by an intergovernmental agreement (convention, treaty, statute). The main advantage of this option is immunity and independence from any national jurisdiction. The main challenge is how to ensure accountability and inclusive governance (involvement of civil society, business, and users communities). It is important to keep in mind that while it can be inter-governmental in making, a new entity could have a much more flexible structure. For example, the ILO was established by governments, but it has a tripartite governance structure consisting of representatives of governments, employers and employees. > > 2. Private organisations (NGO, business, etc.) > > The other main option is to have private organisations registered under national laws; i.e. the current status of ICANN and most international non-profit organisations. They are international in their name and function, but legally speaking they are national entities. The main legal internationalisation of INGOs is provided by the European Convention on the Recognition of the Legal Personality of INGOs (Council of Europe, 1986). There are some arguments that UN-consultative status provides a ‘soft law’ legal basis, but it is a far-fetched argument. > > > What are the in between options? > > 3. Quasi-international organisations > > This is part of an innovative legal development initiated in 2007 by the Swiss Federal Council (Ordinance OLEH from 7 December 2007). It provides certain fiscal and legal privileges. This quasi-international status has been granted to the International Air Transport Association, the International Olympic Committee, and the World Conservation Union. The main limitation of this status – so far – is that it does not provide jurisdictional immunity. > > 4. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) > > The ICRC model has been mentioned as a possible solution for ICANN. The ICRC is a private foundation established under Swiss law while it receives its mandate by international treaties (Geneva conventions). The ICRC together with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent (IFRC) creates a sometimes complex but carefully balanced system of Red Cross community. There are many checks and balances and accountability mechanisms involving national governments and Red Cross/Red Crescent National Societies (non-governmental entities). The Red Cross model – especially when it comes to accountability – could provide a number of inspiring elements for the future ‘IG architecture’ > > 5. Montreaux model > > Some ideas for IG could be borrowed from the ‘Montreaux model’ which deals with international governance of private and security companies. The privatisation of security sector led some countries to request international treaty (so-called Mercenaries convention). Others resisted it. While there were differences in how to regulate them, there was consensus that private security companies should observe human rights and humanitarian law. Based on this convergence point, Switzerland (via DCAF) initiated the private-public process with the Montreaux Document (2008) which outlined the main principles. The next step was the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers (November 2010) which operationalised the principles. In October this year, the oversight mechanism was established involving government, private sector and civil society. This oversight mechanism is an interesting organisational construct that may inspire some solutions for Internet governance. > > 6. On a more conceptual level, a solution could be found in identifying the jurisdictional immunities of ICANN for specific activities (not general immunity enjoyed by IGOs). Such a solution could relate well to the modern trend in international law to distinguish immunities of states and IOs for iure imperii (core public function) and iure gestionies (no immunity for contracts and other activities of the organisation). > > In 2014, we plan to organise a few brainstorming events in Geneva on the interplay between the Internet, jurisdiction and institutional law. There is a lot of expertise in both the humanitarian and institutional law that could help in finding some innovative solutions for the IG institutional architecture. > > Best regards, Jovan > > Jovan Kurbalija, Phd > Director, DiploFoundation > Rue de Lausanne 56 | 1202 Geneva | Switzerland > Tel. +41 (0) 22 7410435 | Mobile. +41 (0) 797884226 > Email: jovank at diplomacy.edu | Twitter: @jovankurbalija > Note: If you have been waiting for a reply from me, this might explain my tardiness. Thank you for your patience! > > > > On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > It's a basic error to equate a generic incorporation law with comprehensive regulatory "oversight by the US legal system" as Parminder is doing. I am not sure whether Parminder is just using a rhetorical ploy at this point. But I am not averse to host-country type agreements that would protect ICANN from legislative interference. > > An honest argument makes a comparison based on current facts. Regardless of where ICANN is incorporated now, it has to be incorporated somewhere. We are presented so far with 3 choices: > 1. a Geneva-based INGO like FIFA or the Red Cross > 2. California NPPBL > 3. Some new international public law (treaty-based) that we have no experience with and no concrete guarantees regarding its content (because it doesn't exist yet) and which might take 3-10 years to conclude > > Take your pick. Open to good arguments for any, as well as hybrids and other ideas. And if you can bring yourself to ignore the commentor's nationality, Karl's argument that any feasible transitional arrangement has to deal with real contracts and assets must be taken into account. > > --MM > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:24 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance > > > On Saturday 30 November 2013 11:10 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > > > > it is up to Milton to defend his position and I don't think that he defended an continuity of any kind of US control. anyway you can read his ideas in details at his blog. > > For sure, I have read them. Yes, he does advocate continued oversight ('control' if you like) by US legal system, or broadly, the US polity, over ICANN, but extinguishing executive controls exercised through US DoC. > > But of course Milton can tell us if I am wrong in saying the above... parminder > > > > I made the analogy to FIFA because it is international organisation too if you mean diversity etc but also for the level of corruption and no accountability there. I think that you can see the point here . > we can argue a lot about the legal status of the organisation but what matters at the end is the mechanism for accountability, transparency , openness, inclusiveness . > > > And as you say if you are not arguing that ICANN "should be an US org under US laws ", then the question is "what kind of org and under what kind of law" do you advocate. Thanks. > > I don't have an answer about the legal framework to be used or any other organisational complexity, however I am thinking on how to avoid situation where interests group try to expand trademark law there or governments use GAC to push for content policy through gTLD or eroding privacy rights to match LEA requests without any oversight or in contradiction to ehir own data protection law. I am thinking on how we make the organisation developing users-driven policies and not to respond to narrow governmental or private interests. > coming from a small developing country struggling with a complicated and painful democratic transition, I am more keen to defend citizen interests and not by any geopolitical interests of some governments > > > Rafik > > > parminder > > > I have a question, maybe naive: if we have problem with one state to have dominant role as assumed by mant, how adding more states will solve the problem , a kind of zero sum game? > another question, what benefit for the average users far from any geopolitical consideration in such case? > > Rafik > > 2013/11/30 parminder > > On Saturday 30 November 2013 10:19 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > yes Milton it will make it the FIFA of IG world > > Rafik > > Rafik, do you in that case agree that ICANN should remain an US organisation, subject solely to US laws... parminder > > > > 2013/11/30 Milton L Mueller > No, no, no, please. That level of specificity is counterproductive at this stage. Many people who have studied this issue believe that turning ICANN into an INGO is the surest way for it to escape what little accountability it currently has. Those willing to go along with a general call for reform in ICANN’s US-centered oversight need not commit themselves to a particular solution at this point, and the language below does that. > > Please don’t come up with off the cuff quickie solutions for this. It will take more than a scan of Wikipedia to solve. > > From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 7:49 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google' > Cc: 'Norbert Bollow'; Milton L Mueller > Subject: RE: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance > > What about > > 1) Transitioning ICANN and IANA to an International Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) status: The Global Meeting should aim at developing a suitable and widely acceptable means to achieve the desired transition of ICANN and IANA away from its links to the USG and > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_nongovernmental_organization > > > > M > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 2:39 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Cc: Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller > Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance > > ICANN (and its President/CEO) have been "encouraged" at several opportunities to adjust its "internationalization" rhetoric/terminology and thus its resulting INTERNATIONALIZATION thrust to one which is significantly more embrasive of the objectives of, and indeed, spirit of what GLOBALIZATION in theory, intends to achieve. > > I believe therefore that Milton's recommendation is timely and appropriate ... whether we use the term "Globalization" or a perhaps more compromising and less economics/free-market linked phrase or term such as "Global Integration", or more radically, "Glocalization". > > ------ > Rgds, > > Tracy > > > > On Nov 29, 2013 4:52 PM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" wrote: > Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, > > If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual perspective, and in my humble Global Governance observer capacity, for the pleasure of the reflection: > > Internationalization: one wants to have a larger international basis: more offices, more representatives, more of a network of local branches that, being put together, creates an international network. Still each element is mostly comparable to the starting point in terms of culture, thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' kind of uniformity. Meaning many little ICANNs all around. > > Globalization: this could happen without a network of offices around the world. You can observe a very globalized entity containing so many different elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet with a governance of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than one single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the many in a global manner of thinking. > Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind. > > Transnationalization: this tends to establish a community of people based in various locations, trying to forget about their local identity, interest or belonging, with the objective to address a more common, regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an understanding of global magnitude. > Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds. > > > - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater control over the network, and at the end of the day, you can pretend to be a global minded outlet. Good communication value. > - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, specially if you are not starting from a fully independent culture. Very challenging when one starts from a private or national basis. > - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts trust in the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable approach, and ultimately, one that could deliver a true global minded system. > > Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG debate. > > Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from the corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, executives would convene 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade union, politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable definition and understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something that usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... > > All the best, > > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe Nothias > Editor in Chief > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net > @jc_nothias > > > > > > > Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > > > Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 > schrieb Milton L Mueller : > > Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family > holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word > "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in > a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not > an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena > > That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their > governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has > certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global > phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of > decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is > happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national > relations. > > On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very > wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased > social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns > that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to address. > > Maybe yet another term could be used??? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 2 12:38:47 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 06:38:47 +1300 Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] Message-ID: Dear All, At the moment, there is a loose network of some civil society organisations namely: 1. Association for Progressive Commuications (APC) 2. Best Bits 3. Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus 4. Diplo Foundation 5. ICANN's Non Commercial Stakeholder Group [In alphabetical order] I would really like to see more civil society organisations work together to collaborate on designing the way forward and strategies. If you feel that you would like your civil society organisation to be part of a wider collaborative effort, please respond to this email by submitting the name of your organisation. Please feel free to send this onwards to your respective cosmos. The names put forward can be used to forge a Coalition of a wider civil society based network. If you would like to be part of a wider Coalition, please respond to this email with following information: 1. Name of the Organisation or Network (and when organisation or network was first formed) 2. Details of Constituency represented (Please also identify whether this is a country based/regional or international) 3. Name of Coordinator of Organisation/Network 4. Contact Details (including website) 5. Name of one Nominee to the Coalition who will speak on administrative matters where it comes to the wider coalition Should you be interested in the wider Coalition and engaging collaboratively, kindly respond ASAP. There will be communiques sent to a mailing list that will be created that will inform you of events that are happening to enable you to stream the information to your networks and allow for authentic bottom up, grassroots engagement in the diverse regions of the world. This will help enable authentic global civil society engagement and make it truly inclusive. Kind Regards, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joana at varonferraz.com Mon Dec 2 12:56:45 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 15:56:45 -0200 Subject: [governance] [Quick follow up] on the delivery of the letter about the 4 interim liaisons Message-ID: Dear all, According to previous concerns, the letter pointing the four Brazilian interim liaisons was sent last week to the Brazilian government, which has just replied, through Mr Vigilio Almeida, Secretary for Information Technology Policy at the Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation. The letter is currently hosted here: http://bestbits.net/brazil-reps/ and was sent reinforcing the idea that it is a interim nomination, that shall not be seen in disregard of the procedures to be established to populate the four Committees to be formed with a proper, less ad hoc procedure. As a response, Virgilio has kindly said that they are looking forward for contributions from the respective networks in preparing the April meeting agenda, and that there are still at the stage of internal organization to prepare next steps. best joana -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 2 13:33:11 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 19:33:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257517A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257517A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20131202193311.1428d92b@quill> Milton L Mueller wrote: > Can you elaborate more on what kind of "immunities" you think ICANN - > as DNS governor only - would need? Some issues that come to mind immediately include: 1) Immunity from trademark law in relation to the identifiers managed by ICANN - so that identifiers which are trademarked in the jurisdiction of ICANN's host country can be used as a TLD identifier, and domains under that TLD can be used by competitors of the trademark holder in countries where that identifier is in fact a generic term that cannot be trademarked. For example, "Buch" (German for "book") could be a trademark in ICANN's host country if that is not a German-speaking country, but in German-speaking countries it's a generic term that cannot be trademarked, so the presence of a trademark in ICANN's host country should not prevent .buch from being used in German-speaking countries as a domain for book related websites. 2) Immunity from any law of the host county related to aiding and abetting violations of copyright and related rights (as these rights are defined in the jurisdiction of ICANN's host country) when the only relationship between ICANN and the infringing website consists in the website's use of the domain name system. 3) Immunity of the DNS governor function from any export control regulations and other restrictions that the host country might generally impose on doing business with entities of belonging to specific countries. For example, TLD registries should have an assurance that even if ICANN's host country should happen to declare war against the country in which the registry is incorporated, ICANN will still fully fulfill its commitments. 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 drc at virtualized.org Mon Dec 2 13:35:48 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 10:35:48 -0800 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257514A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573F76@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529A0E33.50400@itforchange.net> <4644BCB3-3D3E-409C-94A4-27AD1BD42F67@virtualized.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574A1A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <7B1514BE-4959-4C8B-A41A-630DFB74571C@virtualized.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257514A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Those later examples, however, are not things that could be corrected through an external oversight or audit authority. [...] > What you are talking about is some form of performance requirement in the first case [IANA function performance being abysmal], and bad policies in the second case [IANA inappropriately refusing to perform services]. In the first case, the performance requirement is specified by a SLA between the IAOC and ICANN regarding the execution of the IANA protocol parameter function. I personally believe the oversight function can/should ensure conformance to the SLAs ICANN and other parties mutually agree to. I believe (not positive: full implementation came after I left ICANN) NTIA does verify ICANN as the IANA Functions Operator is meeting its agreed upon SLAs (the oversight role does not specify the SLAs of course). In the second case, I'm fairly certain this was an implementation issue: my understanding (may be wrong: before my time at ICANN) is that IANA staff were directed not to make certain changes unless an agreement was signed and this was against actual policy of the time. I've been told requiring signed agreements prior to performing services was actually explicitly disallowed in an amendment to the IANA functions contract. I would argue that in both of these cases, the oversight role performed by NTIA was exercised to ensure that ICANN was performing its duties according to agreed upon policies. 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 drc at virtualized.org Mon Dec 2 13:43:34 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 10:43:34 -0800 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2575162@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573F76@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529A0E33.50400@itforchange.net> <4644BCB3-3D3E-409C-94A4-27AD1BD42F67@virtualized.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574A1A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <7B1514BE-4959-4C8B-A41A-630DFB74571C@virtualized.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2575162@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <8AD1FB5E-B2C0-4700-84B9-3CFB85AADBF6@virtualized.org> On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:27 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > By the way, when an RIR staff member assigns me an IP number block and enters it into its registry, no one looks over their shoulder other than the RIR governing board, which is elected by members. Do you think RIR number block assignments also need to be approved by an external authority? Just askin’ No more than the assignment of a second-level domain to a registrant should be approved by an external authority. 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 anja at internetdemocracy.in Mon Dec 2 14:38:52 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 01:08:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto In-Reply-To: <05ec01ceeef6$878f3d00$96adb700$@gmail.com> References: <8CBC2521-BEEB-45C5-A8DE-B0248CCC272C@1st-mile.org> <033801ceeb99$2f08e9c0$8d1abd40$@gmail.com> <052701ceeedb$d73471b0$859d5510$@gmail.com> <3644866f-2f33-488f-ab5c-4275d34327d8@email.android.com> <05ec01ceeef6$878f3d00$96adb700$@gmail.com> Message-ID: I wouldn't actually agree that an approach that starts from the national level is the only way forward. In the analysis of the Internet Democracy Project, among important reasons why more progress has not been made on various goals set out in the WSIS Action Lines is not only because Action Lines have been implemented in too top-down a fashion, but also, and relatedly, because the Action Lines mix together two types of issues: those that fundamentally rely on the input of the larger development community, and those that are Internet governance issues in the more narrow sense. The latter frequently cut across Action Lines, and as long as they are not addressed adequately, it is unlikely that the development agenda that is at the heart of the Action Lines will take off either. The former is in many cases the foundation for the success of the latter. For this reason, the Internet Democracy Project proposed in September, when the first inputs into the preparatory process for the ITU's High Level Review meeting were due, to actually rearrange the Action Lines to make sure both aspects of the Action Lines get their due. This would entail highlighting, and addressing, the Internet governance agenda that is embedded in the Action Lines separately, without at any point losing sight of its connectedness with the development agenda. We resubmitted this proposal as an input into the zero draft of the zero draft of the WSIS+10 vision in November, please see: http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/inc/docs/phase2/rc/V1-D-2.docx While many development issues in the Action Lines require action first and foremost at local and national levels, many of the Internet governance issues are really global public policy issues (and by splitting the two strands, where to engage can become much more clear for a range of actors). We therefore also made this proposal an integral part of our proposals for the evolution of global Internet governance. If much of the groundwork to enhance cooperation has already been done in the context of the Action Lines, why not build on this rather than constituting a new, government-dominated body? This would also ensure that the enhanced cooperation agenda, too, is tethered quite closely to development - that seems to be the case only rarely now. Different issues require action at different levels and through different processes. The challenge is not which one to chose, but how to hold on to, organise and maximise the multitude. Best, Anja On 2 December 2013 06:06, michael gurstein wrote: > +1 > > > > M > > > > *From:* nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] > *Sent:* Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 PM > *To:* michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > > > > The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I believe > strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, because > the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level action plans, > drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared like-for-like as > to results internationally so countries can learn from what works in other > countries. The irony is that this model is how "Agenda 21" the climate > change process from the first Rio conference works; sadly WSIS didn't pick > this up despite it postdating Rio by more than a decade. > > In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not going to > be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where INGOs (however > well-meaning) compare notes and report cards - it will be met at the > grassroots level, with buyin from that level. > > > > michael gurstein wrote: > > Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is > necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look at > this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be done > with no attention being given to how it might actually be accomplished on > the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements and > failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. > > > > M > > > > http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp > > > > Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become critical > to driving growth, delivering social services, improving environmental > management, and transforming people’s lives, according to a new Manifesto > released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and signed by > 48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from > industry, civil society and the United Nations. “Overcoming the digital > divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness and > justice; connecting the world makes soun d commercial sense,” the Manifesto > reads. “The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the core of > any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all > countries – developed and developing alike – are empowered to participate > in the global digital economy.” > > > > Supporting Document > > > > > http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce-report.pdf > > > > > -- > Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- 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 Mon Dec 2 16:21:21 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 16:21:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: Hi David, On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 12:54 AM, David Conrad wrote: > McTim, > > On Nov 30, 2013, at 6:29 AM, McTim wrote: >> >> I was referring to those ICANN processes that are still immune from >> GAC/Board/Staff interference. Namely the ASO, but perhaps the ccNSO, but I >> can't testify to that area. > > > Neither the ASO nor the the ccNSO are 'immune" from "interference". you are right, perhaps I should have said "heavily inoculated against" ;-) > > My understanding (which may be wrong) of the reason for the board being > involved in these sorts of policy decisions is to ensure there is broader > input than just the singular community of interest requesting the change. that may be. My understanding has been that the BoD ratifies global numbering policies to ensure that the ASO follows their PDP, much like the BoD of an RIR ratifies a new policy as a way to ensure the RIR PDP was followed. I suspect our understandings aren't mutually exclusive. NB: I've no direct experience in all 5 of the RIRs, but this is what I have experienced as a policy co-author and WG Co-Chair (not at the same time however ;-) -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Dec 2 16:34:50 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 16:34:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574A1A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573F76@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529A0E33.50400@itforchange.net> <4644BCB3-3D3E-409C-94A4-27AD1BD42F67@virtualized.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574A1A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: MIlton! On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > David > > > >> Personally speaking (as always), I believe that oversight is important. >> While I have no > >> fears of the current IANA staff running off the rails, it is important to >> remember that in > >> the past when there was less focus on what IANA did, it did run off the >> rails. > > > > Are you referring here to the Jan 1998 Jon Postel “experiment” redirecting > the root servers, or something else? If something else, please let me know; > it is useful to have specific cases of what can go wrong. > > > > Btw if you do mean the Postel redirection, am I correct that this is _not_ > what NTIA currently audits (which master root server is used)? > > > > When it comes to deciding what can go in the root, that is clearly now the > role of the GAC (see GAC Communnique's from Beijing, Durban). > > > >> Oversimplification. > > > > Not an oversimplification: completely wrong. I admit to oversimplifying, but ask .gcc or .patagonia if I'm wrong! > > > > The GAC provides _advice_ to the Board on “public policy issues” that are > supposed to emerge from ICANN’s policy development process. GAC has no role > in auditing or monitoring the actual changes that go into the root after > they have been decided. Indeed, that is a pretty good example of something > you do _not_ want a collection of mid-level bureaucrats with no technical > expertise to do. mais oui (sorry, on a flight to Paris, couldn't resist). > > > > There seems to be a deeper error embedded in both David’s comments and the > person he was responding to. > > > > It is important not to confuse the audit function of root zone changes > performed by NTIA with a policy making function performed by ICANN’s > allegedly bottom up process. It is extremely dangerous to combine or confuse > the two. Did I conflate them? Apologies, they are clearly separate in my mind. Let's say there is a string, call it ".whatever". It sails along through the evaluation process quite merrily. One day the GAC takes up the notion that .whatever is bad for us for whatever reason it wants. If the GAC says "non" to .whatever and the Board capitulates (as they seem to do more and more these days), then whois the "decider"? Your concrete example below is not at all concrete. The above is the new paradigm we currently enjoy. I'd be happier if the GAC were to take on the NTIA role, rather than have the status quo with their current (near) veto over what goes into the root). I for one would insist they give up their special status in the By-Laws if they were to take on the root auth role. I doubt they would want to downgrade their current power. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Dec 2 16:59:28 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 21:59:28 +0000 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <8AD1FB5E-B2C0-4700-84B9-3CFB85AADBF6@virtualized.org> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573F76@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529A0E33.50400@itforchange.net> <4644BCB3-3D3E-409C-94A4-27AD1BD42F67@virtualized.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574A1A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <7B1514BE-4959-4C8B-A41A-630DFB74571C@virtualized.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2575162@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>,<8AD1FB5E-B2C0-4700-84B9-3CFB85AADBF6@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25754BF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> ________________________________ On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:27 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: By the way, when an RIR staff member assigns me an IP number block and enters it into its registry, no one looks over their shoulder other than the RIR governing board, which is elected by members. Do you think RIR number block assignments also need to be approved by an external authority? Just askin’ DRC: No more than the assignment of a second-level domain to a registrant should be approved by an external authority. Well, yeah, Verisign's .com and .net zone files are probably as important to the global economy as the root zone. Why not have the government supervise its changes and additions? The point I am making is, if Verisign screws up its TLD zone file, they face lawsuits. Probably a pretty strong deterrent. Would such a deterrent be sufficient for ICANN, or does it really need this external audit function? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Dec 2 17:00:03 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 22:00:03 +0000 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573F76@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529A0E33.50400@itforchange.net> <4644BCB3-3D3E-409C-94A4-27AD1BD42F67@virtualized.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574A1A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25754CB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> ________________________________________ From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] > I admit to oversimplifying, but ask .gcc or .patagonia if I'm wrong! GAC fought for and to some extent won the right during the policy process to do these sorts of things. But it is still the policy process, and it still requires board approval. However f**ed ICANN's policy process may have become (and I have been in the forefront of both fighting against arbitrary interventions of this sort and in the forefront warning that that the GAC represents a structural flaw in the PDP), it is still the policy process. Once the board approves a string, and it is time to enter it into the root zone file, that is where NTIA "oversight" happens. That is not, and should never be, a policy override process >I'd be happier if the GAC were to take on the NTIA role, rather than >have the status quo with their current (near) veto over what goes into >the root). Lord forgive him for he knows not what he says. What a disaster. 193 governments getting a last, completely arbitrary poke at what goers into the root. Are you out of your mind? This would be an elevation, not a downgrade of their power -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 2 17:13:11 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 17:13:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25754CB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573F76@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529A0E33.50400@itforchange.net> <4644BCB3-3D3E-409C-94A4-27AD1BD42F67@virtualized.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574A1A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25754CB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > ________________________________________ > From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] > > >> I admit to oversimplifying, but ask .gcc or .patagonia if I'm wrong! > > GAC fought for and to some extent won the right during the policy process to do these sorts of things. > But it is still the policy process, and it still requires board approval. However f**ed ICANN's policy process may have become (and I have been in the forefront of both fighting against arbitrary interventions of this sort and in the forefront warning that that the GAC represents a structural flaw in the PDP), it is still the policy process. > > Once the board approves a string, and it is time to enter it into the root zone file, that is where NTIA "oversight" happens. That is not, and should never be, a policy override process Agreed. > >>I'd be happier if the GAC were to take on the NTIA role, rather than >>have the status quo with their current (near) veto over what goes into >>the root). > > Lord forgive him for he knows not what he says. What a disaster. 193 governments getting a last, completely arbitrary poke at what goers into the root. What i am proposing is that they would have to follow the procedures that NTI follows. There would be nothing arbitrary at all. They could only say if IANA followed their own process (or not). They would have to do this in a matter of hours/days at most, so would need serious GAC reform. > Are you out of your mind? Perhaps ;-) But it is not really a serious proposal, the GAC wouldn't agree to give up their (near) veto (and some of them think it is an absolute veto) to take on a purely administrative, non-policy role. >This would be an elevation, not a downgrade of their power If it was purely admin and not policy, are you sure? They would have to give up their ability to advise the Board of course, so i think it would diminish, not boost their power. About to take off, will be available tomorrow p.m. to reply if needed. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Dec 2 17:16:49 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 14:16:49 -0800 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto In-Reply-To: References: <8CBC2521-BEEB-45C5-A8DE-B0248CCC272C@1st-mile.org> <033801ceeb99$2f08e9c0$8d1abd40$@gmail.com> <052701ceeedb$d73471b0$859d5510$@gmail.com> <3644866f-2f33-488f-ab5c-4275d34327d8@email.android.com> <05ec01ceeef6$878f3d00$96adb700$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0d6901ceefac$35ec3910$a1c4ab30$@gmail.com> Anja, I really haven't followed or kept up with the Action Lines process. The few times that I did take a look it seemed to be mostly around fairly empty self-congratulations about the success of one pilot project or paper exercise or another with little real connection with what might be happening on the ground. Rather I've tried to spend my time at my "day job" which is helping in various ways to support/enable bottom up development processes. As I tried to point out in my reply to George's comments on my earlier post the connection that I see between bottom up development (the kind that actually works) and say a WSIS process is that global policy influences national policy and national, multilateral and foundation funding. Bottom up development will only go so far until it runs into a policy or a funding blockage. If the supporting mechanisms/policies aren't there initiatives fail and ladders quickly turn into snakes. Then, the people with the fewest resources are required to start all over again while the those with the most get to jet off to another international conference talking about which square "Action Line" peg can be snaffled to fit into the required round hole so as to appear to be supportive of "Poverty Reduction" or whatever the flavor of the day happens to be. Action Lines aren't "development" they are a way of describing (or in most cases mis-describing) development activities taking place (or not) rather far distant from wherever those Action Lines are being discussed. The non-IG part of WSIS should be about the reality of development and a WSIS +10 either takes a close look at what worked (or more likely, didn't) on the ground and starts from there or it isn't about anything at all. M From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 11:39 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Nick Ashton-Hart; IGC; bestbits Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto I wouldn't actually agree that an approach that starts from the national level is the only way forward. In the analysis of the Internet Democracy Project, among important reasons why more progress has not been made on various goals set out in the WSIS Action Lines is not only because Action Lines have been implemented in too top-down a fashion, but also, and relatedly, because the Action Lines mix together two types of issues: those that fundamentally rely on the input of the larger development community, and those that are Internet governance issues in the more narrow sense. The latter frequently cut across Action Lines, and as long as they are not addressed adequately, it is unlikely that the development agenda that is at the heart of the Action Lines will take off either. The former is in many cases the foundation for the success of the latter. For this reason, the Internet Democracy Project proposed in September, when the first inputs into the preparatory process for the ITU's High Level Review meeting were due, to actually rearrange the Action Lines to make sure both aspects of the Action Lines get their due. This would entail highlighting, and addressing, the Internet governance agenda that is embedded in the Action Lines separately, without at any point losing sight of its connectedness with the development agenda. We resubmitted this proposal as an input into the zero draft of the zero draft of the WSIS+10 vision in November, please see: http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/inc/docs/phase2/rc/V1-D-2.docx While many development issues in the Action Lines require action first and foremost at local and national levels, many of the Internet governance issues are really global public policy issues (and by splitting the two strands, where to engage can become much more clear for a range of actors). We therefore also made this proposal an integral part of our proposals for the evolution of global Internet governance. If much of the groundwork to enhance cooperation has already been done in the context of the Action Lines, why not build on this rather than constituting a new, government-dominated body? This would also ensure that the enhanced cooperation agenda, too, is tethered quite closely to development - that seems to be the case only rarely now. Different issues require action at different levels and through different processes. The challenge is not which one to chose, but how to hold on to, organise and maximise the multitude. Best, Anja On 2 December 2013 06:06, michael gurstein wrote: +1 M From: nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 PM To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I believe strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, because the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level action plans, drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared like-for-like as to results internationally so countries can learn from what works in other countries. The irony is that this model is how "Agenda 21" the climate change process from the first Rio conference works; sadly WSIS didn't pick this up despite it postdating Rio by more than a decade. In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not going to be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where INGOs (however well-meaning) compare notes and report cards - it will be met at the grassroots level, with buyin from that level. michael gurstein wrote: Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look at this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be done with no attention being given to how it might actually be accomplished on the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements and failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. M http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become critical to driving growth, delivering social services, improving environmental management, and transforming people's lives, according to a new Manifesto released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and signed by 48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from industry, civil society and the United Nations. "Overcoming the digital divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness and justice; connecting the world makes soun d commercial sense," the Manifesto reads. "The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the core of any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all countries - developed and developing alike - are empowered to participate in the global digital economy." Supporting Document http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce- report.pdf -- Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Mon Dec 2 17:48:32 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 23:48:32 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto In-Reply-To: <05ec01ceeef6$878f3d00$96adb700$@gmail.com> References: <8CBC2521-BEEB-45C5-A8DE-B0248CCC272C@1st-mile.org> <033801ceeb99$2f08e9c0$8d1abd40$@gmail.com> <052701ceeedb$d73471b0$859d5510$@gmail.com> <3644866f-2f33-488f-ab5c-4275d34327d8@email.android.com> <05ec01ceeef6$878f3d00$96adb700$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <542398734.31182.1386024512385.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g22> Dear all Nick wrote : I fully agree with this statement. And I'd add that "the worm was inside the fruit" when the UNGA decided in December 2001 to give the WSIS leading role to the ITU, as the UN specialized agency for telecommunications. This agency is techno-centric, and it doesn't have any capability nor vocation to launch a societal debate, even in an "information society". In that area, UNESCO could/should be at its place. However, the neoliberal policy that -from the eighties on- imposed deregulation and competition where public utilities and common goods used to prevail, gave the ITU some space in the political area that it zealously used to lay down these neoliberal obligations to the point of the poorest countries in the developing world. In addition, ITU has always been hostile to CS, even during the WSIS process. The reason was clearly indicated in the interview the Director of ITU-D (and currently SG of the ITU) gave Michel Egger, journalist and Coordinator at Swissaid, reported in Annuaire suisse de politique de developpement, page 113 to 122 and signed Hamadoun Toure. He stated : (...) "we are open to the NGOs, willing to working with them. Simply, in our opinion, for that they needn't to become formal sector members. What we refuse is a politicization of the ITU. We make development, not politics" (sic). Aren't deregulation and dismantling of Public utilities "politics" ? That's why on behalf of my organization (CSDPTT) I strongly asked for the ITU to open its constituency to CS orgs whose vocation is in the ICT/Telecom or Infocom domain, without any membership fees since they offer their capabilities and cooperation. But unfortunately my proposal never reached the majority of the CS Plenary. Nevertheless, I still prefer this objective -a plain place for CS at equal footing with its sector members- inside of the ITU, to Nick's proposal for national level devised action plans. Best greetings Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 02/12/13 01:37 > De : "michael gurstein" > A : nashton at consensus.pro, governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "'bestbits'" > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > > +1 M From: nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] > Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 PM > To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits > Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I believe strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, because the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level action plans, drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared like-for-like as to results internationally so countries can learn from what works in other countries. The irony is that this model is how "Agenda 21" the climate change process from the first Rio conference works; sadly WSIS didn't pick this up despite it postdating Rio by more than a decade. > In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not going to be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where INGOs (however well-meaning) compare notes and report cards - it will be met at the grassroots level, with buyin from that level. michael gurstein wrote: Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look at this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be done with no attention being given to how it might actually be accomplished on the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements and failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. > M > http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp > Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become critical to driving growth, delivering social services, improving environmental management, and transforming people’s lives, according to a new Manifesto released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and signed by 48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from industry, civil society and the United Nations. “Overcoming the digital divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness and justice; connecting the world makes soun d commercial sense,” the Manifesto reads. “The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the core of any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all countries – developed and developing alike – are empowered to participate in the global digital economy.” > Supporting Document > http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce-report.pdf > > -- > Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 2 17:57:43 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 04:27:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto In-Reply-To: <542398734.31182.1386024512385.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g22> References: <8CBC2521-BEEB-45C5-A8DE-B0248CCC272C@1st-mile.org> <033801ceeb99$2f08e9c0$8d1abd40$@gmail.com> <052701ceeedb$d73471b0$859d5510$@gmail.com> <3644866f-2f33-488f-ab5c-4275d34327d8@email.android.com> <05ec01ceeef6$878f3d00$96adb700$@gmail.com> <542398734.31182.1386024512385.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g22> Message-ID: Funnily enough in the earlier days of wsis, specifically speaking of action line C5 here, I saw several civil society, technical community and industry people attend open meetings that ITU hosted, where everybody had the right to intervene from the floor, and there was a substantial cross section of representation on panels. I remember seeing APC, ISOC, the RIRs etc attend, as well as volunteer antispam civil society groups like CAUCE, This did predate Toure's tenure as the Secretary General though. --srs (iPad) > On 03-Dec-2013, at 4:18, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > > Dear all > > > > Nick wrote : > > > > > > I fully agree with this statement. And I'd add that "the worm was inside the fruit" when the UNGA decided in December 2001 to give the WSIS leading role to the ITU, as the UN specialized agency for telecommunications. This agency is techno-centric, and it doesn't have any capability nor vocation to launch a societal debate, even in an "information society". In that area, UNESCO could/should be at its place. However, the neoliberal policy that -from the eighties on- imposed deregulation and competition where public utilities and common goods used to prevail, gave the ITU some space in the political area that it zealously used to lay down these neoliberal obligations to the point of the poorest countries in the developing world. > > In addition, ITU has always been hostile to CS, even during the WSIS process. The reason was clearly indicated in the interview the Director of ITU-D (and currently SG of the ITU) gave Michel Egger, journalist and Coordinator at Swissaid, reported in Annuaire suisse de politique de developpement, page 113 to 122 and signed Hamadoun Toure. He stated : (...) "we are open to the NGOs, willing to working with them. Simply, in our opinion, for that they needn't to become formal sector members. What we refuse is a politicization of the ITU. We make development, not politics" (sic). Aren't deregulation and dismantling of Public utilities "politics" ? > > That's why on behalf of my organization (CSDPTT) I strongly asked for the ITU to open its constituency to CS orgs whose vocation is in the ICT/Telecom or Infocom domain, without any membership fees since they offer their capabilities and cooperation. But unfortunately my proposal never reached the majority of the CS Plenary. Nevertheless, I still prefer this objective -a plain place for CS at equal footing with its sector members- inside of the ITU, to Nick's proposal for national level devised action plans. > > > > Best greetings > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > Message du 02/12/13 01:37 > > De : "michael gurstein" > > A : nashton at consensus.pro, governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "'bestbits'" > > Copie à : > > Objet : [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > > > > > +1 > > > > M > > > > From: nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] > > Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 PM > > To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > > > > > The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I believe strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, because the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level action plans, drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared like-for-like as to results internationally so countries can learn from what works in other countries. The irony is that this model is how "Agenda 21" the climate change process from the first Rio conference works; sadly WSIS didn't pick this up despite it postdating Rio by more than a decade. > > > In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not going to be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where INGOs (however well-meaning) compare notes and report cards - it will be met at the grassroots level, with buyin from that level. > > > > michael gurstein wrote: > > Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look at this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be done with no attention being given to how it might actually be accomplished on the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements and failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. > > > > > M > > > > > http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp > > > > > Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become critical to driving growth, delivering social services, improving environmental management, and transforming people’s lives, according to a new Manifesto released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and signed by 48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from industry, civil society and the United Nations. “Overcoming the digital divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness and justice; connecting the world makes soun d commercial sense,” the Manifesto reads. “The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the core of any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all countries – developed and developing alike – are empowered to participate in the global digital economy.” > > > > > Supporting Document > > > > > http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce-report.pdf > > > > > > > -- > > Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Mon Dec 2 18:28:03 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 15:28:03 -0800 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25754BF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573F76@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529A0E33.50400@itforchange.net> <4644BCB3-3D3E-409C-94A4-27AD1BD42F67@virtualized.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574A1A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <7B1514BE-4959-4C8B-A41A-630DFB74571C@virtualized.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2575162@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8AD1FB5E-B2C0-4700-84B9-3CFB85AADBF6@virtualized.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25754BF@ SUEX10-m bx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, On Dec 2, 2013, at 1:59 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Well, yeah, Verisign's .com and .net zone files are probably as important to the global economy as the root zone. Why not have the government supervise its changes and additions? I believe a key difference is the scope of impact -- just as you mucking about with an RIR-assigned address block isn't likely to affect the national/global Internet, someone mucking about with a second-level domain is unlikely to cause national/global problems. > The point I am making is, if Verisign screws up its TLD zone file, they face lawsuits. Probably a pretty strong deterrent. It wasn't a sufficient deterrent to stop Sitefinder from being implemented. > Would such a deterrent be sufficient for ICANN, or does it really need this external audit function? Does civil/contractual law cover all possible cases in which ICANN can screw up sufficiently to act as a deterrent and/or provide remedy? Is that law sufficiently stable over the lifetime of ICANN/the Internet to ensure that changes to that law are acceptable to the global Internet community? Personally speaking, it seems ... more transparent to me for there to be a consensus-driven external audit function rather than rely upon the legal environment in which ICANN happens to reside. But then again, I'm from the technical community so my opinion is suspect (:))... 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 nashton at ccianet.org Mon Dec 2 19:00:47 2013 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 08:00:47 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto In-Reply-To: References: <8CBC2521-BEEB-45C5-A8DE-B0248CCC272C@1st-mile.org> <033801ceeb99$2f08e9c0$8d1abd40$@gmail.com> <052701ceeedb$d73471b0$859d5510$@gmail.com> <3644866f-2f33-488f-ab5c-4275d34327d8@email.android.com> <05ec01ceeef6$878f3d00$96adb700$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <25d3fe20-4c56-4f1f-a81e-4484705a7be6@email.android.com> I would certainly agree that mixing these strands together has been unhelpful - though I would argue that even with governance, a national, multi-stakeholder consensus about what governance - to what purpose - would be an important element of the strand. Much of the international debate about Internet governance seems to me devoid of any connection with how the output would benefit real people's lives. Anja Kovacs wrote: >I wouldn't actually agree that an approach that starts from the >national >level is the only way forward. In the analysis of the Internet >Democracy >Project, among important reasons why more progress has not been made on >various goals set out in the WSIS Action Lines is not only because >Action >Lines have been implemented in too top-down a fashion, but also, and >relatedly, because the Action Lines mix together two types of issues: >those >that fundamentally rely on the input of the larger development >community, >and those that are Internet governance issues in the more narrow sense. >The >latter frequently cut across Action Lines, and as long as they are not >addressed adequately, it is unlikely that the development agenda that >is at >the heart of the Action Lines will take off either. The former is in >many >cases the foundation for the success of the latter. > >For this reason, the Internet Democracy Project proposed in September, >when >the first inputs into the preparatory process for the ITU's High Level >Review meeting were due, to actually rearrange the Action Lines to make >sure both aspects of the Action Lines get their due. This would entail >highlighting, and addressing, the Internet governance agenda that is >embedded in the Action Lines separately, without at any point losing >sight >of its connectedness with the development agenda. We resubmitted this >proposal as an input into the zero draft of the zero draft of the >WSIS+10 >vision in November, please see: >http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/inc/docs/phase2/rc/V1-D-2.docx > >While many development issues in the Action Lines require action first >and >foremost at local and national levels, many of the Internet governance >issues are really global public policy issues (and by splitting the two >strands, where to engage can become much more clear for a range of >actors). >We therefore also made this proposal an integral part of our proposals >for >the evolution of global Internet governance. If much of the groundwork >to >enhance cooperation has already been done in the context of the Action >Lines, why not build on this rather than constituting a new, >government-dominated body? This would also ensure that the enhanced >cooperation agenda, too, is tethered quite closely to development - >that >seems to be the case only rarely now. > >Different issues require action at different levels and through >different >processes. The challenge is not which one to chose, but how to hold on >to, >organise and maximise the multitude. > >Best, >Anja > > > >On 2 December 2013 06:06, michael gurstein wrote: > >> +1 >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> *From:* nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] >> *Sent:* Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 PM >> *To:* michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto >> >> >> >> The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I believe >> strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, >because >> the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level action >plans, >> drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared >like-for-like as >> to results internationally so countries can learn from what works in >other >> countries. The irony is that this model is how "Agenda 21" the >climate >> change process from the first Rio conference works; sadly WSIS didn't >pick >> this up despite it postdating Rio by more than a decade. >> >> In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not >going to >> be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where INGOs >(however >> well-meaning) compare notes and report cards - it will be met at the >> grassroots level, with buyin from that level. >> >> >> >> michael gurstein wrote: >> >> Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective >is >> necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close >look at >> this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be >done >> with no attention being given to how it might actually be >accomplished on >> the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements >and >> failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp >> >> >> >> Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become >critical >> to driving growth, delivering social services, improving >environmental >> management, and transforming people’s lives, according to a new >Manifesto >> released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and >signed by >> 48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from >> industry, civil society and the United Nations. “Overcoming the >digital >> divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness >and >> justice; connecting the world makes soun d commercial sense,” the >Manifesto >> reads. “The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the >core of >> any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all >> countries – developed and developing alike – are empowered to >participate >> in the global digital economy.” >> >> >> >> Supporting Document >> >> >> >> >> >http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce-report.pdf >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > >-- >Dr. Anja Kovacs >The Internet Democracy Project > >+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >www.internetdemocracy.in -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at consensus.pro Mon Dec 2 19:29:59 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 08:29:59 +0800 Subject: [governance] CircleID: Why trade policy can help preserve the open Internet and bridge the Digital Divide Message-ID: <0885BE0B-B989-49B4-8F60-D4D4609FFE39@consensus.pro> Dear friends, For those of you who don’t follow trade policy, I thought you might be interested in an opinion piece in CircleID that came out today. In it I make the argument that trade policy might just be the best hope of the open Internet and that it could profoundly help to narrow the digital divide. I hope you find it of interest Learning to Love the WTO: How Trade Policy Can Save Open Internet - and Bridge the Digital Divide http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131202_learning_to_love_the_wto_how_trade_policy_can_save_open_internet/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Dec 2 19:39:52 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 08:39:52 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [Internet Policy] [I-coordination] [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment In-Reply-To: References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> <5BDB0B33-2010-4E2C-9750-04CB82B5C6E2@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257073F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529591D1.7060409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <530C1EAF-3BA6-4F60-8C45-99E9FC941DEA@ciroap.org> On 2 Dec 2013, at 11:11 pm, Vint Cerf wrote: > Jeremy can we link in ALAC for ICANN aspects? > Thanks, I will pass this on, though note Robin Gross is already participating for NCSG. -- 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 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 gurstein at gmail.com Mon Dec 2 21:02:49 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 18:02:49 -0800 Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0f1401ceefcb$c55ed890$501c89b0$@gmail.com> Hi Sala, I'd like to have the Community Informatics network added to this.. as per the below. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 9:39 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] Dear All, At the moment, there is a loose network of some civil society organisations namely: 1. Association for Progressive Commuications (APC) 2. Best Bits 3. Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus 4. Diplo Foundation 5. ICANN's Non Commercial Stakeholder Group [In alphabetical order] I would really like to see more civil society organisations work together to collaborate on designing the way forward and strategies. If you feel that you would like your civil society organisation to be part of a wider collaborative effort, please respond to this email by submitting the name of your organisation. Please feel free to send this onwards to your respective cosmos. The names put forward can be used to forge a Coalition of a wider civil society based network. If you would like to be part of a wider Coalition, please respond to this email with following information: 1. Name of the Organisation or Network (and when organisation or network was first formed) [MG>] Community Informatics Network/Community Informatics Research Network-founded 2000 2. Details of Constituency represented (Please also identify whether this is a country based/regional or international) [MG>] community, grassroots and grassroots oriented ICT practitioners, researchers, policy analysts-global (1500+/- 3. Name of Coordinator of Organisation/Network [MG>] Michael Gurstein (host) 4. Contact Details (including website) [MG>] gurstein at gmail.com; http://www.communityinformatics.net; http://vancouvercommunity.net/lists/arc/ciresearchers 5. Name of one Nominee to the Coalition who will speak on administrative matters where it comes to the wider coalition [MG>] (Interim) Michael Gurstein Best, M Should you be interested in the wider Coalition and engaging collaboratively, kindly respond ASAP. There will be communiques sent to a mailing list that will be created that will inform you of events that are happening to enable you to stream the information to your networks and allow for authentic bottom up, grassroots engagement in the diverse regions of the world. This will help enable authentic global civil society engagement and make it truly inclusive. Kind Regards, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Dec 2 21:58:20 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:58:20 +0900 Subject: [governance] CircleID: Why trade policy can help preserve the open Internet and bridge the Digital Divide In-Reply-To: <0885BE0B-B989-49B4-8F60-D4D4609FFE39@consensus.pro> References: <0885BE0B-B989-49B4-8F60-D4D4609FFE39@consensus.pro> Message-ID: Hi Nick, thanks for sharing, I think that is the same page with arguments developed in the book "electronic silk road" ( http://yalepress.yale.edu/book.asp?isbn=9780300154597) which highlighted WTO role and also the report from ECIPE about censorship and trade ( http://www.ecipe.org/publications/protectionism-online-internet-censorship-and-international-trade-law/ ). Best, Rafik 2013/12/3 Nick Ashton-Hart > Dear friends, > > For those of you who don’t follow trade policy, I thought you might be > interested in an opinion piece in CircleID that came out today. In it I > make the argument that trade policy might just be the best hope of the open > Internet and that it could profoundly help to narrow the digital divide. > > I hope you find it of interest > > Learning to Love the WTO: How Trade Policy Can Save Open Internet - and > Bridge the Digital Divide > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131202_learning_to_love_the_wto_how_trade_policy_can_save_open_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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Dec 2 22:24:30 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 14:24:30 +1100 Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] In-Reply-To: <0f1401ceefcb$c55ed890$501c89b0$@gmail.com> References: <0f1401ceefcb$c55ed890$501c89b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: For clarity - I am not entirely sure what initiative Sala is referring to here. It appears to be a new one and unrelated to the smaller representative grouping listed below, which is looking towards ways of jointly nominating CS reps to various bodies and is not seeking to undertake the sorts of tasks and networking Sala envisages. It is also not clear to me how this new network Sala is referring to would be different to either Best Bits or IGC? Ian Peter From: michael gurstein Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 1:02 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; 'Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro' Subject: RE: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] Hi Sala, I’d like to have the Community Informatics network added to this.. as per the below… From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 9:39 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] Dear All, At the moment, there is a loose network of some civil society organisations namely: 1.. Association for Progressive Commuications (APC) 2.. Best Bits 3.. Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus 4.. Diplo Foundation 5.. ICANN's Non Commercial Stakeholder Group [In alphabetical order] I would really like to see more civil society organisations work together to collaborate on designing the way forward and strategies. If you feel that you would like your civil society organisation to be part of a wider collaborative effort, please respond to this email by submitting the name of your organisation. Please feel free to send this onwards to your respective cosmos. The names put forward can be used to forge a Coalition of a wider civil society based network. If you would like to be part of a wider Coalition, please respond to this email with following information: 1.. Name of the Organisation or Network (and when organisation or network was first formed) [MG>] Community Informatics Network/Community Informatics Research Network—founded 2000 2.. Details of Constituency represented (Please also identify whether this is a country based/regional or international) [MG>] community, grassroots and grassroots oriented ICT practitioners, researchers, policy analysts—global (1500+/- 3.. Name of Coordinator of Organisation/Network [MG>] Michael Gurstein (host) 4.. Contact Details (including website) [MG>] gurstein at gmail.com; http://www.communityinformatics.net; http://vancouvercommunity.net/lists/arc/ciresearchers 5.. Name of one Nominee to the Coalition who will speak on administrative matters where it comes to the wider coalition [MG>] (Interim) Michael Gurstein Best, M Should you be interested in the wider Coalition and engaging collaboratively, kindly respond ASAP. There will be communiques sent to a mailing list that will be created that will inform you of events that are happening to enable you to stream the information to your networks and allow for authentic bottom up, grassroots engagement in the diverse regions of the world. This will help enable authentic global civil society engagement and make it truly inclusive. Kind Regards, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Guru at ITforChange.net Mon Dec 2 22:54:40 2013 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 09:24:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] The Googlization of the Far Right .... Message-ID: <529D5600.3080209@ITforChange.net> This was bound to happen.... with loosening regulation of spending on political purposes, deep pockets especially of Internet based businesses will push private interests and hurt democracy, in the US and globally... something for IG CS to be concerned about... regards Guru http://truth-out.org/news/item/20372-the-googlization-of-the-far-right-why-is-google-funding-grover-norquist-heritage-action-and-alec excerpts.... "Political spending for corporations is purely transactional. It is all about getting policies that maximize profitability," Bob McChesney told CMD. “So even ostensibly hip companies like Google invariably spend lavishly to support groups and politicians that pursue decidedly anti-democratic policy outcomes. It is why sane democracies strictly regulate or even prohibit such spending, regarding it accurately as a cancer for democratic governance." Professor McChesney co-founded the media reform group Free Press in 2002, and this year authored How Capitalism is Turning the Internet Against Democracy..... ....Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), the anti-government group run by Republican operative Grover Norquist, was another new recipient of funding from Google in 2013. ATR is best known for its “Taxpayer Protection Pledge,” and for its fundamentalist attacks on any Republican who might dare to vote for any increase in taxes. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, ATR received 85% of its funding in 2012 ($26.4 million) from the ultra-partisan Karl Rove-run Crossroads GPS, another dark money group. ATR President Grover Norquist infamously said that he wants to shrink government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." Google’s position on the relative size of government versus bathtubs is not known, but according to a Bloomberg analysis of Google’s U.S. corporate filings, it avoids approximately $2 billion dollars globally in tax payments each year through the use of creative tax shelters. Bloomberg reported in May 2013 that in France alone Google is in the midst of a dispute over more than $1 billion in unpaid taxes that have been alleged. An August 2013 report by U.S. PIRG – “Offshore Shell Games ” -- found that Google is now holding more than $33 billion dollars offshore, avoiding taxes on these earnings in the United States. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Dec 2 23:12:40 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 13:12:40 +0900 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [Internet Policy] [I-coordination] [governance] Inter-stakeholder issues in a multi-stakeholder environment In-Reply-To: <530C1EAF-3BA6-4F60-8C45-99E9FC941DEA@ciroap.org> References: <249293DBA79E4116A89ACA705A26AD87@Toshiba> <14B804AD-FA81-4159-BDB9-B232DCF1B9FA@gmail.com> <06fe01cee86c$8ce59050$a6b0b0f0$@gmail.com> <5BDB0B33-2010-4E2C-9750-04CB82B5C6E2@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257073F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <529591D1.7060409@itforchange.net> <530C1EAF-3BA6-4F60-8C45-99E9FC941DEA@ciroap.org> Message-ID: hello, Wearing the NCSG chair hat here , I confirm what Jeremy explained, that we are participating in that CS group as an SG involved within ICANN. I notice that several lists are in cc and probably not everybody is subscribed to all of them. Best, Rafik 2013/12/3 Jeremy Malcolm > On 2 Dec 2013, at 11:11 pm, Vint Cerf wrote: > > Jeremy can we link in ALAC for ICANN aspects? > > > Thanks, I will pass this on, though note Robin Gross is already > participating for NCSG. > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior 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: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 2 22:46:37 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:46:37 +1300 Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] In-Reply-To: References: <0f1401ceefcb$c55ed890$501c89b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <18BFEF69-E6F5-45F2-8FD0-A83A8F4A8B27@gmail.com> Hi, This is not a new initiative but simply one which I have been pushing for since Bali which is wider inclusion of civil society organisations rather than just: > Association for Progressive Commuications (APC) > Best Bits > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > Diplo Foundation > ICANN's Non Commercial Stakeholder Group Currently, the steering committee comprises of these 5 organisations but i would like to see more come to the table as we need to be inclusive and not exclusive and clique based. This would simply mean ensuring that there is harmonized and seamless communication and joint synergistic efforts within civil society because it would be a farce to suggest increasing accountability and transparency from other constituencies and when within our own we are isolated. Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad > On Dec 3, 2013, at 4:24 PM, "Ian Peter" wrote: > > For clarity - > > I am not entirely sure what initiative Sala is referring to here. It appears to be a new one and unrelated to the smaller representative grouping listed below, which is looking towards ways of jointly nominating CS reps to various bodies and is not seeking to undertake the sorts of tasks and networking Sala envisages. > > It is also not clear to me how this new network Sala is referring to would be different to either Best Bits or IGC? > > Ian Peter > > From: michael gurstein > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 1:02 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; 'Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro' > Subject: RE: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] > > Hi Sala, > > I’d like to have the Community Informatics network added to this.. as per the below… > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 9:39 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] > > Dear All, > > At the moment, there is a loose network of some civil society organisations namely: > > Association for Progressive Commuications (APC) > Best Bits > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > Diplo Foundation > ICANN's Non Commercial Stakeholder Group > [In alphabetical order] > > I would really like to see more civil society organisations work together to collaborate on designing the way forward and strategies. If you feel that you would like your civil society organisation to be part of a wider collaborative effort, please respond to this email by submitting the name of your organisation. Please feel free to send this onwards to your respective cosmos. > > The names put forward can be used to forge a Coalition of a wider civil society based network. If you would like to be part of a wider Coalition, please respond to this email with following information: > > Name of the Organisation or Network (and when organisation or network was first formed) > [MG>] Community Informatics Network/Community Informatics Research Network—founded 2000 > Details of Constituency represented (Please also identify whether this is a country based/regional or international) > [MG>] community, grassroots and grassroots oriented ICT practitioners, researchers, policy analysts—global (1500+/- > Name of Coordinator of Organisation/Network > [MG>] Michael Gurstein (host) > Contact Details (including website) > [MG>] gurstein at gmail.com; http://www.communityinformatics.net; http://vancouvercommunity.net/lists/arc/ciresearchers > Name of one Nominee to the Coalition who will speak on administrative matters where it comes to the wider coalition > [MG>] (Interim) Michael Gurstein > Best, > M > Should you be interested in the wider Coalition and engaging collaboratively, kindly respond ASAP. There will be communiques sent to a mailing list that will be created that will inform you of events that are happening to enable you to stream the information to your networks and allow for authentic bottom up, grassroots engagement in the diverse regions of the world. This will help enable authentic global civil society engagement and make it truly inclusive. > > > > Kind Regards, > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 2 21:06:47 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 15:06:47 +1300 Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] In-Reply-To: <0f1401ceefcb$c55ed890$501c89b0$@gmail.com> References: <0f1401ceefcb$c55ed890$501c89b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1616D5D9-DCDE-4054-836E-867AB15BC2B0@gmail.com> Thanks Michael. Sent from my iPad > On Dec 3, 2013, at 3:02 PM, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > Hi Sala, > > I’d like to have the Community Informatics network added to this.. as per the below… > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 9:39 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] > > Dear All, > > At the moment, there is a loose network of some civil society organisations namely: > > Association for Progressive Commuications (APC) > Best Bits > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > Diplo Foundation > ICANN's Non Commercial Stakeholder Group > [In alphabetical order] > > I would really like to see more civil society organisations work together to collaborate on designing the way forward and strategies. If you feel that you would like your civil society organisation to be part of a wider collaborative effort, please respond to this email by submitting the name of your organisation. Please feel free to send this onwards to your respective cosmos. > > The names put forward can be used to forge a Coalition of a wider civil society based network. If you would like to be part of a wider Coalition, please respond to this email with following information: > > Name of the Organisation or Network (and when organisation or network was first formed) > [MG>] Community Informatics Network/Community Informatics Research Network—founded 2000 > Details of Constituency represented (Please also identify whether this is a country based/regional or international) > [MG>] community, grassroots and grassroots oriented ICT practitioners, researchers, policy analysts—global (1500+/- > Name of Coordinator of Organisation/Network > [MG>] Michael Gurstein (host) > Contact Details (including website) > [MG>] gurstein at gmail.com; http://www.communityinformatics.net; http://vancouvercommunity.net/lists/arc/ciresearchers > Name of one Nominee to the Coalition who will speak on administrative matters where it comes to the wider coalition > [MG>] (Interim) Michael Gurstein > Best, > M > Should you be interested in the wider Coalition and engaging collaboratively, kindly respond ASAP. There will be communiques sent to a mailing list that will be created that will inform you of events that are happening to enable you to stream the information to your networks and allow for authentic bottom up, grassroots engagement in the diverse regions of the world. This will help enable authentic global civil society engagement and make it truly inclusive. > > > > Kind Regards, > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Dec 3 00:31:37 2013 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 00:31:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <529D6CB9.50801@communisphere.com> Sala, Our organization in very interested in participating in designing the road ahead: 1. Name of the Organisation or Network (and when organisation or network was first formed) - Connecting.nyc Inc., a NYS nonprofit formed in 2006. 2. Details of Constituency represented (Please also identify whether this is a country based/regional or international) We represent individual Internet users in New York _City_. 3. Name of Coordinator of Organisation/Network - Thomas Lowenhaupt 4. Contact Details (including website) - Tom at connectingnyc.org, http://connectingnyc.org 5. Name of one Nominee to the Coalition who will speak on administrative matters where it comes to the wider coalition - Thomas Lowenhaupt Note: Our organization's focus centers around improving communication and decision making in the urban environment of New York City. In that light, I suggest you consider rephrasing question #2 "Details of Constituency represented." We are neither country, regional or international. It is our belief that urban needs have been underrepresented in designing Internet resources. While our focus is New York City, I suspect there are other urban entities that would join this emerging collaborative effort if an invitation was extended. With 37 cities having applied for TLDs, extending an invitation to those city administrations (not the back end providers) would add another (complexity and ) layer to the evolution of Internet governance. (My view is that cities (here in the U.S.) are closer to civil society than government and should be considered part of the bottom-up process.) Sincerely, Thomas Lowenhaupt On 12/2/2013 12:38 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > At the moment, there is a loose network of some civil society > organisations namely: > > 1. Association for Progressive Commuications (APC) > 2. Best Bits > 3. Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > 4. Diplo Foundation > 5. ICANN's Non Commercial Stakeholder Group > > [In alphabetical order] > > I would really like to see more civil society organisations work > together to collaborate on designing the way forward and strategies. > If you feel that you would like your civil society organisation to be > part of a wider collaborative effort, please respond to this email by > submitting the name of your organisation. Please feel free to send > this onwards to your respective cosmos. > > The names put forward can be used to forge a Coalition of a wider > civil society based network. If you would like to be part of a wider > Coalition, please respond to this email with following information: > > 1. Name of the Organisation or Network (and when organisation or > network was first formed) > 2. Details of Constituency represented (Please also identify whether > this is a country based/regional or international) > 3. Name of Coordinator of Organisation/Network > 4. Contact Details (including website) > 5. Name of one Nominee to the Coalition who will speak on > administrative matters where it comes to the wider coalition > > Should you be interested in the wider Coalition and engaging > collaboratively, kindly respond ASAP. There will be communiques sent > to a mailing list that will be created that will inform you of events > that are happening to enable you to stream the information to your > networks and allow for authentic bottom up, grassroots engagement in > the diverse regions of the world. This will help enable authentic > global civil society engagement and make it truly inclusive. > > > > Kind Regards, > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Tue Dec 3 02:10:38 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 08:10:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto In-Reply-To: References: <8CBC2521-BEEB-45C5-A8DE-B0248CCC272C@1st-mile.org> <033801ceeb99$2f08e9c0$8d1abd40$@gmail.com> <052701ceeedb$d73471b0$859d5510$@gmail.com> <3644866f-2f33-488f-ab5c-4275d34327d8@email.android.com> <05ec01ceeef6$878f3d00$96adb700$@gmail.com> <542398734.31182.1386024512385.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g22> Message-ID: <284B431E-B44E-4093-A3B1-D5E7686C888B@uzh.ch> That was an important meeting. I remember staff being a bit eye boggled that they had no contributions from member states but were swamped with submissions by us outsiders. Since the stakeholder groups weren’t officially recognized by ITU we were all dubbed ‘invited experts.’ We totally undermined the ITU’s claim that IG was just about CIR and how they should run it. Utsumi didn’t accept the premise but his staff got it. But the chairman’s report didn’t pick up on the proposal to create a new multistakeholder process, so that had to wait to the UNICT TF in Berlin. http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/forum/intgov04/index.html Bill On Dec 2, 2013, at 11:57 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Funnily enough in the earlier days of wsis, specifically speaking of action line C5 here, I saw several civil society, technical community and industry people attend open meetings that ITU hosted, where everybody had the right to intervene from the floor, and there was a substantial cross section of representation on panels. I remember seeing APC, ISOC, the RIRs etc attend, as well as volunteer antispam civil society groups like CAUCE, > > This did predate Toure's tenure as the Secretary General though. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 03-Dec-2013, at 4:18, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > >> >> Dear all >> >> >> Nick wrote : >> >> >> >> >> I fully agree with this statement. And I'd add that "the worm was inside the fruit" when the UNGA decided in December 2001 to give the WSIS leading role to the ITU, as the UN specialized agency for telecommunications. This agency is techno-centric, and it doesn't have any capability nor vocation to launch a societal debate, even in an "information society". In that area, UNESCO could/should be at its place. However, the neoliberal policy that -from the eighties on- imposed deregulation and competition where public utilities and common goods used to prevail, gave the ITU some space in the political area that it zealously used to lay down these neoliberal obligations to the point of the poorest countries in the developing world. >> >> In addition, ITU has always been hostile to CS, even during the WSIS process. The reason was clearly indicated in the interview the Director of ITU-D (and currently SG of the ITU) gave Michel Egger, journalist and Coordinator at Swissaid, reported in Annuaire suisse de politique de developpement, page 113 to 122 and signed Hamadoun Toure. He stated : (...) "we are open to the NGOs, willing to working with them. Simply, in our opinion, for that they needn't to become formal sector members. What we refuse is a politicization of the ITU. We make development, not politics" (sic). Aren't deregulation and dismantling of Public utilities "politics" ? >> >> That's why on behalf of my organization (CSDPTT) I strongly asked for the ITU to open its constituency to CS orgs whose vocation is in the ICT/Telecom or Infocom domain, without any membership fees since they offer their capabilities and cooperation. But unfortunately my proposal never reached the majority of the CS Plenary. Nevertheless, I still prefer this objective -a plain place for CS at equal footing with its sector members- inside of the ITU, to Nick's proposal for national level devised action plans. >> >> >> Best greetings >> >> Jean-Louis Fullsack >> >> > Message du 02/12/13 01:37 >> > De : "michael gurstein" >> > A : nashton at consensus.pro, governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "'bestbits'" >> > Copie à : >> > Objet : [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto >> > >> > >> +1 >> >> >> M >> >> >> From: nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] >> > Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 PM >> > To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits >> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto >> >> >> > The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I believe strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, because the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level action plans, drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared like-for-like as to results internationally so countries can learn from what works in other countries. The irony is that this model is how "Agenda 21" the climate change process from the first Rio conference works; sadly WSIS didn't pick this up despite it postdating Rio by more than a decade. >> >> > In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not going to be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where INGOs (however well-meaning) compare notes and report cards - it will be met at the grassroots level, with buyin from that level. >> >> >> michael gurstein wrote: >> >> Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look at this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be done with no attention being given to how it might actually be accomplished on the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements and failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. >> >> > >> >> M >> >> > >> >> http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp >> >> > >> >> Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become critical to driving growth, delivering social services, improving environmental management, and transforming people’s lives, according to a new Manifesto released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and signed by 48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from industry, civil society and the United Nations. “Overcoming the digital divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness and justice; connecting the world makes soun d commercial sense,” the Manifesto reads. “The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the core of any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all countries – developed and developing alike – are empowered to participate in the global digital economy.” >> >> > >> >> Supporting Document >> >> > >> >> http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce-report.pdf >> >> > >> >> >> > -- >> > Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 3 02:20:58 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 01:20:58 -0600 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto In-Reply-To: <284B431E-B44E-4093-A3B1-D5E7686C888B@uzh.ch> References: <8CBC2521-BEEB-45C5-A8DE-B0248CCC272C@1st-mile.org> <033801ceeb99$2f08e9c0$8d1abd40$@gmail.com> <052701ceeedb$d73471b0$859d5510$@gmail.com> <3644866f-2f33-488f-ab5c-4275d34327d8@email.android.com> <05ec01ceeef6$878f3d00$96adb700$@gmail.com> <542398734.31182.1386024512385.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g22> <284B431E-B44E-4093-A3B1-D5E7686C888B@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <20131203072058.GA3170@hserus.net> It was followed by several others at which there were quite a few industry and civil society groups present, though more focused on cybersecurity than general civil society people. I recall chairing several panels and participating in others in those meetings, but they were mostly driven by Bob Shaw, who got moved on to non cybersecurity parts of the ITU a year or two after the Toure regime started, and is now retired or close to it. William Drake [03/12/13 08:10 +0100]: > That was an important meeting. I remember staff being a bit eye boggled > that they had no contributions from member states but were swamped with > submissions by us outsiders. Since the stakeholder groups weren’t > officially recognized by ITU we were all dubbed ‘invited experts.’ We > totally undermined the ITU’s claim that IG was just about CIR and how > they should run it. Utsumi didn’t accept the premise but his staff got > it. But the chairman’s report didn’t pick up on the proposal to create a > new multistakeholder process, so that had to wait to the UNICT TF in > Berlin. > http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/forum/intgov04/index.html > >Bill > > >On Dec 2, 2013, at 11:57 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> Funnily enough in the earlier days of wsis, specifically speaking of >> action line C5 here, I saw several civil society, technical community >> and industry people attend open meetings that ITU hosted, where >> everybody had the right to intervene from the floor, and there was a >> substantial cross section of representation on panels. I remember seeing >> APC, ISOC, the RIRs etc attend, as well as volunteer antispam civil >> society groups like CAUCE, >> >> This did predate Toure's tenure as the Secretary General though. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 03-Dec-2013, at 4:18, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: >> >>> >>> Dear all >>> >>> >>> Nick wrote : >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I fully agree with this statement. And I'd add that "the worm was inside the fruit" when the UNGA decided in December 2001 to give the WSIS leading role to the ITU, as the UN specialized agency for telecommunications. This agency is techno-centric, and it doesn't have any capability nor vocation to launch a societal debate, even in an "information society". In that area, UNESCO could/should be at its place. However, the neoliberal policy that -from the eighties on- imposed deregulation and competition where public utilities and common goods used to prevail, gave the ITU some space in the political area that it zealously used to lay down these neoliberal obligations to the point of the poorest countries in the developing world. >>> >>> In addition, ITU has always been hostile to CS, even during the WSIS process. The reason was clearly indicated in the interview the Director of ITU-D (and currently SG of the ITU) gave Michel Egger, journalist and Coordinator at Swissaid, reported in Annuaire suisse de politique de developpement, page 113 to 122 and signed Hamadoun Toure. He stated : (...) "we are open to the NGOs, willing to working with them. Simply, in our opinion, for that they needn't to become formal sector members. What we refuse is a politicization of the ITU. We make development, not politics" (sic). Aren't deregulation and dismantling of Public utilities "politics" ? >>> >>> That's why on behalf of my organization (CSDPTT) I strongly asked for the ITU to open its constituency to CS orgs whose vocation is in the ICT/Telecom or Infocom domain, without any membership fees since they offer their capabilities and cooperation. But unfortunately my proposal never reached the majority of the CS Plenary. Nevertheless, I still prefer this objective -a plain place for CS at equal footing with its sector members- inside of the ITU, to Nick's proposal for national level devised action plans. >>> >>> >>> Best greetings >>> >>> Jean-Louis Fullsack >>> >>> > Message du 02/12/13 01:37 >>> > De : "michael gurstein" >>> > A : nashton at consensus.pro, governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "'bestbits'" >>> > Copie à : >>> > Objet : [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto >>> > >>> > >>> +1 >>> >>> >>> M >>> >>> >>> From: nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] >>> > Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 PM >>> > To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits >>> > Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto >>> >>> >>> > The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I believe strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, because the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level action plans, drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared like-for-like as to results internationally so countries can learn from what works in other countries. The irony is that this model is how "Agenda 21" the climate change process from the first Rio conference works; sadly WSIS didn't pick this up despite it postdating Rio by more than a decade. >>> >>> > In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not going to be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where INGOs (however well-meaning) compare notes and report cards - it will be met at the grassroots level, with buyin from that level. >>> >>> >>> michael gurstein wrote: >>> >>> Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look at this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be done with no attention being given to how it might actually be accomplished on the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements and failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. >>> >>> > >>> >>> M >>> >>> > >>> >>> http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp >>> >>> > >>> >>> Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become critical to driving growth, delivering social services, improving environmental management, and transforming people’s lives, according to a new Manifesto released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and signed by 48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from industry, civil society and the United Nations. “Overcoming the digital divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness and justice; connecting the world makes soun d commercial sense,” the Manifesto reads. “The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the core of any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all countries – developed and developing alike – are empowered to participate in the global digital economy.” >>> >>> > >>> >>> Supporting Document >>> >>> > >>> >>> http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce-report.pdf >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> > -- >>> > Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 Tue Dec 3 02:24:33 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 01:24:33 -0600 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto In-Reply-To: <20131203072058.GA3170@hserus.net> References: <8CBC2521-BEEB-45C5-A8DE-B0248CCC272C@1st-mile.org> <033801ceeb99$2f08e9c0$8d1abd40$@gmail.com> <052701ceeedb$d73471b0$859d5510$@gmail.com> <3644866f-2f33-488f-ab5c-4275d34327d8@email.android.com> <05ec01ceeef6$878f3d00$96adb700$@gmail.com> <542398734.31182.1386024512385.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g22> <284B431E-B44E-4093-A3B1-D5E7686C888B@uzh.ch> <20131203072058.GA3170@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20131203072433.GA3564@hserus.net> One very useful followup was that OECD picked up on a lot of the spam and cybersecurity focused experts and industry / civil society groups that attended, and interacted with them quite intensively when preparing their 2005 antispam toolkit, and later, their 2007-08 (I think) OECD + APEC ministerial report on malware. Suresh Ramasubramanian [03/12/13 01:20 -0600]: >It was followed by several others at which there were quite a few industry >and civil society groups present, though more focused on cybersecurity than >general civil society people. > >I recall chairing several panels and participating in others in those >meetings, but they were mostly driven by Bob Shaw, who got moved on to non >cybersecurity parts of the ITU a year or two after the Toure regime >started, and is now retired or close to it. > >William Drake [03/12/13 08:10 +0100]: >>That was an important meeting. I remember staff being a bit eye boggled >>that they had no contributions from member states but were swamped with >>submissions by us outsiders. Since the stakeholder groups weren’t >>officially recognized by ITU we were all dubbed ‘invited experts.’ We >>totally undermined the ITU’s claim that IG was just about CIR and how >>they should run it. Utsumi didn’t accept the premise but his staff got >>it. But the chairman’s report didn’t pick up on the proposal to create a >>new multistakeholder process, so that had to wait to the UNICT TF in >>Berlin. >>http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/forum/intgov04/index.html >> >>Bill >> >> >>On Dec 2, 2013, at 11:57 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >>>Funnily enough in the earlier days of wsis, specifically speaking of >>>action line C5 here, I saw several civil society, technical community >>>and industry people attend open meetings that ITU hosted, where >>>everybody had the right to intervene from the floor, and there was a >>>substantial cross section of representation on panels. I remember seeing >>>APC, ISOC, the RIRs etc attend, as well as volunteer antispam civil >>>society groups like CAUCE, >>> >>>This did predate Toure's tenure as the Secretary General though. >>> >>>--srs (iPad) >>> >>>On 03-Dec-2013, at 4:18, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>Dear all >>>> >>>> >>>>Nick wrote : >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>I fully agree with this statement. And I'd add that "the worm was inside the fruit" when the UNGA decided in December 2001 to give the WSIS leading role to the ITU, as the UN specialized agency for telecommunications. This agency is techno-centric, and it doesn't have any capability nor vocation to launch a societal debate, even in an "information society". In that area, UNESCO could/should be at its place. However, the neoliberal policy that -from the eighties on- imposed deregulation and competition where public utilities and common goods used to prevail, gave the ITU some space in the political area that it zealously used to lay down these neoliberal obligations to the point of the poorest countries in the developing world. >>>> >>>>In addition, ITU has always been hostile to CS, even during the WSIS process. The reason was clearly indicated in the interview the Director of ITU-D (and currently SG of the ITU) gave Michel Egger, journalist and Coordinator at Swissaid, reported in Annuaire suisse de politique de developpement, page 113 to 122 and signed Hamadoun Toure. He stated : (...) "we are open to the NGOs, willing to working with them. Simply, in our opinion, for that they needn't to become formal sector members. What we refuse is a politicization of the ITU. We make development, not politics" (sic). Aren't deregulation and dismantling of Public utilities "politics" ? >>>> >>>>That's why on behalf of my organization (CSDPTT) I strongly asked for the ITU to open its constituency to CS orgs whose vocation is in the ICT/Telecom or Infocom domain, without any membership fees since they offer their capabilities and cooperation. But unfortunately my proposal never reached the majority of the CS Plenary. Nevertheless, I still prefer this objective -a plain place for CS at equal footing with its sector members- inside of the ITU, to Nick's proposal for national level devised action plans. >>>> >>>> >>>>Best greetings >>>> >>>>Jean-Louis Fullsack >>>> >>>>> Message du 02/12/13 01:37 >>>>> De : "michael gurstein" >>>>> A : nashton at consensus.pro, governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "'bestbits'" >>>>> Copie à : >>>>> Objet : [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto >>>>> >>>>> >>>>+1 >>>> >>>> >>>>M >>>> >>>> >>>>From: nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] >>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 PM >>>>> To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits >>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto >>>> >>>> >>>>> The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I believe strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, because the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level action plans, drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared like-for-like as to results internationally so countries can learn from what works in other countries. The irony is that this model is how "Agenda 21" the climate change process from the first Rio conference works; sadly WSIS didn't pick this up despite it postdating Rio by more than a decade. >>>> >>>>> In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not going to be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where INGOs (however well-meaning) compare notes and report cards - it will be met at the grassroots level, with buyin from that level. >>>> >>>> >>>>michael gurstein wrote: >>>> >>>>Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look at this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be done with no attention being given to how it might actually be accomplished on the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements and failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>M >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become critical to driving growth, delivering social services, improving environmental management, and transforming people’s lives, according to a new Manifesto released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and signed by 48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from industry, civil society and the United Nations. “Overcoming the digital divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness and justice; connecting the world makes soun d commercial sense,” the Manifesto reads. “The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the core of any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all countries – developed and developing alike – are empowered to participate in the global digital economy.” >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>Supporting Document >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce-report.pdf >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>To 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 >>*********************************************************** >> > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your 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 jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com Tue Dec 3 03:12:13 2013 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 09:12:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] The Hare and the Tortoise Message-ID: <40643CD6-D3C3-4A78-9B8A-0CDE9B769A02@gmail.com> In a November 29 blog, "What is '1net' to me", Paul Wilson, DG at APNIC, tells his 'history' of that new high panel launched by ICANN In this op-ed, they are many surprising considerations presented as hard facts that are certainly valid for questioning. At least the BB & IGC lists should have a reflection on them. One major surprise is the following: Wilson presents the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation (see ICANN announcement here) as being independent from ICANN. Why so when this panel was installed by ICANN, managed by ICANN, (paid by ICANN? I will ask ICANN on this)... It seems to be fully dependent to ICANN. Why Wilson then presents this as being independent from ICANN? A pure communication exercise? The building up of more global narrative to take things where they should go? (Where?) A good read brings many other questions but amusingly, the comments (all of them by IGF participants) are also of interest: First comment comes from Avri Doria: "If only it had been introduced this way on Thursday morning in BA. I find myself very comfortable with this vision. One additional thing I hope develops is a space where we can recognize the interconnectedness of technology and policy. What we are still lacking is a place where the languages of both technology and of policy can be spoken without alienating most of the participants. Hopefully in this new effort we can find a way to discuss the tussle that is involved in techno-political discussions of Internet governance" Is that so? " ...a space where we can...", ".. we are still lacking a place..." Does Avri refer to a new space (not the IGF?) that could it be that 1net be that new space? The very same question that Jeremy Malcolm had in mind, as he is next to comment: "Why do we need 1net to provide a kind of inter-sessional IGF process? Why shouldn't the IGF be a kind of inter-sessional IGF process?" Avri didn't answer. But Suresh Ramasubramanian did and so came his answer: "If the hare had not stopped to take a nap, it would have overtaken the tortoise. But it didn't, so the question is moot" Being a child of Jean de la Fontaine, I presume I get Suresh's point - the hare is the IGF. One question though: who is Suresh's tortoise? The US GovCorp-similiCS? The non US-allies gov? The ITU? A final comment for Wilson's blog comes from Harmut Glaser. I give the full comment to avoid any manipulative effect. "Dear Paul, Excellent article. One clarification. It's right that President Dilma at the UN speech mentioned multilateral (as opposed to Multistakeholder), but in all interviews she explained that internet governance must include governments, private sector, and civil society, and must be open democratic and with participation of all stakeholders. regards Prof. Hartmut Glaser Executive Secretary Brazilian Internet Steering Committee" Again, I do believe that BA has launched a multistakeholder conference. Not a conference about a multistakeholder model. BA has not predetermined any outcome concerning the model, even though any special advisor to Dilma Rousseff has certainly a clear of what this outcome might be in the end. All of this makes me wonder: - The 'trust' question at the forefront within the IG and other related circles, a lack of trust bringing years of effort to an end? What to do then? - Why the IGF doesn't self-dissolve if it is so? - Why don't the members of the IGF call for a new IGF, spinning-of from its present belonging to WSIS, instead of running after ICANN initiatives, after Brazil initiative, after...? - Why do the diverse views do not enter an honest confrontation, and avoid to look like being good friends but aggressing each other constantly over non substantive matters? - Why are disinformation and manipulation a constant game in a space supposed to become a model of new democratic or civic thinking and acting? - Why don't simple things have no clear definition? Terms, groupings... After that many years. - Why the IGF is not self funding itself, instead of expecting the hosting country, the ITU, the UN, the invisible Google et al hand to pay for that unproductive theater? What are the positive consequences for the end-user out of these years of meetings and rhetoric joutes. - Why such a collective failure? - Why not speaking truth to each other in this venue? Sorry for these candid questions. All comments are welcome to help me understand. JC During the week in Buenos Aires, various other initiatives and developments were announced, including latest news on the CEO's "strategy panels”, and on the new "Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation”, independent from ICANN, which will release a report in early 2014, presumably in time for the Brazil meeting. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 3 03:20:19 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 13:50:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] The Hare and the Tortoise Message-ID: A section of civil society which should have long been repudiated and not allowed to be seen speaking for civil society in general has been a major contributor to a lack of consensus and generally divisive behavior that fragments an already diverse community. Plenty of actors around who are placed to take active advantage of these differences to marginalize and reduce civil society to irrelevance. So, color me unsurprised --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Jean-Christophe Nothias" To: "Governance" , Subject: [governance] The Hare and the Tortoise Date: Tue, Dec 3, 2013 1:42 PM In a November 29 blog, "What is '1net' to me", Paul Wilson, DG at APNIC, tells his 'history' of that new high panel launched by ICANN In this op-ed, they are many surprising considerations presented as hard facts that are certainly valid for questioning. At least the BB & IGC lists should have a reflection on them. One major surprise is the following: Wilson presents the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation (see ICANN announcement here) as being independent from ICANN. Why so when this panel was installed by ICANN, managed by ICANN, (paid by ICANN? I will ask ICANN on this)... It seems to be fully dependent to ICANN. Why Wilson then presents this as being independent from ICANN? A pure communication exercise? The building up of more global narrative to take things where they should go? (Where?) A good read brings many other questions but amusingly, the comments (all of them by IGF participants) are also of interest: First comment comes from Avri Doria: "If only it had been introduced this way on Thursday morning in BA. I find myself very comfortable with this vision. One additional thing I hope develops is a space where we can recognize the interconnectedness of technology and policy. What we are still lacking is a place where the languages of both technology and of policy can be spoken without alienating most of the participants. Hopefully in this new effort we can find a way to discuss the tussle that is involved in techno-political discussions of Internet governance" Is that so? " ...a space where we can...", ".. we are still lacking a place..." Does Avri refer to a new space (not the IGF?) that could it be that 1net be that new space? The very same question that Jeremy Malcolm had in mind, as he is next to comment: "Why do we need 1net to provide a kind of inter-sessional IGF process? Why shouldn't the IGF be a kind of inter-sessional IGF process?" Avri didn't answer. But Suresh Ramasubramanian did and so came his answer: "If the hare had not stopped to take a nap, it would have overtaken the tortoise. But it didn't, so the question is moot" Being a child of Jean de la Fontaine, I presume I get Suresh's point - the hare is the IGF. One question though: who is Suresh's tortoise? The US GovCorp-similiCS? The non US-allies gov? The ITU? A final comment for Wilson's blog comes from Harmut Glaser. I give the full comment to avoid any manipulative effect. "Dear Paul, Excellent article. One clarification. It's right that President Dilma at the UN speech mentioned multilateral (as opposed to Multistakeholder), but in all interviews she explained that internet governance must include governments, private sector, and civil society, and must be open democratic and with participation of all stakeholders. regards Prof. Hartmut Glaser Executive Secretary Brazilian Internet Steering Committee" Again, I do believe that BA has launched a multistakeholder conference. Not a conference about a multistakeholder model. BA has not predetermined any outcome concerning the model, even though any special advisor to Dilma Rousseff has certainly a clear of what this outcome might be in the end. All of this makes me wonder: - The 'trust' question at the forefront within the IG and other related circles, a lack of trust bringing years of effort to an end? What to do then? - Why the IGF doesn't self-dissolve if it is so? - Why don't the members of the IGF call for a new IGF, spinning-of from its present belonging to WSIS, instead of running after ICANN initiatives, after Brazil initiative, after...? - Why do the diverse views do not enter an honest confrontation, and avoid to look like being good friends but aggressing each other constantly over non substantive matters? - Why are disinformation and manipulation a constant game in a space supposed to become a model of new democratic or civic thinking and acting? - Why don't simple things have no clear definition? Terms, groupings... After that many years. - Why the IGF is not self funding itself, instead of expecting the hosting country, the ITU, the UN, the invisible Google et al hand to pay for that unproductive theater? What are the positive consequences for the end-user out of these years of meetings and rhetoric joutes. - Why such a collective failure? - Why not speaking truth to each other in this venue? Sorry for these candid questions. All comments are welcome to help me understand. JC During the week in Buenos Aires, various other initiatives and developments were announced, including latest news on the CEO's "strategy panels”, and on the new "Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation”, independent from ICANN, which will release a report in early 2014, presumably in time for the Brazil meeting. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 3 04:05:55 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 18:05:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] workshop report Message-ID: <5F4A72C6-D8FB-4C73-AF57-334CC99273F7@glocom.ac.jp> Hi, hope all's well in Geneva -- not too busy. Will the report and transcript for workshop 160 be online sometime? My colleague Pindar is keen to know. Best, Adam http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops2013/reports-with-transcripts -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 3 04:20:19 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 18:20:19 +0900 Subject: [governance] workshop report In-Reply-To: <5F4A72C6-D8FB-4C73-AF57-334CC99273F7@glocom.ac.jp> References: <5F4A72C6-D8FB-4C73-AF57-334CC99273F7@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: oops, sorry, auto-complete of an email address and me not paying attention... just enjoy the link! Adam On Dec 3, 2013, at 6:05 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi, hope all's well in Geneva -- not too busy. > > Will the report and transcript for workshop 160 be online sometime? My colleague Pindar is keen to know. > > Best, > > Adam > > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/workshops2013/reports-with-transcripts > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Tue Dec 3 04:22:37 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 17:22:37 +0800 Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] In-Reply-To: <18BFEF69-E6F5-45F2-8FD0-A83A8F4A8B27@gmail.com> References: <0f1401ceefcb$c55ed890$501c89b0$@gmail.com> <18BFEF69-E6F5-45F2-8FD0-A83A8F4A8B27@gmail.com> Message-ID: <529DA2DD.7070409@ciroap.org> On 03/12/13 11:46, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > This is not a new initiative but simply one which I have been pushing > for since Bali which is wider inclusion of civil society organisations > rather than just: > >> 1. Association for Progressive Commuications (APC) >> 2. Best Bits >> 3. Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus >> 4. Diplo Foundation >> 5. ICANN's Non Commercial Stakeholder Group >> > > Currently, the steering committee comprises of these 5 organisations > but i would like to see more come to the table as we need to be > inclusive and not exclusive and clique based. > > This would simply mean ensuring that there is harmonized and seamless > communication and joint synergistic efforts within civil society > because it would be a farce to suggest increasing accountability and > transparency from other constituencies and when within our own we are > isolated. Then that seems to be a bit orthogonal to what we've been discussing on the joint steering committee itself which is developing standards that would make sense for /networks of organisations/ rather than individual organisations to join the committee. Whereas your latest call is for individual organisations to put themselves forward to do so. Hence why Ian may have been taken a bit by surprise. It is not impossible to conceive that this is the right approach, because that is how CSISAC came together in pretty short order, from the organisations that signed the Seoul Declaration. But different from the approach taken so far, and probably needs more discussion first. There's no harm in that discussion taking place here, but to manage expectations, it might have been premature to call for individual organisations to join? Just my thoughts... -- *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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue Dec 3 05:06:12 2013 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 02:06:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] In-Reply-To: <1616D5D9-DCDE-4054-836E-867AB15BC2B0@gmail.com> References: <0f1401ceefcb$c55ed890$501c89b0$@gmail.com> <1616D5D9-DCDE-4054-836E-867AB15BC2B0@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1386065172.22766.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dear Sala, Please also add UISoc in the Coalition:   1.      Name of the Organisation or Network (and when organisation or network was first formed): Urdu Internet Society                formed in 2009 (as an extension of Urdu Internet Council) (http://www.UISoc.org) 2.      Details of Constituency represented (Please also identify whether this is a country based/regional or international): Urdu Internet Society    is registered Civil Society in Pakistan, and has free membership for Urdu Speaking Community wherever they live (in Pakistan or abroad). 3.      Name of Coordinator of Organisation/Network: Imran Ahmed Shah 4.      Contact Details (including website): Imran(at)uisoc(dot)org, +92 300 4130617, (http://www.UISoc.org) 5.      Name of one Nominee to the Coalition who will speak on administrative matters where it comes to the wider coalition: Imran(at)uisoc(dot)org, +92 300 4130617 Thanking you and Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah  >________________________________ > From: Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro >To: michael gurstein >Cc: "" >Sent: Tuesday, 3 December 2013, 7:06 >Subject: Re: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] > > > >Thanks Michael.  > >Sent from my iPad > >On Dec 3, 2013, at 3:02 PM, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > >Hi Sala, >  >I’d like to have the Community Informatics network added to this.. as per the below… >  >From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 9:39 AM >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] >  >Dear All, >  >At the moment, there is a loose network of some civil society organisations namely: >  > 1. Association for Progressive Commuications (APC) > 2. Best Bits > 3. Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > 4. Diplo Foundation > 5. ICANN's Non Commercial Stakeholder Group >[In alphabetical order] >  >I would really like to see more civil society organisations work together to collaborate on designing the way forward and strategies. If you feel that you would like your civil society organisation to be part of a wider collaborative effort, please respond to this email by submitting the name of your organisation. Please feel free to send this onwards to your respective cosmos. >  >The names put forward can be used to forge a Coalition of a wider civil society based network. If you would like to be part of a wider Coalition, please respond to this email with following information: >  > 1. Name of the Organisation or Network (and when organisation or network was first formed) >[MG>] Community Informatics Network/Community Informatics Research Network—founded 2000 > 1. Details of Constituency represented (Please also identify whether this is a country based/regional or international) >[MG>] community, grassroots and grassroots oriented ICT practitioners, researchers, policy analysts—global (1500+/- > 1. Name of Coordinator of Organisation/Network >[MG>] Michael Gurstein (host) > 1. Contact Details (including website) >[MG>] gurstein at gmail.com; http://www.communityinformatics.net; http://vancouvercommunity.net/lists/arc/ciresearchers > 1. Name of one Nominee to the Coalition who will speak on administrative matters where it comes to the wider coalition >[MG>] (Interim) Michael Gurstein >Best, >M >Should you be interested in the wider Coalition and engaging collaboratively, kindly respond ASAP. There will be communiques sent to a mailing list that will be created that will inform you of events that are happening to enable you to stream the information to your networks and allow for authentic bottom up, grassroots engagement in the diverse regions of the world. This will help enable authentic global civil society engagement and make it truly inclusive.  >  >  >  >Kind Regards, >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro >  > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 3 08:53:36 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 05:53:36 -0800 Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] In-Reply-To: <529DA2DD.7070409@ciroap.org> References: <0f1401ceefcb$c55ed890$501c89b0$@gmail.com> <18BFEF69-E6F5-45F2-8FD0-A83A8F4A8B27@gmail.com> <529DA2DD.7070409@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <11bc01cef02f$14058bc0$3c10a340$@gmail.com> I’ve no disagreement with what Jeremy says below but just to note that of the 5 organizations listed below only one (APC) appears to comfortably fit the definition of networks of organisations that you are presenting (I’m not familiar with the ICANN-NC group so it may be two… M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 1:23 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] On 03/12/13 11:46, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: This is not a new initiative but simply one which I have been pushing for since Bali which is wider inclusion of civil society organisations rather than just: 1. Association for Progressive Commuications (APC) 2. Best Bits 3. Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus 4. Diplo Foundation 5. ICANN's Non Commercial Stakeholder Group Currently, the steering committee comprises of these 5 organisations but i would like to see more come to the table as we need to be inclusive and not exclusive and clique based. This would simply mean ensuring that there is harmonized and seamless communication and joint synergistic efforts within civil society because it would be a farce to suggest increasing accountability and transparency from other constituencies and when within our own we are isolated. Then that seems to be a bit orthogonal to what we've been discussing on the joint steering committee itself which is developing standards that would make sense for networks of organisations rather than individual organisations to join the committee. Whereas your latest call is for individual organisations to put themselves forward to do so. Hence why Ian may have been taken a bit by surprise. It is not impossible to conceive that this is the right approach, because that is how CSISAC came together in pretty short order, from the organisations that signed the Seoul Declaration. But different from the approach taken so far, and probably needs more discussion first. There's no harm in that discussion taking place here, but to manage expectations, it might have been premature to call for individual organisations to join? Just my thoughts... -- 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 Tue Dec 3 13:15:07 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 07:15:07 +1300 Subject: [governance] US and Estonia Sign Cyber Partnership Message-ID: Dear All, See the US State Department Press Release below: Remarks at a Cyber Partnership Agreement Signing With Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet Remarks John Kerry Secretary of State NATO Brussels, Belgium December 3, 2013 ------------------------------ *MODERATOR: *Good afternoon, and thank you all for being here today. It is my pleasure to welcome Secretary of State Kerry and Estonian Foreign Minister Paet who will sign a U.S.-Estonia Cyber Partnership Statement. Estonia is a key ally of the United States and a recognized leader on issues of cyber security and internet freedom. This statement formalizes the commitment of the United States and Estonia to continue working together in key areas to enhance an open, interoperable, secure, and reliable information and communications infrastructure, and to prioritize openness and innovation on the internet. We now turn to Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Paet for the signing of the statement. (The statement was signed.) *SECRETARY KERRY:* Thank you. Well, I’m very happy to join my counterpart, Foreign Minister Paet, in signing this internet statement, which pledges to increase the cooperation and continue the cooperation between the United States and Estonia with respect to cyber freedom, cyber security, internet freedom. And this is an effort that guarantees that a country like Estonia, which has been a great partner in fighting for internet freedom, is going to help us to build our law enforcement capacity, education capacity, civil society, and provide unfettered access to people for the social media and the internet, even as we manage complex problems in the internet. So we’re delighted and I thank you very, very much for joining with us on this. *FOREIGN MINISTER PAET:* Thank you. *SECRETARY KERRY:* Thank you. Do you want to say anything, too? *FOREIGN MINISTER PAET:* Yeah, sure. I also thank – just to add that United States, of course, is for Estonia very important partner in cyber security issues, also internet freedom issues, and all different, so-called, “E” issues like e-government, e-administration, and so on. And I’m glad that we are not just doing our bilateral cooperation, but we already have done jointly some project in third countries. And I’m really glad that Estonia is experience in IT and e-developments has been really interesting also for more and more countries all around the world. Thank you for this great opportunity. *SECRETARY KERRY:* Very much so. Thank you, Urmas. Thank you very much. Thank you very, very much. *FOREIGN MINISTER PAET*: 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Dec 4 04:11:27 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 22:11:27 +1300 Subject: [governance] Confirmation of Acknowledgement of Receipt of MAG Nominees [IGF Secretariat] Message-ID: Dear All, Kindly find the confirmation of receipt of our nominees. Best Regards, Sala ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Laura VUILLEQUEZ Date: Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 9:56 PM Subject: Re: IGC Submission of MAG Nominees To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" Dear Salanieta, This is to acknowledge receipt of your application to the 2014 Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) membership. The results will be announced in due course. The Secretariat would like to take this opportunity to express its appreciation for your continued support to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and esteemed contribution to its success. Best regards, Laura Vuillequez IGF Secretariat From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> To: magrenewal2014 at intgovforum.org, Cc: Jeremy Malcolm Date: 01/12/2013 20:59 Subject: IGC Submission of MAG Nominees ------------------------------ Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) T: +679 9982851 E: *coordinators at igcaucus.org* W:*http://igcaucus.org/* His Excellency WU Hongbo Under-Secretary-General Economic and Social Affairs Secretary-General for the International Conference on Small Island Developing States United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) *Re:* *IGC Slate of Nominees for Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG)* Greetings from the *Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)* ! Kindly find the following attached: 1) IGC Letter to UNDESA on MAG Nominees; 2)MAG forms of Nominees. Thank you. Yours faithfully, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro (co-coordinator of IGC) [attachment "IGC Letter to UNDESA (MAG Nominees) (1).pdf" deleted by Laura VUILLEQUEZ/DIVERS/GVA/UNO] [attachment "MAG 2014 Sonigitu Ekpe.rtf" deleted by Laura VUILLEQUEZ/DIVERS/GVA/UNO] [attachment "MAG 2014 - Stuart Hamilton.rtf" deleted by Laura VUILLEQUEZ/DIVERS/GVA/UNO] [attachment "MAG 2014 form_Mawaki Chango.rtf" deleted by Laura VUILLEQUEZ/DIVERS/GVA/UNO] [attachment "MAG 2014 Nnenna.rtf" deleted by Laura VUILLEQUEZ/DIVERS/GVA/UNO] [attachment "MAG Nomination Submission Template Bertrand de La Chapelle.doc" deleted by Laura VUILLEQUEZ/DIVERS/GVA/UNO] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 4 10:28:31 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 07:28:31 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Economist article on Louis Pouzin Message-ID: <011901cef105$7d8f5900$78ae0b00$@gmail.com> From: Andrew Russell Subject: Economist article on Pouzin Date: December 4, 2013 at 10:07:39 AM EST To: Dave Farber Hi Dave - For IP - The Economist has published a nice article on Louis Pouzin: http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21590765-louis-pouzin-hel ped-create-internet-now-he-campaigning-ensure-its The internet’s fifth man Louis Pouzin helped create the internet. Now he is campaigning to ensure that its design continues to evolve and improve in future Nov 30th 2013 | From the print edition AT A glitzy ceremony at Buckingham Palace this summer, Queen Elizabeth II honoured five pioneers of computer networking. Four of the men who shared the new £1m ($1.6m) Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering are famous: Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, authors of the protocols that underpin the internet; Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the world wide web; and Marc Andreessen, creator of the first successful web browser. But the fifth man is less well known. He is Louis Pouzin, a garrulous Frenchman whose contribution to the field is every bit as seminal. In the early 1970s Mr Pouzin created an innovative data network that linked locations in France, Italy and Britain. Its simplicity and efficiency pointed the way to a network that could connect not just dozens of machines, but millions of them. It captured the imagination of Dr Cerf and Dr Kahn, who included aspects of its design in the protocols that now power the internet. Yet in the late 1970s France’s government withdrew its funding for Mr Pouzin’s project. He watched as the internet swept across the world, ultimately vindicating him and his work. “Recognition has come very, very late for Louis,” says Dr Cerf. “Unfairly so.” [ ] Mr Pouzin visited American universities to learn more about ARPANET, a network funded by the military that had been switched on two years before, and which relied on a promising new technique called “packet switching” to deliver data from one machine to another. Chopping up all communications into data packets of fixed size, and allowing machines to relay packets to each other, meant that there was no need for a direct link between every pair of machines on the network. Instead, they could be wired together with relatively few connections, reducing the cost and increasing the resilience of the network. If a network link failed, packets could take a different path. But to Mr Pouzin, ARPANET seemed over-designed and inefficient. Every computer required a complex piece of hardware to link it to the network, because ARPANET’s design included a connection set-up phase, in which a path across the network was established for communication between two machines. Packets were then delivered in order along this path. Mr Pouzin’s team came up with a leaner, more efficient way to do things. Instead of deciding in advance which path a series of packets should travel along, they proposed that each packet should be labelled and delivered as an individual message, called a datagram. On ARPANET, strings of packets travelled like carriages of a train, travelling in strict order from one station to another. On CYCLADES, packets were individual cars, each of which could travel independently to its destination. The receiving computer, not the network, would then juggle the packets back into order, and request retransmission of any packets lost in transit. Such “connectionless” packet-switching reduced the need for sophisticated and costly equipment within the network to establish predetermined routes for packets. The system’s simplicity also made it easier to link up different networks. The first CYCLADES connection, between Paris and Grenoble, debuted in 1973—closely watched by Dr Cerf and Dr Kahn, two American scientists who were by this time mulling how best to overhaul ARPANET. They built on Mr Pouzin’s connectionless, datagram-based approach, so that concepts from CYCLADES found their way into the TCP/IP suite of protocols on which the modern internet now runs. [snip] http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21590765-louis-pouzin-hel ped-create-internet-now-he-campaigning-ensure-its 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 kichango at gmail.com Wed Dec 4 11:32:59 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 16:32:59 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Economist article on Louis Pouzin In-Reply-To: <011901cef105$7d8f5900$78ae0b00$@gmail.com> References: <011901cef105$7d8f5900$78ae0b00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: +1 Ah, the French government! They always have a way with missing historical moments such as this -- taking the wrong decision at the... wrong time (well, time is always wrong for wrong decisions, anyway.) mawaki On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:28 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > *From: *Andrew Russell > > *Subject: Economist article on Pouzin* > > *Date: *December 4, 2013 at 10:07:39 AM EST > > *To: *Dave Farber > > > > Hi Dave - > > > > For IP - The Economist has published a nice article on Louis Pouzin: > > > http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21590765-louis-pouzin-helped-create-internet-now-he-campaigning-ensure-its > > > The internet’s fifth manLouis Pouzin helped create the internet. Now he > is campaigning to ensure that its design continues to evolve and improve in > future > > Nov 30th 2013 | From the print edition > > AT A glitzy ceremony at Buckingham Palace this summer, Queen Elizabeth II > honoured five pioneers of computer networking. Four of the men who shared > the new £1m ($1.6m) Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering are famous: Vint > Cerf and Bob Kahn, authors of the protocols that underpin the internet; Tim > Berners-Lee, inventor of the world wide web; and Marc Andreessen, creator > of the first successful web browser. But the fifth man is less well known. > He is Louis Pouzin, a garrulous Frenchman whose contribution to the field > is every bit as seminal. > > In the early 1970s Mr Pouzin created an innovative data network that > linked locations in France, Italy and Britain. Its simplicity and > efficiency pointed the way to a network that could connect not just dozens > of machines, but millions of them. It captured the imagination of Dr Cerf > and Dr Kahn, who included aspects of its design in the protocols that now > power the internet. Yet in the late 1970s France’s government withdrew its > funding for Mr Pouzin’s project. He watched as the internet swept across > the world, ultimately vindicating him and his work. “Recognition has come > very, very late for Louis,” says Dr Cerf. “Unfairly so.” > > > > […] > > > > Mr Pouzin visited American universities to learn more about ARPANET, a > network funded by the military that had been switched on two years before, > and which relied on a promising new technique called “packet switching” to > deliver data from one machine to another. Chopping up all communications > into data packets of fixed size, and allowing machines to relay packets to > each other, meant that there was no need for a direct link between every > pair of machines on the network. Instead, they could be wired together with > relatively few connections, reducing the cost and increasing the resilience > of the network. If a network link failed, packets could take a different > path. > > But to Mr Pouzin, ARPANET seemed over-designed and inefficient. Every > computer required a complex piece of hardware to link it to the network, > because ARPANET’s design included a connection set-up phase, in which a > path across the network was established for communication between two > machines. Packets were then delivered in order along this path. > > Mr Pouzin’s team came up with a leaner, more efficient way to do things. > Instead of deciding in advance which path a series of packets should travel > along, they proposed that each packet should be labelled and delivered as > an individual message, called a datagram. On ARPANET, strings of packets > travelled like carriages of a train, travelling in strict order from one > station to another. On CYCLADES, packets were individual cars, each of > which could travel independently to its destination. The receiving > computer, not the network, would then juggle the packets back into order, > and request retransmission of any packets lost in transit. > > > > Such “connectionless” packet-switching reduced the need for sophisticated > and costly equipment within the network to establish predetermined routes > for packets. The system’s simplicity also made it easier to link up > different networks. The first CYCLADES connection, between Paris and > Grenoble, debuted in 1973—closely watched by Dr Cerf and Dr Kahn, two > American scientists who were by this time mulling how best to overhaul > ARPANET. They built on Mr Pouzin’s connectionless, datagram-based approach, > so that concepts from CYCLADES found their way into the TCP/IP suite of > protocols on which the modern internet now runs. > > > > [snip] > > > > > http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21590765-louis-pouzin-helped-create-internet-now-he-campaigning-ensure-its > > > > Archives > | ModifyYour Subscription | Unsubscribe > Now > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Wed Dec 4 12:51:07 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 18:51:07 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Economist article on Louis Pouzin Message-ID: <1796134827.28165.1386179467997.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f22> +1 and -once again- bravo Louis ! Please, Mawaki, you should be (more) indulgent with the French government : a lot/most of countries -the UK and Germany for instance, but also AT&T- failed to take the Internet lane ! Instead of that they were building their optical fibre networks ... that Internet was happy to take ! And what's more, they had to invest money in masses for building their networks but they were able to pay for it. This self-financing model is seriously burdened by the "business" that the Internet has become. Just take a look on the telcos' ARPU ... As Louis, I believe thet Internet has to evolve and improve for living. Thus there is some place for other "Louis" -and hopefully in Africa!- in this perspective. Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 04/12/13 17:34 > De : "Mawaki Chango" > A : "Internet Governance" , "michael gurstein" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Economist article on Louis Pouzin > > +1 > Ah, the French government! They always have a way with missing historical moments such as this -- taking the wrong decision at the... wrong time (well, time is always wrong for wrong decisions, anyway.) > > mawaki > > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:28 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > From: Andrew Russell Subject: Economist article on Pouzin Date: December 4, 2013 at 10:07:39 AM EST To: Dave Farber Hi Dave - For IP - The Economist has published a nice article on Louis Pouzin: http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21590765-louis-pouzin-helped-create-internet-now-he-campaigning-ensure-its The internet’s fifth man Louis Pouzin helped create the internet. Now he is campaigning to ensure that its design continues to evolve and improve in future Nov 30th 2013 | From the print edition > AT A glitzy ceremony at Buckingham Palace this summer, Queen Elizabeth II honoured five pioneers of computer networking. Four of the men who shared the new £1m ($1.6m) Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering are famous: Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, authors of the protocols that underpin the internet; Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the world wide web; and Marc Andreessen, creator of the first successful web browser. But the fifth man is less well known. He is Louis Pouzin, a garrulous Frenchman whose contribution to the field is every bit as seminal. In the early 1970s Mr Pouzin created an innovative data network that linked locations in France, Italy and Britain. Its simplicity and efficiency pointed the way to a network that could connect not just dozens of machines, but millions of them. It captured the imagination of Dr Cerf and Dr Kahn, who included aspects of its design in the protocols that now power the internet. Yet in the late 1970s France’s government withdrew its funding for Mr Pouzin’s project. He watched as the internet swept across the world, ultimately vindicating him and his work. “Recognition has come very, very late for Louis,” says Dr Cerf. “Unfairly so.” […] > Mr Pouzin visited American universities to learn more about ARPANET, a network funded by the military that had been switched on two years before, and which relied on a promising new technique called “packet switching” to deliver data from one machine to another. Chopping up all communications into data packets of fixed size, and allowing machines to relay packets to each other, meant that there was no need for a direct link between every pair of machines on the network. Instead, they could be wired together with relatively few connections, reducing the cost and increasing the resilience of the network. If a network link failed, packets could take a different path. > But to Mr Pouzin, ARPANET seemed over-designed and inefficient. Every computer required a complex piece of hardware to link it to the network, because ARPANET’s design included a connection set-up phase, in which a path across the network was established for communication between two machines. Packets were then delivered in order along this path. Mr Pouzin’s team came up with a leaner, more efficient way to do things. Instead of deciding in advance which path a series of packets should travel along, they proposed that each packet should be labelled and delivered as an individual message, called a datagram. On ARPANET, strings of packets travelled like carriages of a train, travelling in strict order from one station to another. On CYCLADES, packets were individual cars, each of which could travel independently to its destination. The receiving computer, not the network, would then juggle the packets back into order, and request retransmission of any packets lost in transit. Such “connectionless” packet-switching reduced the need for sophisticated and costly equipment within the network to establish predetermined routes for packets. The system’s simplicity also made it easier to link up different networks. The first CYCLADES connection, between Paris and Grenoble, debuted in 1973—closely watched by Dr Cerf and Dr Kahn, two American scientists who were by this time mulling how best to overhaul ARPANET. They built on Mr Pouzin’s connectionless, datagram-based approach, so that concepts from CYCLADES found their way into the TCP/IP suite of protocols on which the modern internet now runs. [snip] http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21590765-louis-pouzin-helped-create-internet-now-he-campaigning-ensure-its Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Wed Dec 4 15:02:04 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 20:02:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Economist article on Louis Pouzin In-Reply-To: <1796134827.28165.1386179467997.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f22> References: <1796134827.28165.1386179467997.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f22> Message-ID: ;-) Thanks, Jean-Louis... I'd agree with you that the best way to celebrate Louis's accomplishments is to keep hope alive for evolving network technologies -- and yes, Africa's time will come, sooner than later. Cheers - et encore bravo, grand-frere Louis! mawaki On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 5:51 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > > +1 > > and -once again- bravo Louis ! > > > > Please, Mawaki, you should be (more) indulgent with the French government > : a lot/most of countries -the UK and Germany for instance, but also AT&T- > failed to take the Internet lane ! Instead of that they were building their > optical fibre networks ... that Internet was happy to take ! And what's > more, they had to invest money in masses for building their networks but > they were able to pay for it. This self-financing model is seriously > burdened by the "business" that the Internet has become. Just take a look > on the telcos' ARPU ... > > > > As Louis, I believe thet Internet has to evolve and improve for living. > Thus there is some place for other "Louis" -and hopefully in Africa!- in > this perspective. > > > > Best regards > > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > Message du 04/12/13 17:34 > > De : "Mawaki Chango" > > A : "Internet Governance" , "michael gurstein" > > Copie à : > > Objet : Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Economist article on Louis Pouzin > > > > > > +1 > > > Ah, the French government! They always have a way with missing historical > moments such as this -- taking the wrong decision at the... wrong time > (well, time is always wrong for wrong decisions, anyway.) > > > > > mawaki > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:28 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > >> >> *From: *Andrew Russell >> >> *Subject: Economist article on Pouzin* >> >> *Date: *December 4, 2013 at 10:07:39 AM EST >> >> *To: *Dave Farber >> >> >> >> Hi Dave - >> >> >> >> For IP - The Economist has published a nice article on Louis Pouzin: >> >> >> http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21590765-louis-pouzin-helped-create-internet-now-he-campaigning-ensure-its >> >> >> The internet’s fifth man Louis Pouzin helped create the internet. Now >> he is campaigning to ensure that its design continues to evolve and improve >> in future >> >> Nov 30th 2013 | From the print edition >> >> > AT A glitzy ceremony at Buckingham Palace this summer, Queen Elizabeth >> II honoured five pioneers of computer networking. Four of the men who >> shared the new £1m ($1.6m) Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering are >> famous: Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, authors of the protocols that underpin the >> internet; Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the world wide web; and Marc >> Andreessen, creator of the first successful web browser. But the fifth man >> is less well known. He is Louis Pouzin, a garrulous Frenchman whose >> contribution to the field is every bit as seminal. >> >> In the early 1970s Mr Pouzin created an innovative data network that >> linked locations in France, Italy and Britain. Its simplicity and >> efficiency pointed the way to a network that could connect not just dozens >> of machines, but millions of them. It captured the imagination of Dr Cerf >> and Dr Kahn, who included aspects of its design in the protocols that now >> power the internet. Yet in the late 1970s France’s government withdrew its >> funding for Mr Pouzin’s project. He watched as the internet swept across >> the world, ultimately vindicating him and his work. “Recognition has come >> very, very late for Louis,” says Dr Cerf. “Unfairly so.” >> >> >> >> […] >> >> >> >> > Mr Pouzin visited American universities to learn more about ARPANET, a >> network funded by the military that had been switched on two years before, >> and which relied on a promising new technique called “packet switching” to >> deliver data from one machine to another. Chopping up all communications >> into data packets of fixed size, and allowing machines to relay packets to >> each other, meant that there was no need for a direct link between every >> pair of machines on the network. Instead, they could be wired together with >> relatively few connections, reducing the cost and increasing the resilience >> of the network. If a network link failed, packets could take a different >> path. >> >> > But to Mr Pouzin, ARPANET seemed over-designed and inefficient. Every >> computer required a complex piece of hardware to link it to the network, >> because ARPANET’s design included a connection set-up phase, in which a >> path across the network was established for communication between two >> machines. Packets were then delivered in order along this path. >> >> Mr Pouzin’s team came up with a leaner, more efficient way to do things. >> Instead of deciding in advance which path a series of packets should travel >> along, they proposed that each packet should be labelled and delivered as >> an individual message, called a datagram. On ARPANET, strings of packets >> travelled like carriages of a train, travelling in strict order from one >> station to another. On CYCLADES, packets were individual cars, each of >> which could travel independently to its destination. The receiving >> computer, not the network, would then juggle the packets back into order, >> and request retransmission of any packets lost in transit. >> >> >> >> Such “connectionless” packet-switching reduced the need for sophisticated >> and costly equipment within the network to establish predetermined routes >> for packets. The system’s simplicity also made it easier to link up >> different networks. The first CYCLADES connection, between Paris and >> Grenoble, debuted in 1973—closely watched by Dr Cerf and Dr Kahn, two >> American scientists who were by this time mulling how best to overhaul >> ARPANET. They built on Mr Pouzin’s connectionless, datagram-based approach, >> so that concepts from CYCLADES found their way into the TCP/IP suite of >> protocols on which the modern internet now runs. >> >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >> >> http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21590765-louis-pouzin-helped-create-internet-now-he-campaigning-ensure-its >> >> >> >> Archives >> | >> ModifyYour Subscription | Unsubscribe >> Now >> >> >> >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Wed Dec 4 18:03:33 2013 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 00:03:33 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto Message-ID: <1880227990.41445.1386198213684.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f22> Anja, Michael and all The regular WSIS process had mainly two "hot potatoes" in its programme : - development issues and financing mechanisms for solving them - Internet governance issues (the WGIG was supposed to pave the way for responding to them) If we agree on these two main objectives to ge given a appropriate solution we should perhaps listen on the Adama Samassekou's proposals during the last Forum intended to giving the WSIS follow-up process a new impulse. First, he suggested to replace PPPs, Public-Private Partnetships, the "holy grail of the WSIS leaders, firts of all the ITU, by MSPs, i.e. the Multi-stakeholder Partnership. Thus the WSIS spirit is restaured because CS is effectively present and part of it, contrarily to the PPP. Second, he asked for setting up a Working Group per Action Line or grouping of several AL that analyses thoroughly and objectively (that implies that a critical approach replaces the recurrent "success stories") the objectives aimed for by thess AL or AL groups.These WGs would collect the informations upon the evolution of the key issues, the work done and the point achieved during the past annual period. In other words : action and results instead of story-telling ! I suggest that we consider seriously Adama Samassekou's proposals as a major input for the coming preparatory programme meetings (16-17 december and February), having in mind the two main themes, namely development and related financing mechanisms and Internet Governance. Of course, this list with its member organizations (IG Caucus, Bestbits, IT4Change, APC, Eurolinc, etc) will focus on the latter and submit contributions to the WSIS coordinators accordingly. For these proposals to succeed, I personnaly opt for CS being "ITU embedded" (see my previous e-mail), that will ensure that the WSIS leading UN agency respects the requests proposed by the CS orgs or at least considers them as valuable inputs. Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 02/12/13 23:17 > De : "michael gurstein" > A : "'Anja Kovacs'" > Copie à : "'Nick Ashton-Hart'" , "'IGC'" , "'bestbits'" > Objet : [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > > Anja, I really haven’t followed or kept up with the Action Lines process… The few times that I did take a look it seemed to be mostly around fairly empty self-congratulations about the success of one pilot project or paper exercise or another with little real connection with what might be happening on the ground. Rather I’ve tried to spend my time at my “day job” which is helping in various ways to support/enable bottom up development processes. As I tried to point out in my reply to George’s comments on my earlier post the connection that I see between bottom up development (the kind that actually works) and say a WSIS process is that global policy influences national policy and national, multilateral and foundation funding. Bottom up development will only go so far until it runs into a policy or a funding blockage. If the supporting mechanisms/policies aren’t there initiatives fail and ladders quickly turn into snakes. Then, the people with the fewest resources are required to start all over again while the those with the most get to jet off to another international conference talking about which square “Action Line” peg can be snaffled to fit into the required round hole so as to appear to be supportive of “Poverty Reduction” or whatever the flavor of the day happens to be. Action Lines aren’t “development” they are a way of describing (or in most cases mis-describing) development activities taking place (or not) rather far distant from wherever those Action Lines are being discussed. The non-IG part of WSIS should be about the reality of development and a WSIS +10 either takes a close look at what worked (or more likely, didn’t) on the ground and starts from there or it isn’t about anything at all. M From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] > Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 11:39 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: Nick Ashton-Hart; IGC; bestbits > Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > I wouldn't actually agree that an approach that starts from the national level is the only way forward. In the analysis of the Internet Democracy Project, among important reasons why more progress has not been made on various goals set out in the WSIS Action Lines is not only because Action Lines have been implemented in too top-down a fashion, but also, and relatedly, because the Action Lines mix together two types of issues: those that fundamentally rely on the input of the larger development community, and those that are Internet governance issues in the more narrow sense. The latter frequently cut across Action Lines, and as long as they are not addressed adequately, it is unlikely that the development agenda that is at the heart of the Action Lines will take off either. The former is in many cases the foundation for the success of the latter. For this reason, the Internet Democracy Project proposed in September, when the first inputs into the preparatory process for the ITU's High Level Review meeting were due, to actually rearrange the Action Lines to make sure both aspects of the Action Lines get their due. This would entail highlighting, and addressing, the Internet governance agenda that is embedded in the Action Lines separately, without at any point losing sight of its connectedness with the development agenda. We resubmitted this proposal as an input into the zero draft of the zero draft of the WSIS+10 vision in November, please see: http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/inc/docs/phase2/rc/V1-D-2.docx While many development issues in the Action Lines require action first and foremost at local and national levels, many of the Internet governance issues are really global public policy issues (and by splitting the two strands, where to engage can become much more clear for a range of actors). We therefore also made this proposal an integral part of our proposals for the evolution of global Internet governance. If much of the groundwork to enhance cooperation has already been done in the context of the Action Lines, why not build on this rather than constituting a new, government-dominated body? This would also ensure that the enhanced cooperation agenda, too, is tethered quite closely to development - that seems to be the case only rarely now. Different issues require action at different levels and through different processes. The challenge is not which one to chose, but how to hold on to, organise and maximise the multitude. Best, Anja On 2 December 2013 06:06, michael gurstein wrote: +1 M From: nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] > Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 PM > To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits > Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I believe strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, because the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level action plans, drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared like-for-like as to results internationally so countries can learn from what works in other countries. The irony is that this model is how "Agenda 21" the climate change process from the first Rio conference works; sadly WSIS didn't pick this up despite it postdating Rio by more than a decade. > In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not going to be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where INGOs (however well-meaning) compare notes and report cards - it will be met at the grassroots level, with buyin from that level. michael gurstein wrote: Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look at this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be done with no attention being given to how it might actually be accomplished on the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements and failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. > M > http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp > Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become critical to driving growth, delivering social services, improving environmental management, and transforming people’s lives, according to a new Manifesto released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and signed by 48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from industry, civil society and the United Nations. “Overcoming the digital divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness and justice; connecting the world makes soun d commercial sense,” the Manifesto reads. “The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the core of any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all countries – developed and developing alike – are empowered to participate in the global digital economy.” > Supporting Document > http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce-report.pdf > > -- > Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at consensus.pro Wed Dec 4 18:29:16 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 07:29:16 +0800 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto In-Reply-To: <1880227990.41445.1386198213684.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f22> References: <1880227990.41445.1386198213684.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f22> Message-ID: <55771dce-b90e-45fe-a8ad-53e3e78c5656@email.android.com> For what it is worth I think these are useful proposals, but there is also the further need to do this at the national level, not just internationally, so each country can evaluate where it is in the implementation process, what lessons it can learn, etc. jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr wrote: > >Anja, Michael >and all > >The regular WSIS process had mainly two "hot potatoes" in its programme >: >- development issues and financing mechanisms for solving them >- Internet governance issues (the WGIG was supposed to pave the way for >responding to them) >If we agree on these two main objectives to ge given a appropriate >solution we should perhaps listen on the Adama Samassekou's proposals >during the last Forum intended to giving the WSIS follow-up process a >new impulse. >First, he suggested to replace PPPs, Public-Private Partnetships, the >"holy grail of the WSIS leaders, firts of all the ITU, by MSPs, i.e. >the Multi-stakeholder Partnership. Thus the WSIS spirit is restaured >because CS is effectively present and part of it, contrarily to the >PPP. >Second, he asked for setting up a Working Group per Action Line or >grouping of several AL that analyses thoroughly and objectively (that >implies that a critical approach replaces the recurrent "success >stories") the objectives aimed for by thess AL or AL groups.These WGs >would collect the informations upon the evolution of the key issues, >the work done and the point achieved during the past annual period. In >other words : action and results instead of story-telling ! > >I suggest that we consider seriously Adama Samassekou's proposals as a >major input for the coming preparatory programme meetings (16-17 >december and February), having in mind the two main themes, namely >development and related financing mechanisms and Internet Governance. >Of course, this list with its member organizations (IG Caucus, >Bestbits, IT4Change, APC, Eurolinc, etc) will focus on the latter and >submit contributions to the WSIS coordinators accordingly. > >For these proposals to succeed, I personnaly opt for CS being "ITU >embedded" (see my previous e-mail), that will ensure that the WSIS >leading UN agency respects the requests proposed by the CS orgs or at >least considers them as valuable inputs. > >Best regards > >Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > > > > >> Message du 02/12/13 23:17 >> De : "michael gurstein" >> A : "'Anja Kovacs'" >> Copie à : "'Nick Ashton-Hart'" , "'IGC'" , "'bestbits'" >> Objet : [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto >> >> >Anja, > >I really haven’t followed or kept up with the Action Lines process… The >few times that I did take a look it seemed to be mostly around fairly >empty self-congratulations about the success of one pilot project or >paper exercise or another with little real connection with what might >be happening on the ground. > >Rather I’ve tried to spend my time at my “day job” which is helping in >various ways to support/enable bottom up development processes. As I >tried to point out in my reply to George’s comments on my earlier post >the connection that I see between bottom up development (the kind that >actually works) and say a WSIS process is that global policy influences >national policy and national, multilateral and foundation funding. >Bottom up development will only go so far until it runs into a policy >or a funding blockage. If the supporting mechanisms/policies aren’t >there initiatives fail and ladders quickly turn into snakes. Then, the >people with the fewest resources are required to start all over again >while the those with the most get to jet off to another international >conference talking about which square “Action Line” peg can be snaffled >to fit into the required round hole so as to appear to be supportive of >“Poverty Reduction” or whatever the flavor of the day happens to be. > >Action Lines aren’t “development” they are a way of describing (or in >most cases mis-describing) development activities taking place (or not) >rather far distant from wherever those Action Lines are being >discussed. The non-IG part of WSIS should be about the reality of >development and a WSIS +10 either takes a close look at what worked (or >more likely, didn’t) on the ground and starts from there or it isn’t >about anything at all. > >M > >From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] >> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 11:39 AM >> To: michael gurstein >> Cc: Nick Ashton-Hart; IGC; bestbits >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > > >> I wouldn't actually agree that an approach that starts from the >national level is the only way forward. In the analysis of the Internet >Democracy Project, among important reasons why more progress has not >been made on various goals set out in the WSIS Action Lines is not only >because Action Lines have been implemented in too top-down a fashion, >but also, and relatedly, because the Action Lines mix together two >types of issues: those that fundamentally rely on the input of the >larger development community, and those that are Internet governance >issues in the more narrow sense. The latter frequently cut across >Action Lines, and as long as they are not addressed adequately, it is >unlikely that the development agenda that is at the heart of the Action >Lines will take off either. The former is in many cases the foundation >for the success of the latter. >For this reason, the Internet Democracy Project proposed in September, >when the first inputs into the preparatory process for the ITU's High >Level Review meeting were due, to actually rearrange the Action Lines >to make sure both aspects of the Action Lines get their due. This would >entail highlighting, and addressing, the Internet governance agenda >that is embedded in the Action Lines separately, without at any point >losing sight of its connectedness with the development agenda. We >resubmitted this proposal as an input into the zero draft of the zero >draft of the WSIS+10 vision in November, please see: >http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/inc/docs/phase2/rc/V1-D-2.docx >While many development issues in the Action Lines require action first >and foremost at local and national levels, many of the Internet >governance issues are really global public policy issues (and by >splitting the two strands, where to engage can become much more clear >for a range of actors). We therefore also made this proposal an >integral part of our proposals for the evolution of global Internet >governance. If much of the groundwork to enhance cooperation has >already been done in the context of the Action Lines, why not build on >this rather than constituting a new, government-dominated body? This >would also ensure that the enhanced cooperation agenda, too, is >tethered quite closely to development - that seems to be the case only >rarely now. >Different issues require action at different levels and through >different processes. The challenge is not which one to chose, but how >to hold on to, organise and maximise the multitude. > >Best, >Anja > > >On 2 December 2013 06:06, michael gurstein wrote: >+1 > >M > >From: nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] >> Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 PM >> To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > >> The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I believe >strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, >because the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level >action plans, drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared >like-for-like as to results internationally so countries can learn from >what works in other countries. The irony is that this model is how >"Agenda 21" the climate change process from the first Rio conference >works; sadly WSIS didn't pick this up despite it postdating Rio by more >than a decade. >> In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not >going to be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where >INGOs (however well-meaning) compare notes and report cards - it will >be met at the grassroots level, with buyin from that level. > >michael gurstein wrote: >Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is >necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look >at this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should >be done with no attention being given to how it might actually be >accomplished on the ground even after almost twenty years of similar >pronouncements and failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down >initiatives. >> >M >> >http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp >> >Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become >critical to driving growth, delivering social services, improving >environmental management, and transforming people’s lives, according to >a new Manifesto released by the Broadband Commission for Digital >Development and signed by 48 members of the Commission, along with >other prominent figures from industry, civil society and the United >Nations. “Overcoming the digital divide makes sense not only on the >basis of principles of fairness and justice; connecting the world makes >soun d commercial sense,” the Manifesto reads. “The vital role of >broadband needs to be acknowledged at the core of any post-2015 >sustainable development framework, to ensure that all countries – >developed and developing alike – are empowered to participate in the >global digital economy.” >> >Supporting Document >> >http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce-report.pdf >> > >> -- >> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >> > >> -- >> 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 -- Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Dec 4 19:02:29 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 16:02:29 -0800 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto In-Reply-To: <55771dce-b90e-45fe-a8ad-53e3e78c5656@email.android.com> References: <1880227990.41445.1386198213684.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f22> <55771dce-b90e-45fe-a8ad-53e3e78c5656@email.android.com> Message-ID: <041a01cef14d$4d1d1350$e75739f0$@gmail.com> Yes, I also think that these are very useful and thanks for pointing to them J-L… I’m wondering how to help move them forward? M From: nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 3:29 PM To: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr; jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michaelgurstein; 'AnjaKovacs' Cc: 'IGC'; 'bestbits' Subject: re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto For what it is worth I think these are useful proposals, but there is also the further need to do this at the national level, not just internationally, so each country can evaluate where it is in the implementation process, what lessons it can learn, etc. jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr wrote: Anja, Michael and all The regular WSIS process had mainly two "hot potatoes" in its programme : - development issues and financing mechanisms for solving them - Internet governance issues (the WGIG was supposed to pave the way for responding to them) If we agree on these two main objectives to ge given a appropriate solution we should perhaps listen on the Adama Samassekou's proposals during the last Forum intended to giving the WSIS follow-up process a new impulse. First, he suggested to replace PPPs, Public-Private Partnetships, the "holy grail of the WSIS leaders, firts of all the ITU, by MSPs, i.e. the Multi-stakeholder Partnership. Thus the WSIS spirit is restaured because CS is effectively present and part of it, contrarily to the PPP. Second, he asked for setting up a Working Group per Action Line or grouping of several AL that analyses thoroughly and objectively (that implies that a critical approach replaces the recurrent "success stories") the objectives aimed for by thess AL or AL groups.These WGs would collect the informations upon the evolution of the key issues, the work done and the point achieved during the past annual period. In other words : action and results instead of story-telling ! I suggest that we consider seriously Adama Samassekou's proposals as a major input for the coming preparatory programme meetings (16-17 december and February), having in mind the two main themes, namely development and related financing mechanisms and Internet Governance. Of course, this list with its member organizations (IG Caucus, Bestbits, IT4Change, APC, Eurolinc, etc) will focus on the latter and submit contributions to the WSIS coordinators accordingly. For these proposals to succeed, I personnaly opt for CS being "ITU embedded" (see my previous e-mail), that will ensure that the WSIS leading UN agency respects the requests proposed by the CS orgs or at least considers them as valuable inputs. Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 02/12/13 23:17 > De : "michael gurstein" > A : "'Anja Kovacs'" > Copie à : "'Nick Ashton-Hart'" , "'IGC'" , "'bestbits'" > Objet : [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > > Anja, I really haven’t followed or kept up with the Action Lines process… The few times that I did take a look it seemed to be mostly around fairly empty self-congratulations about the success of one pilot project or paper exercise or another with little real connection with what might be happening on the ground. Rather I’ve tried to spend my time at my “day job” which is helping in various ways to support/enable bottom up development processes. As I tried to point out in my reply to George’s comments on my earlier post the connection that I see between bottom up development (the kind that actually works) and say a WSIS process is that global policy influences national policy and national, multilateral and foundation funding. Bottom up development will only go so far until it runs into a policy or a funding blockage. If the supporting mechanisms/policies aren’t there initiatives fail and ladders quickly turn into snakes. Then, the people with the fewest resources are required to start all over again while the those with the most get to jet off to another international conference talking about which square “Action Line” peg can be snaffled to fit into the required round hole so as to appear to be supportive of “Poverty Reduction” or whatever the flavor of the day happens to be. Action Lines aren’t “development” they are a way of describing (or in most cases mis-describing) development activities taking place (or not) rather far distant from wherever those Action Lines are being discussed. The non-IG part of WSIS should be about the reality of development and a WSIS +10 either takes a close look at what worked (or more likely, didn’t) on the ground and starts from there or it isn’t about anything at all. M From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] > Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 11:39 AM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: Nick Ashton-Hart; IGC; bestbits > Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > I wouldn't actually agree that an approach that starts from the national level is the only way forward. In the analysis of the Internet Democracy Project, among important reasons why more progress has not been made on various goals set out in the WSIS Action Lines is not only because Action Lines have been implemented in too top-down a fashion, but also, and relatedly, because the Action Lines mix together two types of issues: those that fundamentally rely on the input of the larger development community, and those that are Internet governance issues in the more narrow sense. The latter frequently cut across Action Lines, and as long as they are not addressed adequately, it is unlikely that the development agenda that is at the heart of the Action Lines will take off either. The former is in many cases the foundation for the success of the latter. For this reason, the Internet Democracy Project proposed in September, when the first inputs into the preparatory process for the ITU's High Level Review meeting were due, to actually rearrange the Action Lines to make sure both aspects of the Action Lines get their due. This would entail highlighting, and addressing, the Internet governance agenda that is embedded in the Action Lines separately, without at any point losing sight of its connectedness with the development agenda. We resubmitted this proposal as an input into the zero draft of the zero draft of the WSIS+10 vision in November, please see: http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/inc/docs/phase2/rc/V1-D-2.docx While many development issues in the Action Lines require action first and foremost at local and national levels, many of the Internet governance issues are really global public policy issues (and by splitting the two strands, where to engage can become much more clear for a range of actors). We therefore also made this proposal an integral part of our proposals for the evolution of global Internet governance. If much of the groundwork to enhance cooperation has already been done in the context of the Action Lines, why not build on this rather than constituting a new, government-dominated body? This would also ensure that the enhanced cooperation agenda, too, is tethered quite closely to development - that seems to be the case only rarely now. Different issues require action at different levels and through different processes. The challenge is not which one to chose, but how to hold on to, organise and maximise the multitude. Best, Anja On 2 December 2013 06:06, michael gurstein wrote: +1 M From: nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] > Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 PM > To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits > Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I believe strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, because the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level action plans, drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared like-for-like as to results internationally so countries can learn from what works in other countries. The irony is that this model is how "Agenda 21" the climate change process from the first Rio conference works; sadly WSIS didn't pick this up despite it postdating Rio by more than a decade. > In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not going to be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where INGOs (however well-meaning) compare notes and report cards - it will be met at the grassroots level, with buyin from that level. michael gurstein wrote: Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look at this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be done with no attention being given to how it might actually be accomplished on the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements and failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. > M > http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp > Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become critical to driving growth, delivering social services, improving environmental management, and transforming people’s lives, according to a new Manifesto released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and signed by 48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from industry, civil society and the United Nations. “Overcoming the digital divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness and justice; connecting the world makes soun d commercial sense,” the Manifesto reads. “The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the core of any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all countries – developed and developing alike – are empowered to participate in the global digital economy.” > Supporting Document > http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce-report.pdf > > -- > Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -- > 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 -- Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Dec 5 02:57:19 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 13:27:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Economist article on Louis Pouzin In-Reply-To: <011901cef105$7d8f5900$78ae0b00$@gmail.com> References: <011901cef105$7d8f5900$78ae0b00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52A031DF.8010105@itforchange.net> The greatest thing about Louis is that he created a part of what we know as Internet technology with an outsider's mindset, key to making disruptive innovations, and he still keeps that 'outsider mindset' young and unsullied, at 82. He has refused to rest on his laurels, much less allow himself the luxury to be courted by those who are globally making big on the technology that he helped invent. He still want things to get better, and rues the re-centralisation of power and control on the Internet throughcreation of walled spaces, which is the major part of today's Internet. As he puts it, "recreating Minitel in a way" (out of what was supposed to be an open and end to end Internet). The best tribute to Louis will be to take this message from him seriously; and to put our wits and energies into re-decentralising power on and through the Internet. Louis, you are an inspiration for all of us! parminder On Wednesday 04 December 2013 08:58 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > *From: *Andrew Russell > > > *Subject: Economist article on Pouzin* > > *Date: *December 4, 2013 at 10:07:39 AM EST > > *To: *Dave Farber > > > Hi Dave - > > For IP - The Economist has published a nice article on Louis Pouzin: > > http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21590765-louis-pouzin-helped-create-internet-now-he-campaigning-ensure-its > > > The internet’s fifth man > > > Louis Pouzin helped create the internet. Now he is campaigning to > ensure that its design continues to evolve and improve in future > > Nov 30th 2013 | From the print edition > > > AT A glitzy ceremony at Buckingham Palace this summer, Queen Elizabeth > II honoured five pioneers of computer networking. Four of the men who > shared the new £1m ($1.6m) Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering are > famous: Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn, authors of the protocols that underpin > the internet; Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the world wide web; and > Marc Andreessen, creator of the first successful web browser. But the > fifth man is less well known. He is Louis Pouzin, a garrulous > Frenchman whose contribution to the field is every bit as seminal. > > In the early 1970s Mr Pouzin created an innovative data network that > linked locations in France, Italy and Britain. Its simplicity and > efficiency pointed the way to a network that could connect not just > dozens of machines, but millions of them. It captured the imagination > of Dr Cerf and Dr Kahn, who included aspects of its design in the > protocols that now power the internet. Yet in the late 1970s France’s > government withdrew its funding for Mr Pouzin’s project. He watched as > the internet swept across the world, ultimately vindicating him and > his work. “Recognition has come very, very late for Louis,” says Dr > Cerf. “Unfairly so.” > > […] > > Mr Pouzin visited American universities to learn more about ARPANET, a > network funded by the military that had been switched on two years > before, and which relied on a promising new technique called “packet > switching” to deliver data from one machine to another. Chopping up > all communications into data packets of fixed size, and allowing > machines to relay packets to each other, meant that there was no need > for a direct link between every pair of machines on the network. > Instead, they could be wired together with relatively few connections, > reducing the cost and increasing the resilience of the network. If a > network link failed, packets could take a different path. > > But to Mr Pouzin, ARPANET seemed over-designed and inefficient. Every > computer required a complex piece of hardware to link it to the > network, because ARPANET’s design included a connection set-up phase, > in which a path across the network was established for communication > between two machines. Packets were then delivered in order along this > path. > > Mr Pouzin’s team came up with a leaner, more efficient way to do > things. Instead of deciding in advance which path a series of packets > should travel along, they proposed that each packet should be labelled > and delivered as an individual message, called a datagram. On ARPANET, > strings of packets travelled like carriages of a train, travelling in > strict order from one station to another. On CYCLADES, packets were > individual cars, each of which could travel independently to its > destination. The receiving computer, not the network, would then > juggle the packets back into order, and request retransmission of any > packets lost in transit. > > Such “connectionless” packet-switching reduced the need for > sophisticated and costly equipment within the network to establish > predetermined routes for packets. The system’s simplicity also made it > easier to link up different networks. The first CYCLADES connection, > between Paris and Grenoble, debuted in 1973—closely watched by Dr Cerf > and Dr Kahn, two American scientists who were by this time mulling how > best to overhaul ARPANET. They built on Mr Pouzin’s connectionless, > datagram-based approach, so that concepts from CYCLADES found their > way into the TCP/IP suite of protocols on which the modern internet > now runs. > > [snip] > > http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21590765-louis-pouzin-helped-create-internet-now-he-campaigning-ensure-its > > 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 anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu Dec 5 03:31:16 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 14:01:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto In-Reply-To: <041a01cef14d$4d1d1350$e75739f0$@gmail.com> References: <1880227990.41445.1386198213684.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f22> <55771dce-b90e-45fe-a8ad-53e3e78c5656@email.android.com> <041a01cef14d$4d1d1350$e75739f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: As long as the Internet governance issues and the development issues aren't separated more clearly within the Action Lines, I don't think much progress can be made, not even if there are AL working groups. This is first, because the Internet governance issues and the development issues in the AL require two slightly different (though overlapping to some extent) communities to get excited and involved, and second, because the issues that they will be addressing need addressing at different levels. Many of the IG issues in the Action Lines are actually among the international public policy issues that require a global solution, while the development issues frequently rely more heavily on intervention at the national level. We'd want grassroots input into both, but for grassroots activists to easily find their way into these processes, it is important that the intended outcome, or at least promise, of such processes is obvious, and as long as a variety of issues are thrown together as they are now, that will not be the case. As a consequence, nobody has taken, or felt, any ownership over the action lines so far, nor has anyone done anything much ""because the Action Lines exist" - except perhaps the UN bodies that were responsible for facilitating them. If we are to reenergise the Action Line part of the WSIS (and there is no indication that governments want to do away with it, so it makes sense to try and make it work), separating these very different issues out therefore seems a crucial first step. It is only once this has been done that the proposed working groups will really be able to make a difference (and I agree that they can make a substantial difference at that stage). Best, Anja On Dec 5, 2013 5:32 AM, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Yes, I also think that these are very useful and thanks for pointing to > them J-L… > > > > I’m wondering how to help move them forward? > > > > M > > > > *From:* nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 04, 2013 3:29 PM > *To:* jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr; jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michaelgurstein; 'AnjaKovacs' > *Cc:* 'IGC'; 'bestbits' > *Subject:* re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > > > > For what it is worth I think these are useful proposals, but there is also > the further need to do this at the national level, not just > internationally, so each country can evaluate where it is in the > implementation process, what lessons it can learn, etc. > > > > jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr wrote: > > > > Anja, Michael > > and all > > > > The regular WSIS process had mainly two "hot potatoes" in its programme : > > - development issues and financing mechanisms for solving them > > - Internet governance issues (the WGIG was supposed to pave the way for > responding to them) > > If we agree on these two main objectives to ge given a appropriate > solution we should perhaps listen on the Adama Samassekou's proposals > during the last Forum intended to giving the WSIS follow-up process a new > impulse. > > First, he suggested to *replace PPPs*, Public-Private Partnetships, the > "holy grail of the WSIS leaders, firts of all the ITU, *by MSPs*, i.e. > the Multi-stakeholder Partnership. Thus the WSIS spirit is > restaured because CS is effectively present and part of it, contrarily to > the PPP. > > Second, he asked for setting up a *Working Group per Action Line* or > grouping of several AL that analyses thoroughly and objectively (that > implies that a critical approach replaces the recurrent "success stories") > the objectives aimed for by thess AL or AL groups.These WGs would collect > the informations upon the evolution of the key issues, the work done and > the point achieved during the past annual period. In other words : action > and results instead of story-telling ! > > > > I suggest that we consider seriously Adama Samassekou's proposals as a > major input for the coming preparatory programme meetings (16-17 december > and February), having in mind the two main themes, namely development and > related financing mechanisms and Internet Governance. Of course, this list > with its member organizations (IG Caucus, Bestbits, IT4Change, APC, > Eurolinc, etc) will focus on the latter and submit contributions to the > WSIS coordinators accordingly. > > > > For these proposals to succeed, I personnaly opt for CS being "ITU > embedded" (see my previous e-mail), that will ensure that the WSIS leading > UN agency respects the requests proposed by the CS orgs or at least > considers them as valuable inputs. > > > > Best regards > > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Message du 02/12/13 23:17 > > De : "michael gurstein" > > A : "'Anja Kovacs'" > > Copie à : "'Nick Ashton-Hart'" , "'IGC'" , "'bestbits'" > > Objet : [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > > > > > > Anja, > > > > I really haven’t followed or kept up with the Action Lines process… The > few times that I did take a look it seemed to be mostly around fairly empty > self-congratulations about the success of one pilot project or paper > exercise or another with little real connection with what might be > happening on the ground. > > > > Rather I’ve tried to spend my time at my “day job” which is helping in > various ways to support/enable bottom up development processes. As I tried > to point out in my reply to George’s comments on my earlier post the > connection that I see between bottom up development (the kind that actually > works) and say a WSIS process is that global policy influences national > policy and national, multilateral and foundation funding. Bottom up > development will only go so far until it runs into a policy or a funding > blockage. If the supporting mechanisms/policies aren’t there initiatives > fail and ladders quickly turn into snakes. Then, the people with the > fewest resources are required to start all over again while the those with > the most get to jet off to another international conference talking about > which square “Action Line” peg can be snaffled to fit into the required > round hole so as to appear to be supportive of “Poverty Reduction” or > whatever the flavor of the day happens to be. > > > > Action Lines aren’t “development” they are a way of describing (or in most > cases mis-describing) development activities taking place (or not) rather > far distant from wherever those Action Lines are being discussed. The > non-IG part of WSIS should be about the reality of development and a WSIS > +10 either takes a close look at what worked (or more likely, didn’t) on > the ground and starts from there or it isn’t about anything at all. > > > > M > > > > *From:* Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] > > > *Sent:* Monday, December 02, 2013 11:39 AM > > *To:* michael gurstein > > *Cc:* Nick Ashton-Hart; IGC; bestbits > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > > > > > > I wouldn't actually agree that an approach that starts from the national > level is the only way forward. In the analysis of the Internet Democracy > Project, among important reasons why more progress has not been made on > various goals set out in the WSIS Action Lines is not only because Action > Lines have been implemented in too top-down a fashion, but also, and > relatedly, because the Action Lines mix together two types of issues: those > that fundamentally rely on the input of the larger development community, > and those that are Internet governance issues in the more narrow sense. The > latter frequently cut across Action Lines, and as long as they are not > addressed adequately, it is unlikely that the development agenda that is at > the heart of the Action Lines will take off either. The former is in many > cases the foundation for the success of the latter. > > For this reason, the Internet Democracy Project proposed in September, > when the first inputs into the preparatory process for the ITU's High Level > Review meeting were due, to actually rearrange the Action Lines to make > sure both aspects of the Action Lines get their due. This would entail > highlighting, and addressing, the Internet governance agenda that is > embedded in the Action Lines separately, without at any point losing sight > of its connectedness with the development agenda. We resubmitted this > proposal as an input into the zero draft of the zero draft of the WSIS+10 > vision in November, please see: > http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/inc/docs/phase2/rc/V1-D-2.docx > > While many development issues in the Action Lines require action first and > foremost at local and national levels, many of the Internet governance > issues are really global public policy issues (and by splitting the two > strands, where to engage can become much more clear for a range of actors). > We therefore also made this proposal an integral part of our proposals for > the evolution of global Internet governance. If much of the groundwork to > enhance cooperation has already been done in the context of the Action > Lines, why not build on this rather than constituting a new, > government-dominated body? This would also ensure that the enhanced > cooperation agenda, too, is tethered quite closely to development - that > seems to be the case only rarely now. > > Different issues require action at different levels and through different > processes. The challenge is not which one to chose, but how to hold on to, > organise and maximise the multitude. > > > > Best, > > Anja > > > > > > On 2 December 2013 06:06, michael gurstein wrote: > > +1 > > > > M > > > > *From:* nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] > > *Sent:* Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 PM > > *To:* michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > > > > > The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I believe > strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, because > the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level action plans, > drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared like-for-like as > to results internationally so countries can learn from what works in other > countries. The irony is that this model is how "Agenda 21" the climate > change process from the first Rio conference works; sadly WSIS didn't pick > this up despite it postdating Rio by more than a decade. > > > In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not going > to be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where INGOs > (however well-meaning) compare notes and report cards - it will be met at > the grassroots level, with buyin from that level. > > > > michael gurstein wrote: > > Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is > necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look at > this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be done > with no attention being given to how it might actually be accomplished on > the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements and > failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. > > > > > M > > > > > http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp > > > > > Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become critical > to driving growth, delivering social services, improving environmental > management, and transforming people’s lives, according to a new Manifesto > released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and signed by > 48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from > industry, civil society and the United Nations. “Overcoming the digital > divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness and > justice; connecting the world makes soun d commercial sense,” the Manifesto > reads. “The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the core of > any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all > countries – developed and developing alike – are empowered to participate > in the global digital economy.” > > > > > Supporting Document > > > > > > http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce-report.pdf > > > > > > > -- > > Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > -- > Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at consensus.pro Thu Dec 5 04:28:14 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 17:28:14 +0800 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto In-Reply-To: References: <1880227990.41445.1386198213684.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f22> <55771dce-b90e-45fe-a8ad-53e3e78c5656@email.android.com> <041a01cef14d$4d1d1350$e75739f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5a93d8eb-3f0a-4a43-a10c-275390e588c4@email.android.com> It seems to me that, frankly, the Action Lines are a bit of a mess - duplicative, vague, in other cases difficult at best to be able to tell what success is. I would suggest that the national level discussions should look more at the actual WSIS text, using the action lines as input. Your point about the mixture of governance and development is a good one - however, at the national level having separated discussions about these should be possible. If the WSIS review doesn't operate in parallel at the national and international level, and only starts at the international level and then afterwards starts at the national level, we have the same top-down dynamic we have now, which has been a failure. Anja Kovacs wrote: >As long as the Internet governance issues and the development issues >aren't >separated more clearly within the Action Lines, I don't think much >progress >can be made, not even if there are AL working groups. This is first, >because the Internet governance issues and the development issues in >the AL >require two slightly different (though overlapping to some extent) >communities to get excited and involved, and second, because the issues >that they will be addressing need addressing at different levels. Many >of >the IG issues in the Action Lines are actually among the international >public policy issues that require a global solution, while the >development >issues frequently rely more heavily on intervention at the national >level. >We'd want grassroots input into both, but for grassroots activists to >easily find their way into these processes, it is important that the >intended outcome, or at least promise, of such processes is obvious, >and as >long as a variety of issues are thrown together as they are now, that >will >not be the case. As a consequence, nobody has taken, or felt, any >ownership >over the action lines so far, nor has anyone done anything much >""because >the Action Lines exist" - except perhaps the UN bodies that were >responsible for facilitating them. > >If we are to reenergise the Action Line part of the WSIS (and there is >no >indication that governments want to do away with it, so it makes sense >to >try and make it work), separating these very different issues out >therefore >seems a crucial first step. It is only once this has been done that the >proposed working groups will really be able to make a difference (and I >agree that they can make a substantial difference at that stage). > >Best, > >Anja >On Dec 5, 2013 5:32 AM, "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> Yes, I also think that these are very useful and thanks for pointing >to >> them J-L… >> >> >> >> I’m wondering how to help move them forward? >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> *From:* nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 04, 2013 3:29 PM >> *To:* jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr; jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr; >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michaelgurstein; 'AnjaKovacs' >> *Cc:* 'IGC'; 'bestbits' >> *Subject:* re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto >> >> >> >> For what it is worth I think these are useful proposals, but there is >also >> the further need to do this at the national level, not just >> internationally, so each country can evaluate where it is in the >> implementation process, what lessons it can learn, etc. >> >> >> >> jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr wrote: >> >> >> >> Anja, Michael >> >> and all >> >> >> >> The regular WSIS process had mainly two "hot potatoes" in its >programme : >> >> - development issues and financing mechanisms for solving them >> >> - Internet governance issues (the WGIG was supposed to pave the way >for >> responding to them) >> >> If we agree on these two main objectives to ge given a appropriate >> solution we should perhaps listen on the Adama Samassekou's proposals >> during the last Forum intended to giving the WSIS follow-up process a >new >> impulse. >> >> First, he suggested to *replace PPPs*, Public-Private Partnetships, >the >> "holy grail of the WSIS leaders, firts of all the ITU, *by MSPs*, >i.e. >> the Multi-stakeholder Partnership. Thus the WSIS spirit is >> restaured because CS is effectively present and part of it, >contrarily to >> the PPP. >> >> Second, he asked for setting up a *Working Group per Action Line* or >> grouping of several AL that analyses thoroughly and objectively (that >> implies that a critical approach replaces the recurrent "success >stories") >> the objectives aimed for by thess AL or AL groups.These WGs would >collect >> the informations upon the evolution of the key issues, the work done >and >> the point achieved during the past annual period. In other words : >action >> and results instead of story-telling ! >> >> >> >> I suggest that we consider seriously Adama Samassekou's proposals as >a >> major input for the coming preparatory programme meetings (16-17 >december >> and February), having in mind the two main themes, namely development >and >> related financing mechanisms and Internet Governance. Of course, this >list >> with its member organizations (IG Caucus, Bestbits, IT4Change, APC, >> Eurolinc, etc) will focus on the latter and submit contributions to >the >> WSIS coordinators accordingly. >> >> >> >> For these proposals to succeed, I personnaly opt for CS being "ITU >> embedded" (see my previous e-mail), that will ensure that the WSIS >leading >> UN agency respects the requests proposed by the CS orgs or at least >> considers them as valuable inputs. >> >> >> >> Best regards >> >> >> >> Jean-Louis Fullsack >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Message du 02/12/13 23:17 >> > De : "michael gurstein" >> > A : "'Anja Kovacs'" >> > Copie à : "'Nick Ashton-Hart'" , "'IGC'" , "'bestbits'" >> > Objet : [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto >> > >> > >> >> Anja, >> >> >> >> I really haven’t followed or kept up with the Action Lines process… >The >> few times that I did take a look it seemed to be mostly around fairly >empty >> self-congratulations about the success of one pilot project or paper >> exercise or another with little real connection with what might be >> happening on the ground. >> >> >> >> Rather I’ve tried to spend my time at my “day job” which is helping >in >> various ways to support/enable bottom up development processes. As I >tried >> to point out in my reply to George’s comments on my earlier post the >> connection that I see between bottom up development (the kind that >actually >> works) and say a WSIS process is that global policy influences >national >> policy and national, multilateral and foundation funding. Bottom up >> development will only go so far until it runs into a policy or a >funding >> blockage. If the supporting mechanisms/policies aren’t there >initiatives >> fail and ladders quickly turn into snakes. Then, the people with the >> fewest resources are required to start all over again while the those >with >> the most get to jet off to another international conference talking >about >> which square “Action Line” peg can be snaffled to fit into the >required >> round hole so as to appear to be supportive of “Poverty Reduction” or >> whatever the flavor of the day happens to be. >> >> >> >> Action Lines aren’t “development” they are a way of describing (or in >most >> cases mis-describing) development activities taking place (or not) >rather >> far distant from wherever those Action Lines are being discussed. The >> non-IG part of WSIS should be about the reality of development and a >WSIS >> +10 either takes a close look at what worked (or more likely, didn’t) >on >> the ground and starts from there or it isn’t about anything at all. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> *From:* Anja Kovacs >[mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] >> >> > *Sent:* Monday, December 02, 2013 11:39 AM >> > *To:* michael gurstein >> > *Cc:* Nick Ashton-Hart; IGC; bestbits >> > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto >> >> >> >> >> > I wouldn't actually agree that an approach that starts from the >national >> level is the only way forward. In the analysis of the Internet >Democracy >> Project, among important reasons why more progress has not been made >on >> various goals set out in the WSIS Action Lines is not only because >Action >> Lines have been implemented in too top-down a fashion, but also, and >> relatedly, because the Action Lines mix together two types of issues: >those >> that fundamentally rely on the input of the larger development >community, >> and those that are Internet governance issues in the more narrow >sense. The >> latter frequently cut across Action Lines, and as long as they are >not >> addressed adequately, it is unlikely that the development agenda that >is at >> the heart of the Action Lines will take off either. The former is in >many >> cases the foundation for the success of the latter. >> >> For this reason, the Internet Democracy Project proposed in >September, >> when the first inputs into the preparatory process for the ITU's High >Level >> Review meeting were due, to actually rearrange the Action Lines to >make >> sure both aspects of the Action Lines get their due. This would >entail >> highlighting, and addressing, the Internet governance agenda that is >> embedded in the Action Lines separately, without at any point losing >sight >> of its connectedness with the development agenda. We resubmitted this >> proposal as an input into the zero draft of the zero draft of the >WSIS+10 >> vision in November, please see: >> http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/inc/docs/phase2/rc/V1-D-2.docx >> >> While many development issues in the Action Lines require action >first and >> foremost at local and national levels, many of the Internet >governance >> issues are really global public policy issues (and by splitting the >two >> strands, where to engage can become much more clear for a range of >actors). >> We therefore also made this proposal an integral part of our >proposals for >> the evolution of global Internet governance. If much of the >groundwork to >> enhance cooperation has already been done in the context of the >Action >> Lines, why not build on this rather than constituting a new, >> government-dominated body? This would also ensure that the enhanced >> cooperation agenda, too, is tethered quite closely to development - >that >> seems to be the case only rarely now. >> >> Different issues require action at different levels and through >different >> processes. The challenge is not which one to chose, but how to hold >on to, >> organise and maximise the multitude. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Anja >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2 December 2013 06:06, michael gurstein >wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> *From:* nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] >> > *Sent:* Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 PM >> > *To:* michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits >> > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto >> >> >> >> > The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I >believe >> strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, >because >> the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level action >plans, >> drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared >like-for-like as >> to results internationally so countries can learn from what works in >other >> countries. The irony is that this model is how "Agenda 21" the >climate >> change process from the first Rio conference works; sadly WSIS didn't >pick >> this up despite it postdating Rio by more than a decade. >> >> > In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not >going >> to be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where INGOs >> (however well-meaning) compare notes and report cards - it will be >met at >> the grassroots level, with buyin from that level. >> >> >> >> michael gurstein wrote: >> >> Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective >is >> necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close >look at >> this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be >done >> with no attention being given to how it might actually be >accomplished on >> the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements >and >> failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. >> >> > >> >> M >> >> > >> >> http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp >> >> > >> >> Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become >critical >> to driving growth, delivering social services, improving >environmental >> management, and transforming people’s lives, according to a new >Manifesto >> released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and >signed by >> 48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from >> industry, civil society and the United Nations. “Overcoming the >digital >> divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness >and >> justice; connecting the world makes soun d commercial sense,” the >Manifesto >> reads. “The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the >core of >> any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all >> countries – developed and developing alike – are empowered to >participate >> in the global digital economy.” >> >> > >> >> Supporting Document >> >> > >> >> >> >http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce-report.pdf >> >> > >> >> >> > -- >> > Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> > >> >> > -- >> > 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 >> >> >> -- >> Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >> -- Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Dec 5 06:03:30 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 20:03:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Ian, Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. Best, Adam On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at this meeting in two weeks time. > > Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. > > I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing would have been the alternative in this timeframe. > > > Ian Peter > > > 29 November 2013 > RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London > > Dear Fadi and Nora: > > I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of representatives of the > civil society networks most involved in Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your > willingness to engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet > governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is under-represented on > your High Level Panel and your willingness to accept additional civil society participants to > this panel to provide more balance. > After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following 2 civil society > representatives to begin to balance against the much larger numbers from government, the > private sector, and technical representatives placed on the initial panel. > Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High Level Panel are: > 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) > 2. Milton Mueller (mueller at syr.edu) > Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of these names, and contact our > representatives directly to arrange their participation? > We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the Diplo Foundation as > a highly experienced and knowledgeable facilitator. > We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable representation of civil > society in such panels and committees. > Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from various civil society > networks were: > Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation > Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) > Norbert Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) > Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits > Signed, > Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Thu Dec 5 06:05:44 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 12:05:44 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto In-Reply-To: References: <1880227990.41445.1386198213684.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f22> <55771dce-b90e-45fe-a8ad-53e3e78c5656@email.android.com> <041a01cef14d$4d1d1350$e75739f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1597405002.9169.1386241544429.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n12> Anja I fully agree with your opinion about AL content, at least in their current wording. In fact, they include both the crucial issues, development and Internet governance, and for a more comprehensive and efficient approach these issues should be filtered out. Second step to undertake would be to group some of them (Bertrand suggested this re-grouping some years ago). If done consistently that would reduce the number of WGs, facilitate their activity and give them an actual impetus. Once again, a strong CS presence and commitment in the process is a precondtion for the WSIS to survive its "+10"term, this is my utterly convicgion. But as you may agree, it isn't the unique one ! IMO IG would/could survive a WSIS failure, because it is a global issue ... and all "stakeholders" are interested in worldwide. Development is a more complex and holistic problems with many variables and parameters, and CS has lost its strong influence in the WSIS process during the last years as has been highlighted by the absence of an active and animated :-) discussion list (e.g. plenary at wsis-cs.org) as a counterpart of as governance at ists. Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 05/12/13 09:31 > De : "Anja Kovacs" > A : "michael gurstein" > Copie à : jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr, "Nick Ashton-Hart" , "IGC" , "bestbits" > Objet : RE: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > > > As long as the Internet governance issues and the development issues aren't separated more clearly within the Action Lines, I don't think much progress can be made, not even if there are AL working groups. This is first, because the Internet governance issues and the development issues in the AL require two slightly different (though overlapping to some extent) communities to get excited and involved, and second, because the issues that they will be addressing need addressing at different levels. Many of the IG issues in the Action Lines are actually among the international public policy issues that require a global solution, while the development issues frequently rely more heavily on intervention at the national level. We'd want grassroots input into both, but for grassroots activists to easily find their way into these processes, it is important that the intended outcome, or at least promise, of such processes is obvious, and as long as a variety of issues are thrown together as they are now, that will not be the case. As a consequence, nobody has taken, or felt, any ownership over the action lines so far, nor has anyone done anything much ""because the Action Lines exist" - except perhaps the UN bodies that were responsible for facilitating them. > > If we are to reenergise the Action Line part of the WSIS (and there is no indication that governments want to do away with it, so it makes sense to try and make it work), separating these very different issues out therefore seems a crucial first step. It is only once this has been done that the proposed working groups will really be able to make a difference (and I agree that they can make a substantial difference at that stage). > Best, > Anja > On Dec 5, 2013 5:32 AM, "michael gurstein" wrote: Yes, I also think that these are very useful and thanks for pointing to them J-L… I’m wondering how to help move them forward? M From: nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] > Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 3:29 PM > To: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr; jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michaelgurstein; 'AnjaKovacs' > Cc: 'IGC'; 'bestbits' > Subject: re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > For what it is worth I think these are useful proposals, but there is also the further need to do this at the national level, not just internationally, so each country can evaluate where it is in the implementation process, what lessons it can learn, etc. jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr wrote: > > Anja, Michael > and all > > The regular WSIS process had mainly two "hot potatoes" in its programme : > - development issues and financing mechanisms for solving them > - Internet governance issues (the WGIG was supposed to pave the way for responding to them) > If we agree on these two main objectives to ge given a appropriate solution we should perhaps listen on the Adama Samassekou's proposals during the last Forum intended to giving the WSIS follow-up process a new impulse. > First, he suggested to replace PPPs, Public-Private Partnetships, the "holy grail of the WSIS leaders, firts of all the ITU, by MSPs, i.e. the Multi-stakeholder Partnership. Thus the WSIS spirit is restaured because CS is effectively present and part of it, contrarily to the PPP. > Second, he asked for setting up a Working Group per Action Line or grouping of several AL that analyses thoroughly and objectively (that implies that a critical approach replaces the recurrent "success stories") the objectives aimed for by thess AL or AL groups.These WGs would collect the informations upon the evolution of the key issues, the work done and the point achieved during the past annual period. In other words : action and results instead of story-telling ! > > I suggest that we consider seriously Adama Samassekou's proposals as a major input for the coming preparatory programme meetings (16-17 december and February), having in mind the two main themes, namely development and related financing mechanisms and Internet Governance. Of course, this list with its member organizations (IG Caucus, Bestbits, IT4Change, APC, Eurolinc, etc) will focus on the latter and submit contributions to the WSIS coordinators accordingly. > > For these proposals to succeed, I personnaly opt for CS being "ITU embedded" (see my previous e-mail), that will ensure that the WSIS leading UN agency respects the requests proposed by the CS orgs or at least considers them as valuable inputs. > > Best regards > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > > > > > Message du 02/12/13 23:17 > > De : "michael gurstein" > > A : "'Anja Kovacs'" > > Copie à : "'Nick Ashton-Hart'" , "'IGC'" , "'bestbits'" > > Objet : [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > > > > Anja, I really haven’t followed or kept up with the Action Lines process… The few times that I did take a look it seemed to be mostly around fairly empty self-congratulations about the success of one pilot project or paper exercise or another with little real connection with what might be happening on the ground. Rather I’ve tried to spend my time at my “day job” which is helping in various ways to support/enable bottom up development processes. As I tried to point out in my reply to George’s comments on my earlier post the connection that I see between bottom up development (the kind that actually works) and say a WSIS process is that global policy influences national policy and national, multilateral and foundation funding. Bottom up development will only go so far until it runs into a policy or a funding blockage. If the supporting mechanisms/policies aren’t there initiatives fail and ladders quickly turn into snakes. Then, the people with the fewest resources are required to start all over again while the those with the most get to jet off to another international conference talking about which square “Action Line” peg can be snaffled to fit into the required round hole so as to appear to be supportive of “Poverty Reduction” or whatever the flavor of the day happens to be. Action Lines aren’t “development” they are a way of describing (or in most cases mis-describing) development activities taking place (or not) rather far distant from wherever those Action Lines are being discussed. The non-IG part of WSIS should be about the reality of development and a WSIS +10 either takes a close look at what worked (or more likely, didn’t) on the ground and starts from there or it isn’t about anything at all. M From: Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] > > Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 11:39 AM > > To: michael gurstein > > Cc: Nick Ashton-Hart; IGC; bestbits > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > > I wouldn't actually agree that an approach that starts from the national level is the only way forward. In the analysis of the Internet Democracy Project, among important reasons why more progress has not been made on various goals set out in the WSIS Action Lines is not only because Action Lines have been implemented in too top-down a fashion, but also, and relatedly, because the Action Lines mix together two types of issues: those that fundamentally rely on the input of the larger development community, and those that are Internet governance issues in the more narrow sense. The latter frequently cut across Action Lines, and as long as they are not addressed adequately, it is unlikely that the development agenda that is at the heart of the Action Lines will take off either. The former is in many cases the foundation for the success of the latter. For this reason, the Internet Democracy Project proposed in September, when the first inputs into the preparatory process for the ITU's High Level Review meeting were due, to actually rearrange the Action Lines to make sure both aspects of the Action Lines get their due. This would entail highlighting, and addressing, the Internet governance agenda that is embedded in the Action Lines separately, without at any point losing sight of its connectedness with the development agenda. We resubmitted this proposal as an input into the zero draft of the zero draft of the WSIS+10 vision in November, please see: http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/inc/docs/phase2/rc/V1-D-2.docx While many development issues in the Action Lines require action first and foremost at local and national levels, many of the Internet governance issues are really global public policy issues (and by splitting the two strands, where to engage can become much more clear for a range of actors). We therefore also made this proposal an integral part of our proposals for the evolution of global Internet governance. If much of the groundwork to enhance cooperation has already been done in the context of the Action Lines, why not build on this rather than constituting a new, government-dominated body? This would also ensure that the enhanced cooperation agenda, too, is tethered quite closely to development - that seems to be the case only rarely now. Different issues require action at different levels and through different processes. The challenge is not which one to chose, but how to hold on to, organise and maximise the multitude. Best, Anja On 2 December 2013 06:06, michael gurstein wrote: +1 M From: nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] > > Sent: Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 PM > > To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits > > Subject: Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > > The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I believe strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, because the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level action plans, drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared like-for-like as to results internationally so countries can learn from what works in other countries. The irony is that this model is how "Agenda 21" the climate change process from the first Rio conference works; sadly WSIS didn't pick this up despite it postdating Rio by more than a decade. > > In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not going to be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where INGOs (however well-meaning) compare notes and report cards - it will be met at the grassroots level, with buyin from that level. michael gurstein wrote: Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look at this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be done with no attention being given to how it might actually be accomplished on the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements and failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. > > M > > http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp > > Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become critical to driving growth, delivering social services, improving environmental management, and transforming people’s lives, according to a new Manifesto released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and signed by 48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from industry, civil society and the United Nations. “Overcoming the digital divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness and justice; connecting the world makes soun d commercial sense,” the Manifesto reads. “The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the core of any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all countries – developed and developing alike – are empowered to participate in the global digital economy.” > > Supporting Document > > http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce-report.pdf > > > > -- > > Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > > 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 > -- > Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Dec 5 06:11:54 2013 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:41:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto In-Reply-To: <1597405002.9169.1386241544429.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n12> References: <1880227990.41445.1386198213684.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f22> <55771dce-b90e-45fe-a8ad-53e3e78c5656@email.android.com> <041a01cef14d$4d1d1350$e75739f0$@gmail.com> <1597405002.9169.1386241544429.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n12> Message-ID: On 5 December 2013 16:35, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > Anja > > > > I fully agree with your opinion about AL content, at least in their > current wording. In fact, they include both the crucial issues, development > and Internet governance, and for a more comprehensive and efficient > approach these issues should be filtered out. Second step to undertake > would be to group some of them (Bertrand suggested this re-grouping some > years ago). If done consistently that would reduce the number of WGs, > facilitate their activity and give them an actual impetus. > > > > Once again, a strong CS presence and commitment in the process is a > precondtion for the WSIS to survive its "+10"term, this is my utterly > convicgion. But as you may agree, it isn't the unique one ! IMO IG > would/could survive a WSIS failure, because it is a global issue ... and > all "stakeholders" are interested in worldwide. Development is a more > complex and holistic problems with many variables and parameters, and CS > has lost its strong influence in the WSIS process during the last years as > has been highlighted by the absence of an active and animated :-) > discussion list (e.g. plenary at wsis-cs.org) as a > counterpart of as governance at ists. > Fully agree with you here, Jean-Louis. I know it's early days, and so much still isn't known about the WSIS+10 Review Summit, but do you perhaps see any potential to galvanise CS again around the development aspects in the context of that meeting, and then hopefully get off to a new and more productive start? Best regards, Anja > > > > > > > Best regards > > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > Message du 05/12/13 09:31 > > De : "Anja Kovacs" > > A : "michael gurstein" > > Copie à : jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr, "Nick Ashton-Hart" , "IGC" , > "bestbits" > > Objet : RE: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto > > > > > > > > As long as the Internet governance issues and the development issues > aren't separated more clearly within the Action Lines, I don't think much > progress can be made, not even if there are AL working groups. This is > first, because the Internet governance issues and the development issues in > the AL require two slightly different (though overlapping to some extent) > communities to get excited and involved, and second, because the issues > that they will be addressing need addressing at different levels. Many of > the IG issues in the Action Lines are actually among the international > public policy issues that require a global solution, while the development > issues frequently rely more heavily on intervention at the national level. > We'd want grassroots input into both, but for grassroots activists to > easily find their way into these processes, it is important that the > intended outcome, or at least promise, of such processes is obvious, and as > long as a variety of issues are thrown together as they are now, that will > not be the case. As a consequence, nobody has taken, or felt, any ownership > over the action lines so far, nor has anyone done anything much ""because > the Action Lines exist" - except perhaps the UN bodies that were > responsible for facilitating them. > > > > > > If we are to reenergise the Action Line part of the WSIS (and there is > no indication that governments want to do away with it, so it makes sense > to try and make it work), separating these very different issues out > therefore seems a crucial first step. It is only once this has been done > that the proposed working groups will really be able to make a difference > (and I agree that they can make a substantial difference at that stage). > > > Best, > > > Anja > > > On Dec 5, 2013 5:32 AM, "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> Yes, I also think that these are very useful and thanks for pointing to >> them J-L… >> >> >> >> I’m wondering how to help move them forward? >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> *From:* nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] >> > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 04, 2013 3:29 PM >> > *To:* jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr; jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr; >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michaelgurstein; 'AnjaKovacs' >> > *Cc:* 'IGC'; 'bestbits' >> > *Subject:* re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto >> >> >> >> > For what it is worth I think these are useful proposals, but there is >> also the further need to do this at the national level, not just >> internationally, so each country can evaluate where it is in the >> implementation process, what lessons it can learn, etc. >> >> >> >> jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Anja, Michael >> >> > and all >> >> > >> >> > The regular WSIS process had mainly two "hot potatoes" in its programme >> : >> >> > - development issues and financing mechanisms for solving them >> >> > - Internet governance issues (the WGIG was supposed to pave the way for >> responding to them) >> >> > If we agree on these two main objectives to ge given a appropriate >> solution we should perhaps listen on the Adama Samassekou's proposals >> during the last Forum intended to giving the WSIS follow-up process a new >> impulse. >> >> > First, he suggested to *replace PPPs*, Public-Private Partnetships, >> the "holy grail of the WSIS leaders, firts of all the ITU, *by MSPs*, >> i.e. the Multi-stakeholder Partnership. Thus the WSIS spirit is >> restaured because CS is effectively present and part of it, contrarily to >> the PPP. >> >> > Second, he asked for setting up a *Working Group per Action Line* or >> grouping of several AL that analyses thoroughly and objectively (that >> implies that a critical approach replaces the recurrent "success stories") >> the objectives aimed for by thess AL or AL groups.These WGs would collect >> the informations upon the evolution of the key issues, the work done and >> the point achieved during the past annual period. In other words : action >> and results instead of story-telling ! >> >> > >> >> > I suggest that we consider seriously Adama Samassekou's proposals as a >> major input for the coming preparatory programme meetings (16-17 december >> and February), having in mind the two main themes, namely development and >> related financing mechanisms and Internet Governance. Of course, this list >> with its member organizations (IG Caucus, Bestbits, IT4Change, APC, >> Eurolinc, etc) will focus on the latter and submit contributions to the >> WSIS coordinators accordingly. >> >> > >> >> > For these proposals to succeed, I personnaly opt for CS being "ITU >> embedded" (see my previous e-mail), that will ensure that the WSIS leading >> UN agency respects the requests proposed by the CS orgs or at least >> considers them as valuable inputs. >> >> > >> >> > Best regards >> >> > >> >> > Jean-Louis Fullsack >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > Message du 02/12/13 23:17 >> > > De : "michael gurstein" >> > > A : "'Anja Kovacs'" >> > > Copie à : "'Nick Ashton-Hart'" , "'IGC'" , "'bestbits'" >> > > Objet : [governance] RE: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto >> > > >> > > >> >> Anja, >> >> >> >> I really haven’t followed or kept up with the Action Lines process… The >> few times that I did take a look it seemed to be mostly around fairly empty >> self-congratulations about the success of one pilot project or paper >> exercise or another with little real connection with what might be >> happening on the ground. >> >> >> >> Rather I’ve tried to spend my time at my “day job” which is helping in >> various ways to support/enable bottom up development processes. As I tried >> to point out in my reply to George’s comments on my earlier post the >> connection that I see between bottom up development (the kind that actually >> works) and say a WSIS process is that global policy influences national >> policy and national, multilateral and foundation funding. Bottom up >> development will only go so far until it runs into a policy or a funding >> blockage. If the supporting mechanisms/policies aren’t there initiatives >> fail and ladders quickly turn into snakes. Then, the people with the >> fewest resources are required to start all over again while the those with >> the most get to jet off to another international conference talking about >> which square “Action Line” peg can be snaffled to fit into the required >> round hole so as to appear to be supportive of “Poverty Reduction” or >> whatever the flavor of the day happens to be. >> >> >> >> Action Lines aren’t “development” they are a way of describing (or in >> most cases mis-describing) development activities taking place (or not) >> rather far distant from wherever those Action Lines are being discussed. >> The non-IG part of WSIS should be about the reality of development and a >> WSIS +10 either takes a close look at what worked (or more likely, didn’t) >> on the ground and starts from there or it isn’t about anything at all. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> *From:* Anja Kovacs [mailto:anja at internetdemocracy.in] >> >> > > *Sent:* Monday, December 02, 2013 11:39 AM >> > > *To:* michael gurstein >> > > *Cc:* Nick Ashton-Hart; IGC; bestbits >> > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto >> >> >> >> >> > > I wouldn't actually agree that an approach that starts from the >> national level is the only way forward. In the analysis of the Internet >> Democracy Project, among important reasons why more progress has not been >> made on various goals set out in the WSIS Action Lines is not only because >> Action Lines have been implemented in too top-down a fashion, but also, and >> relatedly, because the Action Lines mix together two types of issues: those >> that fundamentally rely on the input of the larger development community, >> and those that are Internet governance issues in the more narrow sense. The >> latter frequently cut across Action Lines, and as long as they are not >> addressed adequately, it is unlikely that the development agenda that is at >> the heart of the Action Lines will take off either. The former is in many >> cases the foundation for the success of the latter. >> >> For this reason, the Internet Democracy Project proposed in September, >> when the first inputs into the preparatory process for the ITU's High Level >> Review meeting were due, to actually rearrange the Action Lines to make >> sure both aspects of the Action Lines get their due. This would entail >> highlighting, and addressing, the Internet governance agenda that is >> embedded in the Action Lines separately, without at any point losing sight >> of its connectedness with the development agenda. We resubmitted this >> proposal as an input into the zero draft of the zero draft of the WSIS+10 >> vision in November, please see: >> http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/inc/docs/phase2/rc/V1-D-2.docx >> >> While many development issues in the Action Lines require action first >> and foremost at local and national levels, many of the Internet governance >> issues are really global public policy issues (and by splitting the two >> strands, where to engage can become much more clear for a range of actors). >> We therefore also made this proposal an integral part of our proposals for >> the evolution of global Internet governance. If much of the groundwork to >> enhance cooperation has already been done in the context of the Action >> Lines, why not build on this rather than constituting a new, >> government-dominated body? This would also ensure that the enhanced >> cooperation agenda, too, is tethered quite closely to development - that >> seems to be the case only rarely now. >> >> Different issues require action at different levels and through different >> processes. The challenge is not which one to chose, but how to hold on to, >> organise and maximise the multitude. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Anja >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2 December 2013 06:06, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> *From:* nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] >> > > *Sent:* Sunday, December 01, 2013 4:05 PM >> > > *To:* michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits >> > > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] FW: Broadband Manifesto >> >> >> >> > > The merits of the report aside, your point, Michael, is one I believe >> strongly to be true: the whole WSIS follow-up system is top-down, because >> the ITU took control of it. What's needed is national-level action plans, >> drawn up by all stakeholders, which can then be compared like-for-like as >> to results internationally so countries can learn from what works in other >> countries. The irony is that this model is how "Agenda 21" the climate >> change process from the first Rio conference works; sadly WSIS didn't pick >> this up despite it postdating Rio by more than a decade. >> >> > > In the WSIS review, we should fix this. The digital divide is not >> going to be met in Geneva at one-annual "WSIS review" meetings where INGOs >> (however well-meaning) compare notes and report cards - it will be met at >> the grassroots level, with buyin from that level. >> >> >> >> michael gurstein wrote: >> >> Anyone wondering why a grassroots/community informatics perspective is >> necessary in the WSIS and related ICT4D venues should take a close look at >> this corporate driven top-down techno-fantasy of what could/should be done >> with no attention being given to how it might actually be accomplished on >> the ground even after almost twenty years of similar pronouncements and >> failed (and hugely wasteful) similarly top down initiatives. >> >> > > >> >> M >> >> > > >> >> http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/67.asp >> >> > > >> >> Broadband infrastructure, applications and services have become critical >> to driving growth, delivering social services, improving environmental >> management, and transforming people’s lives, according to a new Manifesto >> released by the Broadband Commission for Digital Development and signed by >> 48 members of the Commission, along with other prominent figures from >> industry, civil society and the United Nations. “Overcoming the digital >> divide makes sense not only on the basis of principles of fairness and >> justice; connecting the world makes soun d commercial sense,” the Manifesto >> reads. “The vital role of broadband needs to be acknowledged at the core of >> any post-2015 sustainable development framework, to ensure that all >> countries – developed and developing alike – are empowered to participate >> in the global digital economy.” >> >> > > >> >> Supporting Document >> >> > > >> >> >> http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/working-groups/bb-wg-taskforce-report.pdf >> >> > > >> >> >> > > -- >> > > Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ >> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> > > >> >> > > -- >> > > 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 >> >> >> > -- >> > Sent from Kaiten Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Dec 5 07:23:32 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 17:53:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: [I-coordination] Nominations to /1Net Steering committee & Brazil Meeting Organising commitees In-Reply-To: <52A06E1A.608@itforchange.net> References: <52A06E1A.608@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52A07044.2060504@itforchange.net> Please see below my email to the coordinator of 1net, Adiel.. I really find it very inappropriate that after civil society made it very clear that they would like to deal directly with the Brazilian organisers the below announcement is being made in a business as usual manner... I am less sure about the current intentions of the Brazilian organisers, CGI.Br, but my understanding is that they have also decided to deal directly with each stakeholder group. So, not at all able to understand what is happening here... Request our Brazilian liaisons to clarify, and if needed, obtain clarification from CGI.Br. My understanding is that CGI.Br is the organiser of the 'Brazil meeting' and 1net has no official or unofficial status with regard to it... any more than any other group which may self organise to engage with the important Brazil meeting. thanks, parminder -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [I-coordination] Nominations to /1Net Steering committee & Brazil Meeting Organising commitees Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 17:44:18 +0530 From: parminder To: i-coordination at nro.net Hi Adiel If I get it right, I read below as asking civil society to send names of 4 people to you - as coordinator of 1net - for 2 preparation committees of the 'Brazil meeting'. Is it so? I am not sure, but perhaps you know that civil society groups have written to the Brazilian organisers that they will like to have a direct engagment with them and not through any common front, or any such thing (including 1net.) In the circumstances, I wonder why the below announcement... I dare say that it appears to be disrespectful of civil soicety's stand that was taken together by a number of civil society groups. parminder On Thursday 05 December 2013 03:31 PM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: > Dear all, > > In order to bring some clarity in to this let me remind us that each stakeholder group (Business (done), Civil Society, Technical community, Academia) is requested to appoint/nominate a total of 9 people: > > - 2 people for the Brazil meeting's preparation committee-1: Multistakeholder High-Level Committee > > *** This is the committee that will set the high-level > political tone and objectives of the conference. > Committee members will engage on a global level with > stakeholders to encourage participation in the > conference and maximize its chances of success > > - 2 people for the Brazil meeting's preparation Committee 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee > > **** This committee owns the full responsibility of > organizing the event, including: defining conference > purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing > input received by March 1 into a coherent set of > proposals for the conferees to address, managing > conference proceedings and process, and directing all > communications activities pre-during-post conference. > > - 5 people to constitute the /1Net Steering committee > > Let me suggest December 15 as deadline to have the nominations from all the groups. Once you have your list, please forward it to me directly or share with the mailing lists. Please allow me to request that we, on this list respect what each group will come up with. It is for each interested group to organise themselves to select their reps and we must respect that. > > Thanks. > > - a. > > > > _______________________________________________ > I-coordination mailing list > I-coordination at nro.net > https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 5 08:18:41 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 18:48:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: [I-coordination] Nominations to /1Net Steering committee & Brazil Meeting Organising commitees In-Reply-To: <52A07044.2060504@itforchange.net> References: <52A06E1A.608@itforchange.net> <52A07044.2060504@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I fail to see the problem here. Looks like civil society groups - such as the technical community organization you responded to - are engaging directly with the Brazilians. And are inviting other civil society groups to engage. --srs (iPad) > On 05-Dec-2013, at 17:53, parminder wrote: > > Please see below my email to the coordinator of 1net, Adiel.. > > I really find it very inappropriate that after civil society made it very clear that they would like to deal directly with the Brazilian organisers the below announcement is being made in a business as usual manner... > > I am less sure about the current intentions of the Brazilian organisers, CGI.Br, but my understanding is that they have also decided to deal directly with each stakeholder group. > > So, not at all able to understand what is happening here... > > Request our Brazilian liaisons to clarify, and if needed, obtain clarification from CGI.Br. > > My understanding is that CGI.Br is the organiser of the 'Brazil meeting' and 1net has no official or unofficial status with regard to it... any more than any other group which may self organise to engage with the important Brazil meeting. > > thanks, parminder > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [I-coordination] Nominations to /1Net Steering committee & Brazil Meeting Organising commitees > Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 17:44:18 +0530 > From: parminder > To: i-coordination at nro.net > > Hi Adiel > > If I get it right, I read below as asking civil society to send names of 4 people to you - as coordinator of 1net - for 2 preparation committees of the 'Brazil meeting'. Is it so? > > I am not sure, but perhaps you know that civil society groups have written to the Brazilian organisers that they will like to have a direct engagment with them and not through any common front, or any such thing (including 1net.) > > In the circumstances, I wonder why the below announcement... I dare say that it appears to be disrespectful of civil soicety's stand that was taken together by a number of civil society groups. > > parminder > >> On Thursday 05 December 2013 03:31 PM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> In order to bring some clarity in to this let me remind us that each stakeholder group (Business (done), Civil Society, Technical community, Academia) is requested to appoint/nominate a total of 9 people: >> >> - 2 people for the Brazil meeting's preparation committee-1: Multistakeholder High-Level Committee >> >> *** This is the committee that will set the high-level >> political tone and objectives of the conference. >> Committee members will engage on a global level with >> stakeholders to encourage participation in the >> conference and maximize its chances of success >> >> - 2 people for the Brazil meeting's preparation Committee 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee >> >> **** This committee owns the full responsibility of >> organizing the event, including: defining conference >> purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing >> input received by March 1 into a coherent set of >> proposals for the conferees to address, managing >> conference proceedings and process, and directing all >> communications activities pre-during-post conference. >> >> - 5 people to constitute the /1Net Steering committee >> >> Let me suggest December 15 as deadline to have the nominations from all the groups. Once you have your list, please forward it to me directly or share with the mailing lists. Please allow me to request that we, on this list respect what each group will come up with. It is for each interested group to organise themselves to select their reps and we must respect that. >> >> Thanks. >> >> - a. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> I-coordination mailing list >> I-coordination at nro.net >> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 5 08:58:21 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:28:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: [I-coordination] Nominations to /1Net Steering committee & Brazil Meeting Organising commitees In-Reply-To: <38E85091-394F-4D3C-9C9A-C965B0399486@afrinic.net> References: <38E85091-394F-4D3C-9C9A-C965B0399486@afrinic.net> Message-ID: <52A0867D.1020704@itforchange.net> For those who are not on the 1Net list, this is the response of the coordinator of the 1net.... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [I-coordination] Nominations to /1Net Steering committee & Brazil Meeting Organising commitees Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:48:30 +0400 From: Adiel Akplogan To: parminder CC: i-coordination at nro.net Hello Parminder and CS people, Nothing disrespectful. If the choice of CS is to engage directly with the Brazilians, that is fine. Please do so and consider my mail just as reminder. /1Net is not and should not become a tool to dictate to anyone what to do. It should be a tool that allows us to rally around critical elements, principles and maybe proposals toward the evolution of a Multistakeholder approach to Internet governance/cooperation. - a. On 2013-12-05, at 16:14 PM, parminder > wrote: > Hi Adiel > > If I get it right, I read below as asking civil society to send names > of 4 people to you - as coordinator of 1net - for 2 preparation > committees of the 'Brazil meeting'. Is it so? > > I am not sure, but perhaps you know that civil society groups have > written to the Brazilian organisers that they will like to have a > direct engagment with them and not through any common front, or any > such thing (including 1net.) > > In the circumstances, I wonder why the below announcement... I dare > say that it appears to be disrespectful of civil soicety's stand that > was taken together by a number of civil society groups. > > parminder > > On Thursday 05 December 2013 03:31 PM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> In order to bring some clarity in to this let me remind us that each stakeholder group (Business (done), Civil Society, Technical community, Academia) is requested to appoint/nominate a total of 9 people: >> >> - 2 people for the Brazil meeting's preparation committee-1: Multistakeholder High-Level Committee >> >> *** This is the committee that will set the high-level >> political tone and objectives of the conference. >> Committee members will engage on a global level with >> stakeholders to encourage participation in the >> conference and maximize its chances of success >> >> - 2 people for the Brazil meeting's preparation Committee 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee >> >> **** This committee owns the full responsibility of >> organizing the event, including: defining conference >> purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing >> input received by March 1 into a coherent set of >> proposals for the conferees to address, managing >> conference proceedings and process, and directing all >> communications activities pre-during-post conference. >> >> - 5 people to constitute the /1Net Steering committee >> >> Let me suggest December 15 as deadline to have the nominations from all the groups. Once you have your list, please forward it to me directly or share with the mailing lists. Please allow me to request that we, on this list respect what each group will come up with. It is for each interested group to organise themselves to select their reps and we must respect that. >> >> Thanks. >> >> - a. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> I-coordination mailing list >> I-coordination at nro.net >> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination > > _______________________________________________ > I-coordination mailing list > I-coordination at nro.net > https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 314 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Dec 5 09:25:37 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2013 19:55:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: [I-coordination] Nominations to /1Net Steering committee & Brazil Meeting Organising commitees Message-ID: Which is entirely consistent with what I pointed out. I would strongly recommend engaging with 1net to present a united front in the forthcoming discussions. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "parminder" To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "<,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>," Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: [I-coordination] Nominations to /1Net Steering committee & Brazil Meeting Organising commitees Date: Thu, Dec 5, 2013 7:28 PM For those who are not on the 1Net list, this is the response of the coordinator of the 1net.... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [I-coordination] Nominations to /1Net Steering committee & Brazil Meeting Organising commitees Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 16:48:30 +0400 From: Adiel Akplogan To: parminder CC: i-coordination at nro.net Hello Parminder and CS people, Nothing disrespectful. If the choice of CS is to engage directly with the Brazilians, that is fine. Please do so and consider my mail just as reminder. /1Net is not and should not become a tool to dictate to anyone what to do. It should be a tool that allows us to rally around critical elements, principles and maybe proposals toward the evolution of a Multistakeholder approach to Internet governance/cooperation. - a. On 2013-12-05, at 16:14 PM, parminder > wrote: > Hi Adiel > > If I get it right, I read below as asking civil society to send names > of 4 people to you - as coordinator of 1net - for 2 preparation > committees of the 'Brazil meeting'. Is it so? > > I am not sure, but perhaps you know that civil society groups have > written to the Brazilian organisers that they will like to have a > direct engagment with them and not through any common front, or any > such thing (including 1net.) > > In the circumstances, I wonder why the below announcement... I dare > say that it appears to be disrespectful of civil soicety's stand that > was taken together by a number of civil society groups. > > parminder > > On Thursday 05 December 2013 03:31 PM, Adiel Akplogan wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> In order to bring some clarity in to this let me remind us that each stakeholder group (Business (done), Civil Society, Technical community, Academia) is requested to appoint/nominate a total of 9 people: >> >> - 2 people for the Brazil meeting's preparation committee-1: Multistakeholder High-Level Committee >> >> *** This is the committee that will set the high-level >> political tone and objectives of the conference. >> Committee members will engage on a global level with >> stakeholders to encourage participation in the >> conference and maximize its chances of success >> >> - 2 people for the Brazil meeting's preparation Committee 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee >> >> **** This committee owns the full responsibility of >> organizing the event, including: defining conference >> purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing >> input received by March 1 into a coherent set of >> proposals for the conferees to address, managing >> conference proceedings and process, and directing all >> communications activities pre-during-post conference. >> >> - 5 people to constitute the /1Net Steering committee >> >> Let me suggest December 15 as deadline to have the nominations from all the groups. Once you have your list, please forward it to me directly or share with the mailing lists. Please allow me to request that we, on this list respect what each group will come up with. It is for each interested group to organise themselves to select their reps and we must respect that. >> >> Thanks. >> >> - a. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> I-coordination mailing list >> I-coordination at nro.net >> https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination > > _______________________________________________ > I-coordination mailing list > I-coordination at nro.net > https://nro.net/mailman/listinfo/i-coordination -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 5 13:34:21 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 05:34:21 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Adam, Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a role of coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various reps should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the reps earlier). Hello Robin, I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off and regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just got back and ready for the next phase of work. As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to grow the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was announced, we made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc community, and only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for broader participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve while in Buenos Aires. At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will need to confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the Chairman of the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will keep you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that Frank La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities interests very vigilantly on top of our agendas. Fadi -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM To: Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Hi Ian, Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. Best, Adam On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as an > independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at this > meeting in two weeks time. > > Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was > imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the people > involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. > > I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit names, > and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing would have > been the alternative in this timeframe. > > > Ian Peter > > > 29 November 2013 > RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London > > Dear Fadi and Nora: > > I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of > representatives of the > civil society networks most involved in Internet governance deliberations, > we appreciate your > willingness to engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of > Internet > governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is > under-represented on > your High Level Panel and your willingness to accept additional civil > society participants to > this panel to provide more balance. > After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following 2 > civil society > representatives to begin to balance against the much larger numbers from > government, the > private sector, and technical representatives placed on the initial panel. > Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High Level > Panel are: > 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) > 2. Milton Mueller (mueller at syr.edu) > Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of these names, and > contact our > representatives directly to arrange their participation? > We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the Diplo > Foundation as > a highly experienced and knowledgeable facilitator. > We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable > representation of civil > society in such panels and committees. > Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from various > civil society > networks were: > Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation > Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) > Norbert Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus > (IGC) > Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits > Signed, > Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Thu Dec 5 15:01:56 2013 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 15:01:56 -0500 Subject: [governance] Canadian Competition Bureau conducting review of ICANN policies on domain name administration Message-ID: <6739955467822283785@unknownmsgid> FYI Michael Geist (@mgeist ) 12/5/2013, 2:36 PM Canadian Competition Bureau conducting review of ICANN policies on domain name administration competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc… Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 6 00:27:13 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 07:27:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee References: <7C15769E173E41F183644B78049753B3@Toshiba> Message-ID: <9C024DD0-4770-40DA-9A5D-4940CB4D200A@ciroap.org> Just in case Sala is travelling, and since doesn't seem to have been a thread about this here, please note that there is an ongoing call for nominations for 5 civil society representatives to the steering committee of the 1net dialogue, and that the IGC is expected to be discussing this, alongside discussions that are going on in the other networks mentioned in Ian's message below. The names are sought by midnight UTC this Sunday, and in case the participating civil society networks choose more than five different names, the coordination group that comprises one representative from each of them will try to bring them down to a consensus list of five. I'm not trying to preempt Sala's liaison role but just didn't want the IGC to be unaware of this in case she is travelling and can't post to the list. So for those who are not on Best Bits, NCSG, etc but who have names to contribute, perhaps you could do so in this thread and/or to Sala. Begin forwarded message: > From: "Ian Peter" > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee > Date: 6 December 2013 6:33:54 am GMT+2 > To: "Ian Peter" , "Anja Kovacs" , "Carolina Rossini" > Cc: "matthew shears" , "parminder" , > Reply-To: "Ian Peter" > > and just to be clear – this is for appointments to 1net steering committee, not for Brazil. CS will be doing its own nominations for Brazil, not through 1net, but not yet. Despite Adiel’s announcement elsewhere it is confirmed that Brazil has not asked for reps yet or set a deadline. So we can do that later. > > 5 people need to be appointed, representing all of civil society, for 1net steering. I am not sure myself, given this is an ongoing initiative quite independent of Brazil, whether we should necessarily keep all current reps for Brazil on 1net steering. > > Calls have gone out here, in APC, via Diplo, and NCSG. Not sure where the call on IGC list it, I might have missed it but Sala can advise. IN any case please make sure IGC list people who may not be reading here are aware. > > Nominations close midnight UTC Monday. > > Ian Peter > > > > > From: Ian Peter > Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 3:12 PM > To: Anja Kovacs ; Carolina Rossini > Cc: matthew shears ; parminder ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee > > just catching up - > > yes that has been discussed and agreed to a couple of days ago. All reps are definitely CS reps, not reps of individual organisations. > > Ian > > From: Anja Kovacs > Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 7:57 AM > To: Carolina Rossini > Cc: matthew shears ; parminder ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee > > Dear all, > > Just to flag that I'd be interested in a 1net steering committee role as well. > > And Jeremy, in terms of process, could you maybe clarify though whether the CS coordination group is planning to select people as representatives of a particular network, or simply as CS representatives? I would argue that the latter makes more sense, but it would be good to know what the coordination group has in mind. > > Many thanks, > Anja > > > > > On 6 December 2013 01:53, Carolina Rossini wrote: > I am happy to play one of the roles, since I do believe we need consistency and coherency. > Let me know where I could fit best. > Carolina > > Sent from my iPad > > On Dec 5, 2013, at 3:19 PM, matthew shears wrote: > >> My understanding from some time back was that we had the following: >> >> 4 (now 3) persons directly liaising with Brazil on the meeting (not through 1net) >> >> And to fill >> >> 5 civil society slots on the 1net steering committee (recognizing that civil society liaison for the Brazil meeting is as above). >> >> And >> >> Some number of civil society slots to be filled on some combination of the actual Brazil meeting committees (to be determined although there are suggestions that there should be 2 from civil society for at least two of the committees). >> >> From my perspective, and to echo a point made by Joana earlier, it would seem to make sense that those liaising with Brazil at the moment should probably be a part of the meeting committees to ensure consistency and coherency. >> >> As to 1net, it might also make sense for one of the Brazil liaisons to be a part of the 1net civil society steering committee component just to be sure that we have continuity across the various committees/liaisons. >> >> Finally, I realize that there is quite some debate about what 1net is or is not but I do believe that there is merit to participating and seeing where it leads us - as we have discussed before. I would also note that there is considerable merit in bringing stakeholders together and to figuring out what pressing IG related issues those stakeholders can find commonality of purpose on and work together to progress. >> >> Matthew >> >> On 05/12/2013 13:22, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> On 5 December 2013 17:32, parminder wrote: >>> >>> On Thursday 05 December 2013 04:35 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>> I agree that Rafik would be a good choice. >>>> >>>> What I'm not so clear about is why the four Brazilian liaisons should also continue to be de facto representatives in the 1net Steering Committee, >>> Anja >>> >>> I might have missed it, but I dont remember seeing any proposal to have our 4 Brazilian liaisons to Brazil meeting organising structure also be CS reps on the Steering Committee. >>> >>> That seemed to be what Jeremy proposed in his initial email, hence my response, but I also don't recall there being a broader discussion or agreement on this. >>> >>> Best, >>> Anja >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 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 kstouray at gmail.com Fri Dec 6 04:07:24 2013 From: kstouray at gmail.com (Katim S. Touray) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 12:07:24 +0300 Subject: [governance] Mandela: a giant passes Message-ID: Dear all, For a list like this, I would have thought that the passing a way of Mandela last night (Fr.) would have been headline news this morning. Since no one has woken up yet to say so, I am. As *The Economist* put it simply: "A giant passes." Please join me in expressing our since and heartfelt condolences to all of humanity on the passing away of a true giant of Africa and one who will, eternally, be an inspiration to all those fighting for justice. Katim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at isoc-mu.org Fri Dec 6 04:27:39 2013 From: dave at isoc-mu.org (Dave Kissoondoyal) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 13:27:39 +0400 Subject: [governance] Mandela: a giant passes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006c01cef265$6b2f6550$418e2ff0$@isoc-mu.org> Throughout his 95 years, Nelson Mandela has spoken words that ring true for many of us - about equality, about compassion, and about creating change. We have lost a hero who fought for the rights of all people, and touched millions in the process. We will miss him, but we will not forget his incredible work and the legacy he left behind. Nelson Mandela leaves a legacy of equality, democracy and education. It is incredibly important that all of us take his passing not as an end of an age, but as a renewed determination to carry on his work every day. Not only South Africa is saddened by this loss but the whole world including our country Mauritius, which has very close ties with South Africa. Our sincere condolences and deepest sympathy to the Mandela family and to the whole South African Nation. May the departed soul rest in peace. - http://www.facebook.com/groups/mandela.nelson Best regards Dave Kissoondoyal From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Katim S. Touray Sent: 06 December 2013 13:07 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Mandela: a giant passes Dear all, For a list like this, I would have thought that the passing a way of Mandela last night (Fr.) would have been headline news this morning. Since no one has woken up yet to say so, I am. As The Economist put it simply: "A giant passes." Please join me in expressing our since and heartfelt condolences to all of humanity on the passing away of a true giant of Africa and one who will, eternally, be an inspiration to all those fighting for justice. Katim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 6 04:37:18 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 18:37:18 +0900 Subject: [governance] Mandela: a giant passes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <76A8EA76-1BAE-4D6D-8E42-A98C072519AD@glocom.ac.jp> Expect every one of us has been thinking about him. Adam -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NM-better-life.jpg Type: image/jpg Size: 55147 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- On Dec 6, 2013, at 6:07 PM, Katim S. Touray wrote: > Dear all, > > For a list like this, I would have thought that the passing a way of Mandela last night (Fr.) would have been headline news this morning. Since no one has woken up yet to say so, I am. As The Economist put it simply: "A giant passes." > > Please join me in expressing our since and heartfelt condolences to all of humanity on the passing away of a true giant of Africa and one who will, eternally, be an inspiration to all those fighting for justice. > > Katim > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Dec 6 05:41:29 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 23:41:29 +1300 Subject: [governance] Mandela: a giant passes In-Reply-To: <76A8EA76-1BAE-4D6D-8E42-A98C072519AD@glocom.ac.jp> References: <76A8EA76-1BAE-4D6D-8E42-A98C072519AD@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <42061749-A2EA-420D-A97A-1DF404D93AD8@gmail.com> We at the International Bar Association are also mourning his passing but at the same time celebrating a life well lived. Below is the brief Release by the IBA. Begins The International Bar Association (IBA) joins the international community in expressing sadness at the announcement of the death of Mr Rolihlahla Dalibhunga ‘Nelson’ Mandela, Founding Honorary President of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) and international ambassador for democracy and freedom. IBA President, Michael Reynolds, commented, ‘Today, I express the deep sadness of all at the International Bar Association following news of the passing of Nelson Mandela. Our deepest condolences go to his family, friends and to the people of South Africa on losing their “Tata”.’ Mr Reynolds added, ‘Mr Mandela was a distinguished statesman, admired across the globe, and so it is at this sad moment that we also celebrate the life of a man who achieved so much.’ A qualified lawyer, Mr Mandela became the first Honorary President of the IBAHRI, established in 1995 to promote and protect human rights under a just rule of law and the right and ability of judges and lawyers to practise freely and without undue interference. After an IBA-arranged conference of African Bar leaders in South Africa where they met with President Mandela ‘in splendid gardens, where the great man was in astounding form...greeting leaders from all over Africa’, said Ross Harper, present at the meeting and President of the IBA at that time, Mr Mandela agreed to become Honorary President of the newly established entity. Mark Ellis, IBA Executive Director, said, ‘When the IBA’s Human Rights Institute was founded, Mr Mandela was one year into his term as President of the Republic of South Africa and major progressive social reforms were taking place across the country. The IBA believed that Mr Mandela’s unremitting fight for equality, freedom and democracy stood as a beacon for the values of the Human Rights Institute.’ He added, ‘We were honoured by his acceptance to be a part of the Institute, and we continue to promote and protect, around the world, the principles for which he fought.’ Mr Mandela opened the first Black South African law practice in 1952, with partner Oliver Tambo. Together they campaigned against apartheid and oppression of the Black majority in South Africa. He joined the African National Congress (ANC) and became the founding president of the ANC Youth League. In 1962 Mr Mandela was arrested, tried, and convicted of sabotage and other charges. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1964 and held in the notorious Robben Island prison. On his release in 1990 he proceeded to lead the ANC party in multi-party negotiations that led to the country's first multi-racial elections and to him becoming the first President of South Africa to be elected in a fully representative democratic election. Zimbabwean lawyer and IBAHRI Co-Chair, Sternford Moyo, said, ‘I am deeply saddened by the death of the great Nelson Mandela, who has done so much for freedom and democracy in Southern Africa. Mr Mandela’s courage and determination to fight for justice and equality is an inspiration to us all. He was an incredible man, who demonstrated enormous courage and sacrifice for the cause and principles in which he believed. His achievements are both within and outside of the political arena, and span beyond the borders of South Africa. His legacy will remain.’ A Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Mr Mandela was born on the 18 July 1918 in Transkei, South Africa and died on Thursday, 5th December 2013 in Johannesburg, South Africa. Ends Sent from my iPad > On Dec 6, 2013, at 10:37 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > > Expect every one of us has been thinking about him. > > Adam > > > > > > > > >> On Dec 6, 2013, at 6:07 PM, Katim S. Touray wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> For a list like this, I would have thought that the passing a way of Mandela last night (Fr.) would have been headline news this morning. Since no one has woken up yet to say so, I am. As The Economist put it simply: "A giant passes." >> >> Please join me in expressing our since and heartfelt condolences to all of humanity on the passing away of a true giant of Africa and one who will, eternally, be an inspiration to all those fighting for justice. >> >> Katim >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 devonrb at gmail.com Fri Dec 6 05:42:53 2013 From: devonrb at gmail.com (Devon Blake) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 05:42:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] Mandela: a giant passes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As one who has been inspired by the life of Mandela and fashioned many of my ideals from his utterances, I say thank you Nelson Mandela and may your soul rest in peace. To the South African peoples I say, you may have lost a father but the principles he stood for' his vision and his philosophies remain' Honour him by your practices, and his sacrifices will not be in vain. Devon On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Katim S. Touray wrote: > Dear all, > > For a list like this, I would have thought that the passing a way of > Mandela last night (Fr.) would have been headline news this morning. Since > no one has woken up yet to say so, I am. As *The Economist* put it > simply: "A giant passes." > > Please join me in expressing our since and heartfelt condolences to all of > humanity on the passing away of a true giant of Africa and one who will, > eternally, be an inspiration to all those fighting for justice. > > Katim > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Devon Blake ICT and Development Consultant 29 Dominica Drive Kgn 5 ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 To be kind, To be helpful, To network *Earthwise ... For Life!* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Fri Dec 6 08:00:26 2013 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 14:00:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] Mandela: a giant passes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No one missed the news We were all meditating on the life and deeds of this great giant that just went home Genuine souls will live to celebrate his achievements and what came out from Mandela's mouth CONGRATULATIONS MADIBA Aaron On 12/6/13, Devon Blake wrote: > As one who has been inspired by the life of Mandela and fashioned many of > my ideals from his utterances, I say thank you Nelson Mandela and may your > soul rest in peace. > To the South African peoples I say, you may have lost a father but the > principles he stood for' his vision and his philosophies remain' Honour him > by your practices, and his sacrifices will not be in vain. > Devon > > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Katim S. Touray wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> For a list like this, I would have thought that the passing a way of >> Mandela last night (Fr.) would have been headline news this morning. >> Since >> no one has woken up yet to say so, I am. As *The Economist* put it >> simply: "A giant passes." >> >> Please join me in expressing our since and heartfelt condolences to all >> of >> humanity on the passing away of a true giant of Africa and one who will, >> eternally, be an inspiration to all those fighting for justice. >> >> Katim >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Devon Blake > ICT and Development Consultant > 29 Dominica Drive > Kgn 5 > ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 > > To be kind, To be helpful, To network > *Earthwise ... For Life!* > -- Aaron Agien NYANGKWE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Telephone +237 73 42 71 27 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Fri Dec 6 09:39:26 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 14:39:26 +0000 Subject: [governance] Mandela: a giant passes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Exactly, Aron... Right on about meditation (or a pause to reflect) and congratulations. Yes, I feel like congratulating the freedom fighter, the strategist-organizer, the statesman and the leader in humanity --while presenting my heartfelt condolences to the people of South Africa, to the second-time widow of a freedom fighter, Graça Machel, to the whole Mandela family and to us all in the name of our common humanity. I'm not sad, though, because for one I think Mandela's spirit had already left us for some time, and I rejoice in knowing that his soul has at least been released from his body, so while he may no longer ex-ist (be on this reality plane of ours), he now is, nevertheless. Fully. As he was meant to be. As he always will be. My greatest fear when he came out of prison: I thought this man has been put away for 27 years, is he still in touch of our then present reality? Will he be able to avoid making some serious blunders, the kind that would make haters go like: "you see, we told you he was a commie and can't be relied on to lead a country such as South Africa." Admittedly, I myself was on the lookout --where will the first big gaffe come from? I waited and feared in vain, thankfully. To my amazement, he astutely navigated through all the hurdles and traps without compromising his vision and principles. So much so that from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to his exit from the national political scene (not to mention his mark on the beautiful post-apartheid constitution), he set an exemplar that inspires way beyond his country --not just as a near-martyr but as an active statesman. Sir, you have given us so much more than anyone can expect from another human being, let alone from ourselves. Now may you rest eternally in peace. Bye! Mawaki p.s. My favorite quote about this great transition is from Muhammad Ali, another legend: "His was a spirit born free, destined to soar above the rainbow. Today his spirit is soaring through the heavens. He is now forever free." On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:00PM, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > No one missed the news > We were all meditating on the life and deeds of this great giant that > just went home > Genuine souls will live to celebrate his achievements and what came > out from Mandela's mouth > > CONGRATULATIONS MADIBA > > Aaron > > On 12/6/13, Devon Blake wrote: > > As one who has been inspired by the life of Mandela and fashioned many of > > my ideals from his utterances, I say thank you Nelson Mandela and may > your > > soul rest in peace. > > To the South African peoples I say, you may have lost a father but the > > principles he stood for' his vision and his philosophies remain' Honour > him > > by your practices, and his sacrifices will not be in vain. > > Devon > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Katim S. Touray > wrote: > > > >> Dear all, > >> > >> For a list like this, I would have thought that the passing a way of > >> Mandela last night (Fr.) would have been headline news this morning. > >> Since > >> no one has woken up yet to say so, I am. As *The Economist* put it > >> simply: "A giant passes." > >> > >> Please join me in expressing our since and heartfelt condolences to all > >> of > >> humanity on the passing away of a true giant of Africa and one who will, > >> eternally, be an inspiration to all those fighting for justice. > >> > >> Katim > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Devon Blake > > ICT and Development Consultant > > 29 Dominica Drive > > Kgn 5 > > ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 > > > > To be kind, To be helpful, To network > > *Earthwise ... For Life!* > > > > > -- > Aaron Agien NYANGKWE > P.O.Box 5213 > Douala-Cameroon > Telephone +237 73 42 71 27 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Fri Dec 6 10:04:25 2013 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 16:04:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] Mandela: a giant passes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Mawaki Despite the glowing legacy bequeathed by Madiba some devil encarnates still parodes the air to smear the man. A French TV program last night made us to understand that "Nelson Mandela could not run for a second term because 'he was a man of power or prepared for it" They saiq some other useless thing so much so that my spychic self could not withstand it anymore. I started dosing off and by the time I woke off, my daughter had switched off the TV. I started wondering how wome people can delve into such dirty work with such alacrity and so soon? However, the sound minded will live to celebrate Madiba as could be expressed by this South African White wo wire a very tall flower on the fence of Madiba's compound fence We (Africans) are in for a live long celebration for Madiba. Aaron On 12/6/13, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Exactly, Aron... Right on about meditation (or a pause to reflect) and > congratulations. Yes, I feel like congratulating the freedom fighter, the > strategist-organizer, the statesman and the leader in humanity --while > presenting my heartfelt condolences to the people of South Africa, to the > second-time widow of a freedom fighter, Graça Machel, to the whole Mandela > family and to us all in the name of our common humanity. I'm not sad, > though, because for one I think Mandela's spirit had already left us for > some time, and I rejoice in knowing that his soul has at least been > released from his body, so while he may no longer ex-ist (be on this > reality plane of ours), he now is, nevertheless. Fully. As he was meant to > be. As he always will be. > > My greatest fear when he came out of prison: I thought this man has been > put away for 27 years, is he still in touch of our then present reality? > Will he be able to avoid making some serious blunders, the kind that would > make haters go like: "you see, we told you he was a commie and can't be > relied on to lead a country such as South Africa." Admittedly, I myself was > on the lookout --where will the first big gaffe come from? I waited and > feared in vain, thankfully. To my amazement, he astutely navigated through > all the hurdles and traps without compromising his vision and principles. > So much so that from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to his exit > from the national political scene (not to mention his mark on the beautiful > post-apartheid constitution), he set an exemplar that inspires way beyond > his country --not just as a near-martyr but as an active statesman. > > Sir, you have given us so much more than anyone can expect from another > human being, let alone from ourselves. Now may you rest eternally in peace. > Bye! > > Mawaki > > p.s. My favorite quote about this great transition is from Muhammad Ali, > another legend: "His was a spirit born free, destined to soar above the > rainbow. Today his spirit is soaring through the heavens. He is now forever > free." > > > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:00PM, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > > wrote: > >> No one missed the news >> We were all meditating on the life and deeds of this great giant that >> just went home >> Genuine souls will live to celebrate his achievements and what came >> out from Mandela's mouth >> >> CONGRATULATIONS MADIBA >> >> Aaron >> >> On 12/6/13, Devon Blake wrote: >> > As one who has been inspired by the life of Mandela and fashioned many >> > of >> > my ideals from his utterances, I say thank you Nelson Mandela and may >> your >> > soul rest in peace. >> > To the South African peoples I say, you may have lost a father but the >> > principles he stood for' his vision and his philosophies remain' Honour >> him >> > by your practices, and his sacrifices will not be in vain. >> > Devon >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Katim S. Touray >> wrote: >> > >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> For a list like this, I would have thought that the passing a way of >> >> Mandela last night (Fr.) would have been headline news this morning. >> >> Since >> >> no one has woken up yet to say so, I am. As *The Economist* put it >> >> simply: "A giant passes." >> >> >> >> Please join me in expressing our since and heartfelt condolences to >> >> all >> >> of >> >> humanity on the passing away of a true giant of Africa and one who >> >> will, >> >> eternally, be an inspiration to all those fighting for justice. >> >> >> >> Katim >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Devon Blake >> > ICT and Development Consultant >> > 29 Dominica Drive >> > Kgn 5 >> > ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 >> > >> > To be kind, To be helpful, To network >> > *Earthwise ... For Life!* >> > >> >> >> -- >> Aaron Agien NYANGKWE >> P.O.Box 5213 >> Douala-Cameroon >> Telephone +237 73 42 71 27 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -- Aaron Agien NYANGKWE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Telephone +237 73 42 71 27 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com Fri Dec 6 10:55:52 2013 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 16:55:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] Mandela: a giant passes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hommage au Grand homme With a song by Hugh Masekela Bring Back Nelson Mandela http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opUEIVlG1BQ Le 6 déc. 2013 à 16:04, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron a écrit : > Mawaki > > Despite the glowing legacy bequeathed by Madiba some devil encarnates > still parodes the air to smear the man. > > A French TV program last night made us to understand that "Nelson > Mandela could not run for a second term because 'he was a man of power > or prepared for it" They saiq some other useless thing so much so that > my spychic self could not withstand it anymore. I started dosing off > and by the time I woke off, my daughter had switched off the TV. > > I started wondering how wome people can delve into such dirty work > with such alacrity and so soon? > > However, the sound minded will live to celebrate Madiba as could be > expressed by this South African White wo wire a very tall flower on > the fence of Madiba's compound fence > > We (Africans) are in for a live long celebration for Madiba. > > Aaron > > On 12/6/13, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> Exactly, Aron... Right on about meditation (or a pause to reflect) and >> congratulations. Yes, I feel like congratulating the freedom fighter, the >> strategist-organizer, the statesman and the leader in humanity --while >> presenting my heartfelt condolences to the people of South Africa, to the >> second-time widow of a freedom fighter, Graça Machel, to the whole Mandela >> family and to us all in the name of our common humanity. I'm not sad, >> though, because for one I think Mandela's spirit had already left us for >> some time, and I rejoice in knowing that his soul has at least been >> released from his body, so while he may no longer ex-ist (be on this >> reality plane of ours), he now is, nevertheless. Fully. As he was meant to >> be. As he always will be. >> >> My greatest fear when he came out of prison: I thought this man has been >> put away for 27 years, is he still in touch of our then present reality? >> Will he be able to avoid making some serious blunders, the kind that would >> make haters go like: "you see, we told you he was a commie and can't be >> relied on to lead a country such as South Africa." Admittedly, I myself was >> on the lookout --where will the first big gaffe come from? I waited and >> feared in vain, thankfully. To my amazement, he astutely navigated through >> all the hurdles and traps without compromising his vision and principles. >> So much so that from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to his exit >> from the national political scene (not to mention his mark on the beautiful >> post-apartheid constitution), he set an exemplar that inspires way beyond >> his country --not just as a near-martyr but as an active statesman. >> >> Sir, you have given us so much more than anyone can expect from another >> human being, let alone from ourselves. Now may you rest eternally in peace. >> Bye! >> >> Mawaki >> >> p.s. My favorite quote about this great transition is from Muhammad Ali, >> another legend: "His was a spirit born free, destined to soar above the >> rainbow. Today his spirit is soaring through the heavens. He is now forever >> free." >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:00PM, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron >> >> wrote: >> >>> No one missed the news >>> We were all meditating on the life and deeds of this great giant that >>> just went home >>> Genuine souls will live to celebrate his achievements and what came >>> out from Mandela's mouth >>> >>> CONGRATULATIONS MADIBA >>> >>> Aaron >>> >>> On 12/6/13, Devon Blake wrote: >>>> As one who has been inspired by the life of Mandela and fashioned many >>>> of >>>> my ideals from his utterances, I say thank you Nelson Mandela and may >>> your >>>> soul rest in peace. >>>> To the South African peoples I say, you may have lost a father but the >>>> principles he stood for' his vision and his philosophies remain' Honour >>> him >>>> by your practices, and his sacrifices will not be in vain. >>>> Devon >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Katim S. Touray >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> For a list like this, I would have thought that the passing a way of >>>>> Mandela last night (Fr.) would have been headline news this morning. >>>>> Since >>>>> no one has woken up yet to say so, I am. As *The Economist* put it >>>>> simply: "A giant passes." >>>>> >>>>> Please join me in expressing our since and heartfelt condolences to >>>>> all >>>>> of >>>>> humanity on the passing away of a true giant of Africa and one who >>>>> will, >>>>> eternally, be an inspiration to all those fighting for justice. >>>>> >>>>> Katim >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Devon Blake >>>> ICT and Development Consultant >>>> 29 Dominica Drive >>>> Kgn 5 >>>> ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 >>>> >>>> To be kind, To be helpful, To network >>>> *Earthwise ... For Life!* >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Aaron Agien NYANGKWE >>> P.O.Box 5213 >>> Douala-Cameroon >>> Telephone +237 73 42 71 27 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Aaron Agien NYANGKWE > P.O.Box 5213 > Douala-Cameroon > Telephone +237 73 42 71 27 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Fri Dec 6 11:15:32 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 16:15:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] Mandela: a giant passes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Aron, I think not just Africans but the humanity (made up of our contemporaries) is in for a life-long celebration of Madiba. There will always be those who would want you to present your other cheek and be beaten to death. They even said he was a terrorist because he once embraced armed struggle in the face of the regime's brutality, while not saying a word about the state terrorism in full display, leaving no viable options to people yearning for freedom. I guess that kind of commentators are the same ones who would tell you that Margaret Thatcher saved Mandela from decapitation, or whatever it was that the apartheid regime practiced for the capital sentence. And I guess it is the same kind of talking heads who told us in the 80's that we (all people asking for change) should go easy on Pieter Botha because he allegedly was as liberal as we could get for a Prime Minister from the National Party ranks. And then De Klerk came along and we were like "oh, we thought everybody else from that party was supposed to be worse for the cause than Botha?" I have been made aware of the apartheid problem from early junior high school (same period I came to read about MLK and Rosa Park life stories/ civil rights struggle in the US), attending conferences, reading news and books about the issue. So that kind of commentators can tell their parallel universe stories to folks who haven't been paying attention. As for me, I only have one word or gesture for them: [shrug] Moving on. Mawaki On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron < nyangkweagien at gmail.com> wrote: > Mawaki > > Despite the glowing legacy bequeathed by Madiba some devil encarnates > still parodes the air to smear the man. > > A French TV program last night made us to understand that "Nelson > Mandela could not run for a second term because 'he was a man of power > or prepared for it" They saiq some other useless thing so much so that > my spychic self could not withstand it anymore. I started dosing off > and by the time I woke off, my daughter had switched off the TV. > > I started wondering how wome people can delve into such dirty work > with such alacrity and so soon? > > However, the sound minded will live to celebrate Madiba as could be > expressed by this South African White wo wire a very tall flower on > the fence of Madiba's compound fence > > We (Africans) are in for a live long celebration for Madiba. > > Aaron > > On 12/6/13, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Exactly, Aron... Right on about meditation (or a pause to reflect) and > > congratulations. Yes, I feel like congratulating the freedom fighter, the > > strategist-organizer, the statesman and the leader in humanity --while > > presenting my heartfelt condolences to the people of South Africa, to the > > second-time widow of a freedom fighter, Graça Machel, to the whole > Mandela > > family and to us all in the name of our common humanity. I'm not sad, > > though, because for one I think Mandela's spirit had already left us for > > some time, and I rejoice in knowing that his soul has at least been > > released from his body, so while he may no longer ex-ist (be on this > > reality plane of ours), he now is, nevertheless. Fully. As he was meant > to > > be. As he always will be. > > > > My greatest fear when he came out of prison: I thought this man has been > > put away for 27 years, is he still in touch of our then present reality? > > Will he be able to avoid making some serious blunders, the kind that > would > > make haters go like: "you see, we told you he was a commie and can't be > > relied on to lead a country such as South Africa." Admittedly, I myself > was > > on the lookout --where will the first big gaffe come from? I waited and > > feared in vain, thankfully. To my amazement, he astutely navigated > through > > all the hurdles and traps without compromising his vision and principles. > > So much so that from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to his exit > > from the national political scene (not to mention his mark on the > beautiful > > post-apartheid constitution), he set an exemplar that inspires way beyond > > his country --not just as a near-martyr but as an active statesman. > > > > Sir, you have given us so much more than anyone can expect from another > > human being, let alone from ourselves. Now may you rest eternally in > peace. > > Bye! > > > > Mawaki > > > > p.s. My favorite quote about this great transition is from Muhammad Ali, > > another legend: "His was a spirit born free, destined to soar above the > > rainbow. Today his spirit is soaring through the heavens. He is now > forever > > free." > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:00PM, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > > >> wrote: > > > >> No one missed the news > >> We were all meditating on the life and deeds of this great giant that > >> just went home > >> Genuine souls will live to celebrate his achievements and what came > >> out from Mandela's mouth > >> > >> CONGRATULATIONS MADIBA > >> > >> Aaron > >> > >> On 12/6/13, Devon Blake wrote: > >> > As one who has been inspired by the life of Mandela and fashioned many > >> > of > >> > my ideals from his utterances, I say thank you Nelson Mandela and may > >> your > >> > soul rest in peace. > >> > To the South African peoples I say, you may have lost a father but the > >> > principles he stood for' his vision and his philosophies remain' > Honour > >> him > >> > by your practices, and his sacrifices will not be in vain. > >> > Devon > >> > > >> > > >> > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Katim S. Touray > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Dear all, > >> >> > >> >> For a list like this, I would have thought that the passing a way of > >> >> Mandela last night (Fr.) would have been headline news this morning. > >> >> Since > >> >> no one has woken up yet to say so, I am. As *The Economist* put it > >> >> simply: "A giant passes." > >> >> > >> >> Please join me in expressing our since and heartfelt condolences to > >> >> all > >> >> of > >> >> humanity on the passing away of a true giant of Africa and one who > >> >> will, > >> >> eternally, be an inspiration to all those fighting for justice. > >> >> > >> >> Katim > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> >> > >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> >> > >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Devon Blake > >> > ICT and Development Consultant > >> > 29 Dominica Drive > >> > Kgn 5 > >> > ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 > >> > > >> > To be kind, To be helpful, To network > >> > *Earthwise ... For Life!* > >> > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Aaron Agien NYANGKWE > >> P.O.Box 5213 > >> Douala-Cameroon > >> Telephone +237 73 42 71 27 > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > > > > > -- > Aaron Agien NYANGKWE > P.O.Box 5213 > Douala-Cameroon > Telephone +237 73 42 71 27 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 6 12:05:03 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 09:05:03 -0800 Subject: [governance] Mandela: a giant passes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <045101cef2a5$4ea42930$ebec7b90$@gmail.com> I guess what I’m always left with when I think about Mandela and even more now as the great and the good weigh in with such vigour, is such a sense of lost opportunity. If only the US and the UK, whose tacit support allowed the Apartheid regime to stay in place, had seen the light (or been enlightened) ten years earlier. Imagine what South Africa, Africa and even the world would have gained – from having Mandela leave prison not as an unbroken but enfeebled man in his 70’s but as a vigorous man in his sixties with 15 years of governance left in him to inspire the world but also to mentor and guide a whole generation of potential leaders in South Africa and influentially elsewhere throughout Sub-Saharan Africa. The at best sidewards, lurching of South Africa on a whole range of dimensions would almost certainly have been avoided and with his guidance the turmoil and bloodshed due to bad and immature governance we have seen elsewhere in SA and SSA would have been significantly lessened as SA would have taken its rightful position as a moral and practical beacon. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Christophe Nothias Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 7:56 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Nyangkwe Agien Aaron Cc: Mawaki Chango; Devon Blake Subject: Re: [governance] Mandela: a giant passes Hommage au Grand homme With a song by Hugh Masekela Bring Back Nelson Mandela http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opUEIVlG1BQ Le 6 déc. 2013 à 16:04, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron a écrit : Mawaki Despite the glowing legacy bequeathed by Madiba some devil encarnates still parodes the air to smear the man. A French TV program last night made us to understand that "Nelson Mandela could not run for a second term because 'he was a man of power or prepared for it" They saiq some other useless thing so much so that my spychic self could not withstand it anymore. I started dosing off and by the time I woke off, my daughter had switched off the TV. I started wondering how wome people can delve into such dirty work with such alacrity and so soon? However, the sound minded will live to celebrate Madiba as could be expressed by this South African White wo wire a very tall flower on the fence of Madiba's compound fence We (Africans) are in for a live long celebration for Madiba. Aaron On 12/6/13, Mawaki Chango wrote: Exactly, Aron... Right on about meditation (or a pause to reflect) and congratulations. Yes, I feel like congratulating the freedom fighter, the strategist-organizer, the statesman and the leader in humanity --while presenting my heartfelt condolences to the people of South Africa, to the second-time widow of a freedom fighter, Graça Machel, to the whole Mandela family and to us all in the name of our common humanity. I'm not sad, though, because for one I think Mandela's spirit had already left us for some time, and I rejoice in knowing that his soul has at least been released from his body, so while he may no longer ex-ist (be on this reality plane of ours), he now is, nevertheless. Fully. As he was meant to be. As he always will be. My greatest fear when he came out of prison: I thought this man has been put away for 27 years, is he still in touch of our then present reality? Will he be able to avoid making some serious blunders, the kind that would make haters go like: "you see, we told you he was a commie and can't be relied on to lead a country such as South Africa." Admittedly, I myself was on the lookout --where will the first big gaffe come from? I waited and feared in vain, thankfully. To my amazement, he astutely navigated through all the hurdles and traps without compromising his vision and principles. So much so that from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to his exit from the national political scene (not to mention his mark on the beautiful post-apartheid constitution), he set an exemplar that inspires way beyond his country --not just as a near-martyr but as an active statesman. Sir, you have given us so much more than anyone can expect from another human being, let alone from ourselves. Now may you rest eternally in peace. Bye! Mawaki p.s. My favorite quote about this great transition is from Muhammad Ali, another legend: "His was a spirit born free, destined to soar above the rainbow. Today his spirit is soaring through the heavens. He is now forever free." On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:00PM, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: As one who has been inspired by the life of Mandela and fashioned many of my ideals from his utterances, I say thank you Nelson Mandela and may your soul rest in peace. To the South African peoples I say, you may have lost a father but the principles he stood for' his vision and his philosophies remain' Honour him by your practices, and his sacrifices will not be in vain. Devon On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Katim S. Touray wrote: Dear all, For a list like this, I would have thought that the passing a way of Mandela last night (Fr.) would have been headline news this morning. Since no one has woken up yet to say so, I am. As *The Economist* put it simply: "A giant passes." Please join me in expressing our since and heartfelt condolences to all of humanity on the passing away of a true giant of Africa and one who will, eternally, be an inspiration to all those fighting for justice. Katim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Devon Blake ICT and Development Consultant 29 Dominica Drive Kgn 5 ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 To be kind, To be helpful, To network *Earthwise ... For Life!* -- Aaron Agien NYANGKWE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Telephone +237 73 42 71 27 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Aaron Agien NYANGKWE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Telephone +237 73 42 71 27 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at consensus.pro Fri Dec 6 14:46:13 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 03:46:13 +0800 Subject: [governance] Mandela: a giant passes In-Reply-To: <045101cef2a5$4ea42930$ebec7b90$@gmail.com> References: <045101cef2a5$4ea42930$ebec7b90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: While there is of course truth in what you say, I think he would have said we should remember what WAS done, the good things that did happen, and to look forward. His work of reconciliation is not complete because ours is not. We can honour him best, I think, by living by his example and asking ourselves, when opportunities come our way to understand and feel compassion - or to resent and harden our hearts - WWMD - What Would Madiba Do. We, in the Internet community, could really use this simple precept; there is so much suspicion and doubt so often expressed about the motivations of others, and this so often gets in the way of us working constructively together, within our silos/communities and across them. michael gurstein wrote: >I guess what I’m always left with when I think about Mandela and even >more >now as the great and the good weigh in with such vigour, is such a >sense of >lost opportunity. If only the US and the UK, whose tacit support >allowed >the Apartheid regime to stay in place, had seen the light (or been >enlightened) ten years earlier. > > > >Imagine what South Africa, Africa and even the world would have gained >– >from having Mandela leave prison not as an unbroken but enfeebled man >in his >70’s but as a vigorous man in his sixties with 15 years of governance >left >in him to inspire the world but also to mentor and guide a whole >generation >of potential leaders in South Africa and influentially elsewhere >throughout >Sub-Saharan Africa. > > > >The at best sidewards, lurching of South Africa on a whole range of >dimensions would almost certainly have been avoided and with his >guidance >the turmoil and bloodshed due to bad and immature governance we have >seen >elsewhere in SA and SSA would have been significantly lessened as SA >would >have taken its rightful position as a moral and practical beacon. > > > >M > > > >From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of >Jean-Christophe >Nothias >Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 7:56 AM >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Nyangkwe Agien Aaron >Cc: Mawaki Chango; Devon Blake >Subject: Re: [governance] Mandela: a giant passes > > > >Hommage au Grand homme > > > >With a song by Hugh Masekela > > > >Bring Back Nelson Mandela > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opUEIVlG1BQ > > > > > > > >Le 6 déc. 2013 à 16:04, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron a écrit : > > > > > >Mawaki > >Despite the glowing legacy bequeathed by Madiba some devil encarnates >still parodes the air to smear the man. > >A French TV program last night made us to understand that "Nelson >Mandela could not run for a second term because 'he was a man of power >or prepared for it" They saiq some other useless thing so much so that >my spychic self could not withstand it anymore. I started dosing off >and by the time I woke off, my daughter had switched off the TV. > >I started wondering how wome people can delve into such dirty work >with such alacrity and so soon? > >However, the sound minded will live to celebrate Madiba as could be >expressed by this South African White wo wire a very tall flower on >the fence of Madiba's compound fence > >We (Africans) are in for a live long celebration for Madiba. > >Aaron > >On 12/6/13, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > >Exactly, Aron... Right on about meditation (or a pause to reflect) and > >congratulations. Yes, I feel like congratulating the freedom fighter, >the > >strategist-organizer, the statesman and the leader in humanity --while > >presenting my heartfelt condolences to the people of South Africa, to >the > >second-time widow of a freedom fighter, Graça Machel, to the whole >Mandela > >family and to us all in the name of our common humanity. I'm not sad, > >though, because for one I think Mandela's spirit had already left us >for > >some time, and I rejoice in knowing that his soul has at least been > >released from his body, so while he may no longer ex-ist (be on this > >reality plane of ours), he now is, nevertheless. Fully. As he was meant >to > >be. As he always will be. > > > >My greatest fear when he came out of prison: I thought this man has >been > >put away for 27 years, is he still in touch of our then present >reality? > >Will he be able to avoid making some serious blunders, the kind that >would > >make haters go like: "you see, we told you he was a commie and can't be > >relied on to lead a country such as South Africa." Admittedly, I myself >was > >on the lookout --where will the first big gaffe come from? I waited and > >feared in vain, thankfully. To my amazement, he astutely navigated >through > >all the hurdles and traps without compromising his vision and >principles. > >So much so that from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to his >exit > >from the national political scene (not to mention his mark on the >beautiful > >post-apartheid constitution), he set an exemplar that inspires way >beyond > >his country --not just as a near-martyr but as an active statesman. > > > >Sir, you have given us so much more than anyone can expect from another > >human being, let alone from ourselves. Now may you rest eternally in >peace. > >Bye! > > > >Mawaki > > > >p.s. My favorite quote about this great transition is from Muhammad >Ali, > >another legend: "His was a spirit born free, destined to soar above the > >rainbow. Today his spirit is soaring through the heavens. He is now >forever > >free." > > > > > > > >On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:00PM, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron > > >wrote: > > > >No one missed the news > >We were all meditating on the life and deeds of this great giant that > >just went home > >Genuine souls will live to celebrate his achievements and what came > >out from Mandela's mouth > > > >CONGRATULATIONS MADIBA > > > >Aaron > > > >On 12/6/13, Devon Blake wrote: > >As one who has been inspired by the life of Mandela and fashioned many > >of > >my ideals from his utterances, I say thank you Nelson Mandela and may > >your > >soul rest in peace. > >To the South African peoples I say, you may have lost a father but the > >principles he stood for' his vision and his philosophies remain' Honour > >him > >by your practices, and his sacrifices will not be in vain. > >Devon > > > > > >On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Katim S. Touray > >wrote: > > > >Dear all, > > > >For a list like this, I would have thought that the passing a way of > >Mandela last night (Fr.) would have been headline news this morning. > >Since > >no one has woken up yet to say so, I am. As *The Economist* put it > >simply: "A giant passes." > > > >Please join me in expressing our since and heartfelt condolences to > >all > >of > >humanity on the passing away of a true giant of Africa and one who > >will, > >eternally, be an inspiration to all those fighting for justice. > > > >Katim > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > >For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > >-- > >Devon Blake > >ICT and Development Consultant > >29 Dominica Drive > >Kgn 5 > >,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 > > > >To be kind, To be helpful, To network > >*Earthwise ... For Life!* > > > > > > > >-- > >Aaron Agien NYANGKWE > >P.O.Box 5213 > >Douala-Cameroon > >Telephone +237 73 42 71 27 > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > >For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > >-- >Aaron Agien NYANGKWE >P.O.Box 5213 >Douala-Cameroon >Telephone +237 73 42 71 27 > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 6 15:47:11 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 12:47:11 -0800 Subject: [governance] Mandela: a giant passes In-Reply-To: References: <045101cef2a5$4ea42930$ebec7b90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <055301cef2c4$56eae6f0$04c0b4d0$@gmail.com> Thanks Nick and perhaps in this context it might worthwhile to circulate and examine the draft South Africa ICT Policy Framing paper . This paper explicitly (as in section 3.5 where principles are presented), and as I’ve been told by a Community Informatics colleague who is on the SA Government’s Task Force that produced this document, draws inspiration in large part from the ANC’s Freedom Charter (1955) which guided Mandela and his colleagues over the decades and as they approached the work of Government. Best, Mike From: Nick Ashton-Hart [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 11:46 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; michael gurstein; 'Jean-Christophe Nothias'; 'Nyangkwe Agien Aaron' Cc: 'Mawaki Chango'; 'Devon Blake' Subject: RE: [governance] Mandela: a giant passes While there is of course truth in what you say, I think he would have said we should remember what WAS done, the good things that did happen, and to look forward. His work of reconciliation is not complete because ours is not. We can honour him best, I think, by living by his example and asking ourselves, when opportunities come our way to understand and feel compassion - or to resent and harden our hearts - WWMD - What Would Madiba Do. We, in the Internet community, could really use this simple precept; there is so much suspicion and doubt so often expressed about the motivations of others, and this so often gets in the way of us working constructively together, within our silos/communities and across them. michael gurstein wrote: I guess what I’m always left with when I think about Mandela and even more now as the great and the good weigh in with such vigour, is such a sense of lost opportunity. If only the US and the UK, whose tacit support allowed the Apartheid regime to stay in place, had seen the light (or been enlightened) ten years earlier. Imagine what South Africa, Africa and even the world would have gained – from having Mandela leave prison not as an unbroken but enfeebled man in his 70’s but as a vigorous man in his sixties with 15 years of governance left in him to inspire the world but also to mentor and guide a whole generation of potential leaders in South Africa and influentially elsewhere throughout Sub-Saharan Africa. The at best sidewards, lurching of South Africa on a whole range of dimensions would almost certainly have been avoided and with his guidance the turmoil and bloodshed due to bad and immature governance we have seen elsewhere in SA and SSA would have been significantly lessened as SA would have taken its rightful position as a moral and practical beacon. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Christophe Nothias Sent: Friday, December 06, 2013 7:56 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Nyangkwe Agien Aaron Cc: Mawaki Chango; Devon Blake Subject: Re: [governance] Mandela: a giant passes Hommage au Grand homme With a song by Hugh Masekela Bring Back Nelson Mandela http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opUEIVlG1BQ Le 6 déc. 2013 à 16:04, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron a écrit : Mawaki Despite the glowing legacy bequeathed by Madiba some devil encarnates still parodes the air to smear the man. A French TV program last night made us to understand that "Nelson Mandela could not run for a second term because 'he was a man of power or prepared for it" They saiq some other useless thing so much so that my spychic self could not withstand it anymore. I started dosing off and by the time I woke off, my daughter had switched off the TV. I started wondering how wome people can delve into such dirty work with such alacrity and so soon? However, the sound minded will live to celebrate Madiba as could be expressed by this South African White wo wire a very tall flower on the fence of Madiba's compound fence We (Africans) are in for a live long celebration for Madiba. Aaron On 12/6/13, Mawaki Chango wrote: Exactly, Aron... Right on about meditation (or a pause to reflect) and congratulations. Yes, I feel like congratulating the freedom fighter, the strategist-organizer, the statesman and the leader in humanity --while presenting my heartfelt condolences to the people of South Africa, to the second-time widow of a freedom fighter, Graça Machel, to the whole Mandela family and to us all in the name of our common humanity. I'm not sad, though, because for one I think Mandela's spirit had already left us for some time, and I rejoice in knowing that his soul has at least been released from his body, so while he may no longer ex-ist (be on this reality plane of ours), he now is, nevertheless. Fully. As he was meant to be. As he always will be. My greatest fear when he came out of prison: I thought this man has been put away for 27 years, is he still in touch of our then present reality? Will he be able to avoid making some serious blunders, the kind that would make haters go like: "you see, we told you he was a commie and can't be relied on to lead a country such as South Africa." Admittedly, I myself was on the lookout --where will the first big gaffe come from? I waited and feared in vain, thankfully. To my amazement, he astutely navigated through all the hurdles and traps without compromising his vision and principles. So much so that from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to his exit from the national political scene (not to mention his mark on the beautiful post-apartheid constitution), he set an exemplar that inspires way beyond his country --not just as a near-martyr but as an active statesman. Sir, you have given us so much more than anyone can expect from another human being, let alone from ourselves. Now may you rest eternally in peace. Bye! Mawaki p.s. My favorite quote about this great transition is from Muhammad Ali, another legend: "His was a spirit born free, destined to soar above the rainbow. Today his spirit is soaring through the heavens. He is now forever free." On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 1:00PM, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: As one who has been inspired by the life of Mandela and fashioned many of my ideals from his utterances, I say thank you Nelson Mandela and may your soul rest in peace. To the South African peoples I say, you may have lost a father but the principles he stood for' his vision and his philosophies remain' Honour him by your practices, and his sacrifices will not be in vain. Devon On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Katim S. Touray wrote: Dear all, For a list like this, I would have thought that the passing a way of Mandela last night (Fr.) would have been headline news this morning. Since no one has woken up yet to say so, I am. As *The Economist* put it simply: "A giant passes." Please join me in expressing our since and heartfelt condolences to all of humanity on the passing away of a true giant of Africa and one who will, eternally, be an inspiration to all those fighting for justice. Katim ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Devon Blake ICT and Development Consultant 29 Dominica Drive Kgn 5 ,Phone: Office 876-968-4534, Mobile, 876-483-2632 To be kind, To be helpful, To network *Earthwise ... For Life!* -- Aaron Agien NYANGKWE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Telephone +237 73 42 71 27 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 6 16:49:58 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 13:49:58 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> Thanks for this Ian, could someone please explain to me what is meant by this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other organizations.. Is he referring to Inet here? Who are the other two organizations? M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:34 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Hi Adam, Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a role of coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various reps should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the reps earlier). Hello Robin, I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off and regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just got back and ready for the next phase of work. As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to grow the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was announced, we made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc community, and only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for broader participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve while in Buenos Aires. At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will need to confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the Chairman of the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will keep you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that Frank La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities interests very vigilantly on top of our agendas. Fadi -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM To: Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Hi Ian, Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. Best, Adam On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as > an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at > this meeting in two weeks time. > > Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was > imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the > people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. > > I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit > names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing > would have been the alternative in this timeframe. > > > Ian Peter > > > 29 November 2013 > RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London > > Dear Fadi and Nora: > > I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of > representatives of the civil society networks most involved in > Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to > engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet > governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is > under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to > accept additional civil society participants to this panel to provide > more balance. > After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following > 2 civil society representatives to begin to balance against the much > larger numbers from government, the private sector, and technical > representatives placed on the initial panel. > Civil society's two nominated representatives for the London High > Level Panel are: > 1. Anriette Esterhuysen ( anriette at apc.org) 2. Milton Mueller > ( mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of > these names, and contact our representatives directly to arrange their > participation? > We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the > Diplo Foundation as a highly experienced and knowledgeable > facilitator. > We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable > representation of civil society in such panels and committees. > Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from > various civil society networks were: > Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation > Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Norbert > Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus > (IGC) > Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits > Signed, > Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Dec 7 09:43:16 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 15:43:16 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Saving the Net Message-ID: <556805564.12993.1386427396772.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f01> Dear members of the list A very interesting article which might be central to Internet governance because it's about the global misuse of it by one Big Brother State -the US- with "Five Eyes ". Title and subtitle : Saving the Net from the surveillance state: Glenn Greenwald speaks up (Q&A) The man to whom Edward Snowden entrusted his NSA documents isn't content just to save the Bill of Rights and reinvent journalism. He also wants to stop the Internet from becoming history's most dangerous spy tool. Lets take our time to read it. It's here : http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57613838-38/saving-the-net-from-the-surveillance-state-glenn-greenwald-speaks-up-q-a/?tag=nl.e496&s_cid=e496&ttag=e496&ftag=CAD1c318f6 Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 7 12:28:56 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 18:28:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Saving the Net In-Reply-To: <556805564.12993.1386427396772.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f01> References: <556805564.12993.1386427396772.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f01> Message-ID: <20131207182856.38d39426@quill> Thanks, Jean-Louis for sharing that! Some really good thoughts from Glenn Greenwald there. The one point where I disagree is in regard to the assertion that privacy violations by governments are more dangerous than data processing by private companies: First, any data in the hands of the private sector should be assumed to be also available to intelligence services. Secondly, we really don't know what kind of socioeconomic network effects might get empowered by such data, I don't see any assurance that this can't create some kind of monster that might take the shape of a new kind of digital analogue to racism or even feudalism. Greetings, Norbert Am Sat, 7 Dec 2013 15:43:16 +0100 (CET) schrieb Jean-Louis FULLSACK : > Dear members of the list > > A very interesting article which might be central to Internet > governance because it's about the global misuse of it by one Big > Brother State -the US- with "Five Eyes ". > > > Title and subtitle : > > Saving the Net from the surveillance state: Glenn Greenwald speaks up > (Q&A) The man to whom Edward Snowden entrusted his NSA documents > isn't content just to save the Bill of Rights and reinvent > journalism. He also wants to stop the Internet from becoming > history's most dangerous spy tool. > > > Lets take our time to read it. It's here : > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57613838-38/saving-the-net-from-the-surveillance-state-glenn-greenwald-speaks-up-q-a/?tag=nl.e496&s_cid=e496&ttag=e496&ftag=CAD1c318f6 > > Best regards > > Jean-Louis Fullsack -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 7 14:30:36 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 11:30:36 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [Air-L] Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu In-Reply-To: <52A3760F.8080705@robertwgehl.org> References: <2337979A-94D9-4311-854A-3E133363470B@uwm.edu> <52A312D0.1020902@reagle.org> <048472C6-AC56-449F-882A-3A18BCA7B0A9@uwm.edu> <52A355EB.2030102@robertwgehl.org> <52A3760F.8080705@robertwgehl.org> Message-ID: <096601cef382$ce8c6ad0$6ba54070$@gmail.com> Interesting discussion on another list with reference to the recurrent value and significance of TLD's and their "proper" allocation. (Elsevier the academic mega-publisher has done a take down on academic papers they have published being made available (for free) on the commercial (but .edu) site, http://www.Academia.edu ... M -----Original Message----- Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2013 11:25 AM To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-L] Elsevier is taking down papers from Academia.edu "I think they get a lot more slack because they are able to use a .edu extension than they would if they were Academia.com." Agreed. It's one of those accidents of Internet history that they got that TLD, and it's paid dividends. Open access is one thing when it's controlled by individual researchers or done in collaboration with publishers. It's another when it's the foundation of a site that's vacuuming a lot of free labor and illbegotten materials. Not that I have a lot of sympathy for Elsevier, either. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Dec 7 16:34:01 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 22:34:01 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Saving the Net In-Reply-To: <20131207182856.38d39426@quill> References: <556805564.12993.1386427396772.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f01> <20131207182856.38d39426@quill> Message-ID: <289004051.26371.1386452041639.JavaMail.www@wwinf1p08> dear Michael You are right in stressing the danger of private data processing. With a State viololating its citizens' privacy we have at least the chance for changing ... its government, provided we are in a true democracy :-) More seriously, I understand your arguments and support particularly your secont point. Thanks for your mail and enjoy the week-end Jean-Louis> Message du 07/12/13 18:30 > De : "Norbert Bollow" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Saving the Net > > Thanks, Jean-Louis for sharing that! Some really good thoughts from > Glenn Greenwald there. The one point where I disagree is in regard to > the assertion that privacy violations by governments are more > dangerous than data processing by private companies: First, any data in > the hands of the private sector should be assumed to be also available > to intelligence services. Secondly, we really don't know what kind of > socioeconomic network effects might get empowered by such data, I don't > see any assurance that this can't create some kind of monster that > might take the shape of a new kind of digital analogue to racism or > even feudalism. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Sat, 7 Dec 2013 15:43:16 +0100 (CET) > schrieb Jean-Louis FULLSACK : > > > Dear members of the list > > > > A very interesting article which might be central to Internet > > governance because it's about the global misuse of it by one Big > > Brother State -the US- with "Five Eyes ". > > > > > > Title and subtitle : > > > > Saving the Net from the surveillance state: Glenn Greenwald speaks up > > (Q&A) The man to whom Edward Snowden entrusted his NSA documents > > isn't content just to save the Bill of Rights and reinvent > > journalism. He also wants to stop the Internet from becoming > > history's most dangerous spy tool. > > > > > > Lets take our time to read it. It's here : > > > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57613838-38/saving-the-net-from-the-surveillance-state-glenn-greenwald-speaks-up-q-a/?tag=nl.e496&s_cid=e496&ttag=e496&ftag=CAD1c318f6 > > > > Best regards > > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Dec 7 17:17:35 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 20:17:35 -0200 Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] In-Reply-To: <18BFEF69-E6F5-45F2-8FD0-A83A8F4A8B27@gmail.com> References: <0f1401ceefcb$c55ed890$501c89b0$@gmail.com> <18BFEF69-E6F5-45F2-8FD0-A83A8F4A8B27@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52A39E7F.8060507@cafonso.ca> I concur with Ian. Also, "wider inclusion" in what exactly? --c.a. On 12/03/2013 01:46 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Hi, > > This is not a new initiative but simply one which I have been pushing for since Bali which is wider inclusion of civil society organisations rather than just: > >> Association for Progressive Commuications (APC) >> Best Bits >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus >> Diplo Foundation >> ICANN's Non Commercial Stakeholder Group > > Currently, the steering committee comprises of these 5 organisations but i would like to see more come to the table as we need to be inclusive and not exclusive and clique based. > > This would simply mean ensuring that there is harmonized and seamless communication and joint synergistic efforts within civil society because it would be a farce to suggest increasing accountability and transparency from other constituencies and when within our own we are isolated. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Dec 3, 2013, at 4:24 PM, "Ian Peter" wrote: >> >> For clarity - >> >> I am not entirely sure what initiative Sala is referring to here. It appears to be a new one and unrelated to the smaller representative grouping listed below, which is looking towards ways of jointly nominating CS reps to various bodies and is not seeking to undertake the sorts of tasks and networking Sala envisages. >> >> It is also not clear to me how this new network Sala is referring to would be different to either Best Bits or IGC? >> >> Ian Peter >> >> From: michael gurstein >> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 1:02 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; 'Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro' >> Subject: RE: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] >> >> Hi Sala, >> >> I’d like to have the Community Informatics network added to this.. as per the below… >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 9:39 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] >> >> Dear All, >> >> At the moment, there is a loose network of some civil society organisations namely: >> >> Association for Progressive Commuications (APC) >> Best Bits >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus >> Diplo Foundation >> ICANN's Non Commercial Stakeholder Group >> [In alphabetical order] >> >> I would really like to see more civil society organisations work together to collaborate on designing the way forward and strategies. If you feel that you would like your civil society organisation to be part of a wider collaborative effort, please respond to this email by submitting the name of your organisation. Please feel free to send this onwards to your respective cosmos. >> >> The names put forward can be used to forge a Coalition of a wider civil society based network. If you would like to be part of a wider Coalition, please respond to this email with following information: >> >> Name of the Organisation or Network (and when organisation or network was first formed) >> [MG>] Community Informatics Network/Community Informatics Research Network—founded 2000 >> Details of Constituency represented (Please also identify whether this is a country based/regional or international) >> [MG>] community, grassroots and grassroots oriented ICT practitioners, researchers, policy analysts—global (1500+/- >> Name of Coordinator of Organisation/Network >> [MG>] Michael Gurstein (host) >> Contact Details (including website) >> [MG>] gurstein at gmail.com; http://www.communityinformatics.net; http://vancouvercommunity.net/lists/arc/ciresearchers >> Name of one Nominee to the Coalition who will speak on administrative matters where it comes to the wider coalition >> [MG>] (Interim) Michael Gurstein >> Best, >> M >> Should you be interested in the wider Coalition and engaging collaboratively, kindly respond ASAP. There will be communiques sent to a mailing list that will be created that will inform you of events that are happening to enable you to stream the information to your networks and allow for authentic bottom up, grassroots engagement in the diverse regions of the world. This will help enable authentic global civil society engagement and make it truly inclusive. >> >> >> >> Kind Regards, >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 Sat Dec 7 21:40:11 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 08:10:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] The "other" school of thought in the Indian government Message-ID: <62D01354-B5D1-47EF-912A-DFC12DCEF33D@hserus.net> The one that likes to talk about the CIRP I guess, and mostly home affairs and the security agencies, while the telecom ministry (while it lasts, I don't think it will, after the coming general election) under minister Sibal seems committed to multistakeholderism Some gratuitous flings against unnamed multistakeholder actors and against multistakeholderism in general, and half baked appearing comments about Indian domain names being stored in India .. Mixing up the AOC with the idea of keeping local data and traffic local. Though you do have to apply the usual filters needed for information supplied by a reporter whose only knowledge of the Internet is IE and outlook) http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/india-to-push-for-freeing-internet-from-us-control/article5434095.ece?homepage=true --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 nb at bollow.ch Sun Dec 8 08:05:55 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 14:05:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Mandela: a giant passes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20131208140555.6a53fb75@quill> Mawaki Chango wrote: > I think not just Africans but the humanity (made up of our > contemporaries) is in for a life-long celebration of Madiba. +1 For me a key aspect is in taking and applying inspiration from his example to our walk, to what we are able to do in our situation... which includes simply refusing to believe in injustice being unchangeable. 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 nnenna75 at gmail.com Sun Dec 8 08:19:25 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 13:19:25 +0000 Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] In-Reply-To: <52A39E7F.8060507@cafonso.ca> References: <0f1401ceefcb$c55ed890$501c89b0$@gmail.com> <18BFEF69-E6F5-45F2-8FD0-A83A8F4A8B27@gmail.com> <52A39E7F.8060507@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: My understanding so far is that the the "coordination" is that of "networks" not organisations. Someone had suggested ISOC and there is the CI Network. The role of this "Coordination" for the moment is just to support nomcom actions for 1Net and consolidate for inter-network communications. Giving the impression that you need to be in the "coordination" to be able to have a say in CS issues is misleading. Lately, there has been that feeling going on.. I think we need to check this tendency. Best N On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > I concur with Ian. Also, "wider inclusion" in what exactly? > > --c.a. > > On 12/03/2013 01:46 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This is not a new initiative but simply one which I have been pushing > for since Bali which is wider inclusion of civil society organisations > rather than just: > > > >> Association for Progressive Commuications (APC) > >> Best Bits > >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > >> Diplo Foundation > >> ICANN's Non Commercial Stakeholder Group > > > > Currently, the steering committee comprises of these 5 organisations but > i would like to see more come to the table as we need to be inclusive and > not exclusive and clique based. > > > > This would simply mean ensuring that there is harmonized and seamless > communication and joint synergistic efforts within civil society because it > would be a farce to suggest increasing accountability and transparency from > other constituencies and when within our own we are isolated. > > > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > >> On Dec 3, 2013, at 4:24 PM, "Ian Peter" wrote: > >> > >> For clarity - > >> > >> I am not entirely sure what initiative Sala is referring to here. It > appears to be a new one and unrelated to the smaller representative > grouping listed below, which is looking towards ways of jointly nominating > CS reps to various bodies and is not seeking to undertake the sorts of > tasks and networking Sala envisages. > >> > >> It is also not clear to me how this new network Sala is referring to > would be different to either Best Bits or IGC? > >> > >> Ian Peter > >> > >> From: michael gurstein > >> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 1:02 PM > >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; 'Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro' > >> Subject: RE: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil > Society to engage in a Coalition] > >> > >> Hi Sala, > >> > >> I’d like to have the Community Informatics network added to this.. as > per the below… > >> > >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro > >> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 9:39 AM > >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society > to engage in a Coalition] > >> > >> Dear All, > >> > >> At the moment, there is a loose network of some civil society > organisations namely: > >> > >> Association for Progressive Commuications (APC) > >> Best Bits > >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > >> Diplo Foundation > >> ICANN's Non Commercial Stakeholder Group > >> [In alphabetical order] > >> > >> I would really like to see more civil society organisations work > together to collaborate on designing the way forward and strategies. If you > feel that you would like your civil society organisation to be part of a > wider collaborative effort, please respond to this email by submitting the > name of your organisation. Please feel free to send this onwards to your > respective cosmos. > >> > >> The names put forward can be used to forge a Coalition of a wider civil > society based network. If you would like to be part of a wider Coalition, > please respond to this email with following information: > >> > >> Name of the Organisation or Network (and when organisation or network > was first formed) > >> [MG>] Community Informatics Network/Community Informatics Research > Network—founded 2000 > >> Details of Constituency represented (Please also identify whether this > is a country based/regional or international) > >> [MG>] community, grassroots and grassroots oriented ICT practitioners, > researchers, policy analysts—global (1500+/- > >> Name of Coordinator of Organisation/Network > >> [MG>] Michael Gurstein (host) > >> Contact Details (including website) > >> [MG>] gurstein at gmail.com; http://www.communityinformatics.net; > http://vancouvercommunity.net/lists/arc/ciresearchers > >> Name of one Nominee to the Coalition who will speak on administrative > matters where it comes to the wider coalition > >> [MG>] (Interim) Michael Gurstein > >> Best, > >> M > >> Should you be interested in the wider Coalition and engaging > collaboratively, kindly respond ASAP. There will be communiques sent to a > mailing list that will be created that will inform you of events that are > happening to enable you to stream the information to your networks and > allow for authentic bottom up, grassroots engagement in the diverse regions > of the world. This will help enable authentic global civil society > engagement and make it truly inclusive. > >> > >> > >> > >> Kind Regards, > >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sun Dec 8 08:44:27 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2013 14:44:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] In-Reply-To: References: <0f1401ceefcb$c55ed890$501c89b0$@gmail.com> <18BFEF69-E6F5-45F2-8FD0-A83A8F4A8B27@gmail.com> <52A39E7F.8060507@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <3187daf1-410e-43ea-8025-a7ebd2f55541@email.android.com> Hi, If it is networks and not organizations, or organized entities, thanx I do not believe that IGC belongs in the list of enumerated networks. Especially since almost all the members of the IGC are also in the BB. To me this this looks like double dipping. ISOC is a reasonable addition. ~~~ avri Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >My understanding so far is that the the "coordination" is that of >"networks" not organisations. > >Someone had suggested ISOC and there is the CI Network. > >The role of this "Coordination" for the moment is just to support >nomcom >actions for 1Net and consolidate for inter-network communications. > >Giving the impression that you need to be in the "coordination" to be >able >to have a say in CS issues is misleading. Lately, there has been that >feeling going on.. > >I think we need to check this tendency. > >Best > >N > > >On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Carlos A. Afonso >wrote: > >> I concur with Ian. Also, "wider inclusion" in what exactly? >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 12/03/2013 01:46 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > This is not a new initiative but simply one which I have been >pushing >> for since Bali which is wider inclusion of civil society >organisations >> rather than just: >> > >> >> Association for Progressive Commuications (APC) >> >> Best Bits >> >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus >> >> Diplo Foundation >> >> ICANN's Non Commercial Stakeholder Group >> > >> > Currently, the steering committee comprises of these 5 >organisations but >> i would like to see more come to the table as we need to be inclusive >and >> not exclusive and clique based. >> > >> > This would simply mean ensuring that there is harmonized and >seamless >> communication and joint synergistic efforts within civil society >because it >> would be a farce to suggest increasing accountability and >transparency from >> other constituencies and when within our own we are isolated. >> > >> > Kind Regards, >> > Sala >> > >> > Sent from my iPad >> > >> >> On Dec 3, 2013, at 4:24 PM, "Ian Peter" >wrote: >> >> >> >> For clarity - >> >> >> >> I am not entirely sure what initiative Sala is referring to here. >It >> appears to be a new one and unrelated to the smaller representative >> grouping listed below, which is looking towards ways of jointly >nominating >> CS reps to various bodies and is not seeking to undertake the sorts >of >> tasks and networking Sala envisages. >> >> >> >> It is also not clear to me how this new network Sala is referring >to >> would be different to either Best Bits or IGC? >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> From: michael gurstein >> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 1:02 PM >> >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; 'Salanieta T. >Tamanikaiwaimaro' >> >> Subject: RE: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil >> Society to engage in a Coalition] >> >> >> >> Hi Sala, >> >> >> >> I’d like to have the Community Informatics network added to this.. >as >> per the below… >> >> >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: >> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. >> Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 9:39 AM >> >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil >Society >> to engage in a Coalition] >> >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> At the moment, there is a loose network of some civil society >> organisations namely: >> >> >> >> Association for Progressive Commuications (APC) >> >> Best Bits >> >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus >> >> Diplo Foundation >> >> ICANN's Non Commercial Stakeholder Group >> >> [In alphabetical order] >> >> >> >> I would really like to see more civil society organisations work >> together to collaborate on designing the way forward and strategies. >If you >> feel that you would like your civil society organisation to be part >of a >> wider collaborative effort, please respond to this email by >submitting the >> name of your organisation. Please feel free to send this onwards to >your >> respective cosmos. >> >> >> >> The names put forward can be used to forge a Coalition of a wider >civil >> society based network. If you would like to be part of a wider >Coalition, >> please respond to this email with following information: >> >> >> >> Name of the Organisation or Network (and when organisation or >network >> was first formed) >> >> [MG>] Community Informatics Network/Community Informatics Research >> Network—founded 2000 >> >> Details of Constituency represented (Please also identify whether >this >> is a country based/regional or international) >> >> [MG>] community, grassroots and grassroots oriented ICT >practitioners, >> researchers, policy analysts—global (1500+/- >> >> Name of Coordinator of Organisation/Network >> >> [MG>] Michael Gurstein (host) >> >> Contact Details (including website) >> >> [MG>] gurstein at gmail.com; http://www.communityinformatics.net; >> http://vancouvercommunity.net/lists/arc/ciresearchers >> >> Name of one Nominee to the Coalition who will speak on >administrative >> matters where it comes to the wider coalition >> >> [MG>] (Interim) Michael Gurstein >> >> Best, >> >> M >> >> Should you be interested in the wider Coalition and engaging >> collaboratively, kindly respond ASAP. There will be communiques sent >to a >> mailing list that will be created that will inform you of events that >are >> happening to enable you to stream the information to your networks >and >> allow for authentic bottom up, grassroots engagement in the diverse >regions >> of the world. This will help enable authentic global civil society >> engagement and make it truly inclusive. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sun Dec 8 09:04:41 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2013 15:04:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] In-Reply-To: <3187daf1-410e-43ea-8025-a7ebd2f55541@email.android.com> References: <0f1401ceefcb$c55ed890$501c89b0$@gmail.com> <18BFEF69-E6F5-45F2-8FD0-A83A8F4A8B27@gmail.com> <52A39E7F.8060507@cafonso.ca> <3187daf1-410e-43ea-8025-a7ebd2f55541@email.android.com> Message-ID: <2966af0e-f9aa-4f4d-8b2f-b9b6e9187a99@email.android.com> Hi, I was reminded that ISOC includes organizational members who are business. So it is a multistakeholder group not a CS group. My point on IGC and BB being essentially duplicates of each other stands, though. I waver on which I think is more appropriate , but I believe they cannot both be represented in any leadership committees, unless it is by one person. ~~~ avri Avri Doria wrote: >Hi, > >If it is networks and not organizations, or organized entities, thanx I >do not believe that IGC belongs in the list of enumerated networks. > >Especially since almost all the members of the IGC are also in the BB. > To me this this looks like double dipping. > >ISOC is a reasonable addition. >~~~ >avri > >Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >>My understanding so far is that the the "coordination" is that of >>"networks" not organisations. >> >>Someone had suggested ISOC and there is the CI Network. >> >>The role of this "Coordination" for the moment is just to support >>nomcom >>actions for 1Net and consolidate for inter-network communications. >> >>Giving the impression that you need to be in the "coordination" to be >>able >>to have a say in CS issues is misleading. Lately, there has been that >>feeling going on.. >> >>I think we need to check this tendency. >> >>Best >> >>N >> >> >>On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Carlos A. Afonso >>wrote: >> >>> I concur with Ian. Also, "wider inclusion" in what exactly? >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 12/03/2013 01:46 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > This is not a new initiative but simply one which I have been >>pushing >>> for since Bali which is wider inclusion of civil society >>organisations >>> rather than just: >>> > >>> >> Association for Progressive Commuications (APC) >>> >> Best Bits >>> >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus >>> >> Diplo Foundation >>> >> ICANN's Non Commercial Stakeholder Group >>> > >>> > Currently, the steering committee comprises of these 5 >>organisations but >>> i would like to see more come to the table as we need to be >inclusive >>and >>> not exclusive and clique based. >>> > >>> > This would simply mean ensuring that there is harmonized and >>seamless >>> communication and joint synergistic efforts within civil society >>because it >>> would be a farce to suggest increasing accountability and >>transparency from >>> other constituencies and when within our own we are isolated. >>> > >>> > Kind Regards, >>> > Sala >>> > >>> > Sent from my iPad >>> > >>> >> On Dec 3, 2013, at 4:24 PM, "Ian Peter" >>wrote: >>> >> >>> >> For clarity - >>> >> >>> >> I am not entirely sure what initiative Sala is referring to here. > >>It >>> appears to be a new one and unrelated to the smaller representative >>> grouping listed below, which is looking towards ways of jointly >>nominating >>> CS reps to various bodies and is not seeking to undertake the sorts >>of >>> tasks and networking Sala envisages. >>> >> >>> >> It is also not clear to me how this new network Sala is referring >>to >>> would be different to either Best Bits or IGC? >>> >> >>> >> Ian Peter >>> >> >>> >> From: michael gurstein >>> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 1:02 PM >>> >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; 'Salanieta T. >>Tamanikaiwaimaro' >>> >> Subject: RE: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider >Civil >>> Society to engage in a Coalition] >>> >> >>> >> Hi Sala, >>> >> >>> >> I’d like to have the Community Informatics network added to >this.. >>as >>> per the below… >>> >> >>> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: >>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. >>> Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> >> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 9:39 AM >>> >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >> Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil >>Society >>> to engage in a Coalition] >>> >> >>> >> Dear All, >>> >> >>> >> At the moment, there is a loose network of some civil society >>> organisations namely: >>> >> >>> >> Association for Progressive Commuications (APC) >>> >> Best Bits >>> >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus >>> >> Diplo Foundation >>> >> ICANN's Non Commercial Stakeholder Group >>> >> [In alphabetical order] >>> >> >>> >> I would really like to see more civil society organisations work >>> together to collaborate on designing the way forward and strategies. >>If you >>> feel that you would like your civil society organisation to be part >>of a >>> wider collaborative effort, please respond to this email by >>submitting the >>> name of your organisation. Please feel free to send this onwards to >>your >>> respective cosmos. >>> >> >>> >> The names put forward can be used to forge a Coalition of a wider >>civil >>> society based network. If you would like to be part of a wider >>Coalition, >>> please respond to this email with following information: >>> >> >>> >> Name of the Organisation or Network (and when organisation or >>network >>> was first formed) >>> >> [MG>] Community Informatics Network/Community Informatics >Research >>> Network—founded 2000 >>> >> Details of Constituency represented (Please also identify whether >>this >>> is a country based/regional or international) >>> >> [MG>] community, grassroots and grassroots oriented ICT >>practitioners, >>> researchers, policy analysts—global (1500+/- >>> >> Name of Coordinator of Organisation/Network >>> >> [MG>] Michael Gurstein (host) >>> >> Contact Details (including website) >>> >> [MG>] gurstein at gmail.com; http://www.communityinformatics.net; >>> http://vancouvercommunity.net/lists/arc/ciresearchers >>> >> Name of one Nominee to the Coalition who will speak on >>administrative >>> matters where it comes to the wider coalition >>> >> [MG>] (Interim) Michael Gurstein >>> >> Best, >>> >> M >>> >> Should you be interested in the wider Coalition and engaging >>> collaboratively, kindly respond ASAP. There will be communiques sent >>to a >>> mailing list that will be created that will inform you of events >that >>are >>> happening to enable you to stream the information to your networks >>and >>> allow for authentic bottom up, grassroots engagement in the diverse >>regions >>> of the world. This will help enable authentic global civil society >>> engagement and make it truly inclusive. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Kind Regards, >>> >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> >> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >> >>> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >> >>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Sun Dec 8 09:35:18 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 15:35:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] In-Reply-To: <817BDF74-0F3A-42B7-B8B6-0FE3F58D3879@gmail.com> References: <0f1401ceefcb$c55ed890$501c89b0$@gmail.com> <18BFEF69-E6F5-45F2-8FD0-A83A8F4A8B27@gmail.com> <52A39E7F.8060507@cafonso.ca> <3187daf1-410e-43ea-8025-a7ebd2f55541@email.android.com> <817BDF74-0F3A-42B7-B8B6-0FE3F58D3879@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi On Dec 8, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > If it is networks and not organizations, or organized entities, thanx I do not believe that IGC belongs in the list of enumerated networks. > > Especially since almost all the members of the IGC are also in the BB. To me this this looks like double dipping. I understand the argument but am not sure which is the second dip. To my knowledge, BB is a platform that allows orgs and individuals to sign onto statements, it doesn’t have a fixed membership. So absent a sign on in support, who would the representative of BB on the 1net coordination group or any other collaboration (e.g. the SP committees) actually represent, besides the five BB steering committee members? BB is a good initiative with good folks but I just don’t understand its status in this context. Nor do I understand what its position is on 1net and related, since key participants keep saying rather different things on the lists, some of them in rather ringingly definitive terms like “Civil society believes xyz” (needless to say, the rest of civil society was not asked and may not agree). I think it’d be helpful if the steering committee would pow wow and come out with a clear statement as to its positions and for whom exactly they are speaking, as the various messages have caused a lot of confusion among other stakeholders on 1net who’ve been asking off list who are these folks and what’s the deal with them, and I have no idea how to respond. Best Bill > > ISOC is a reasonable addition. > ~~~ > avri -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Dec 8 09:34:54 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 15:34:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> Message-ID: cc list trimmed to only one list. /transcript-president-opening-18nov13-en.pdf "USC, University of Southern California-Annenberg Foundation as well as the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have partnered with us so we ensure that this panel has some level of independency and is functioning on a broader scale globally" On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Thanks for this Ian, could someone please explain to me what is meant by > this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other > organizations.. Is he referring to Inet here? Who are the other two > organizations? > > > > M > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:34 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > > > Hi Adam, > > > > Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a role of > coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various reps > should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the reps > earlier). > > > > Hello Robin, > > > > I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off and > regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just got > back and ready for the next phase of work. > > > > As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to grow > the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was announced, we > made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc community, and > only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for broader > participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve while in > Buenos Aires. > > > > At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as more > independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will need to > confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the Chairman of > the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. > > > > I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will keep > you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that Frank > La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities interests very > vigilantly on top of our agendas. > > > > Fadi > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Peake > > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM > > To: Ian Peter > > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > > > Hi Ian, > > > > Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is > due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. > > > > Best, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > >> Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as > >> an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at > >> this meeting in two weeks time. > >> > >> Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was > >> imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the > >> people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. > >> > >> I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit > >> names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing > >> would have been the alternative in this timeframe. > >> > >> > >> Ian Peter > >> > >> > >> 29 November 2013 > >> RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London > >> > >> Dear Fadi and Nora: > >> > >> I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of > >> representatives of the civil society networks most involved in > >> Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to > >> engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet > >> governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is > >> under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to > >> accept additional civil society participants to this panel to provide > >> more balance. > >> After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following > >> 2 civil society representatives to begin to balance against the much > >> larger numbers from government, the private sector, and technical > >> representatives placed on the initial panel. > >> Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High > >> Level Panel are: > >> 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) 2. Milton Mueller > >> (mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of > >> these names, and contact our representatives directly to arrange their > >> participation? > >> We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the > >> Diplo Foundation as a highly experienced and knowledgeable > >> facilitator. > >> We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable > >> representation of civil society in such panels and committees. > >> Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from > >> various civil society networks were: > >> Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation > >> Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > >> Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Norbert > >> Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus > >> (IGC) > >> Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits > >> Signed, > >> Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Dec 8 15:14:34 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 07:14:34 +1100 Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] In-Reply-To: References: <0f1401ceefcb$c55ed890$501c89b0$@gmail.com> <18BFEF69-E6F5-45F2-8FD0-A83A8F4A8B27@gmail.com> <52A39E7F.8060507@cafonso.ca> <3187daf1-410e-43ea-8025-a7ebd2f55541@email.android.com> <817BDF74-0F3A-42B7-B8B6-0FE3F58D3879@gmail.com> Message-ID: <79746DE48F094F1382D72632510CDE42@Toshiba> Hi Bill, What you can tell your colleagues off list who are not already aware is that a group of civil society organisations, who in past years have nominated candidates to MAG CSTD etc separately, are working together to try to come up with common candidate slates for things like 1net steering committee, Brazil committees etc. I personally cant tell you the beginnings because I wasn’t there – I joined a little later when I was asked to take up a facilitation role. The current members are Best Bits, NCSG, Diplo, APC and IGC – although IGC is perhaps less active given the rather difficult state of its affairs recently. Hopefully this is a temporary situation. There has been no approach from ISOC to join. As far as I know ISOC organises technical community representation for MAG CSTD etc so probably has a quite different role to perform. There has been confusion because some people are talking of a wider civil society coalition emerging (This prompted my questions and those of Carlos as to how this would relate to organisations such as Best Bits IGC etc). Although I have no problems which such an initiative if there is a need for it, I have made it clear that my personal involvement here is purely facilitating co-operation for the selection of common representatives, and any wider organisation establishment is a different process and will need to be facilitated separately. I hope that helps. This is a genuine attempt to get common nominations from civil society groups, and certainly has involvement and support of some of those most active in this field. And certainly the nominations and expressions of interest coming forward are from a very wide range of civil society interests who are involved with the above groups and their diverse global networks. As regards statements – all of the above organisations, and individuals within them, are likely to make statements on issues that others in this coordination group would not agree with, on this list and on others. There have been no official statements on issues from this group to date and if there are in future they will be clearly identified as such. Ian Peter From: William Drake Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 1:35 AM To: Governance ; Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] Hi On Dec 8, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote: Hi, If it is networks and not organizations, or organized entities, thanx I do not believe that IGC belongs in the list of enumerated networks. Especially since almost all the members of the IGC are also in the BB. To me this this looks like double dipping. I understand the argument but am not sure which is the second dip. To my knowledge, BB is a platform that allows orgs and individuals to sign onto statements, it doesn’t have a fixed membership. So absent a sign on in support, who would the representative of BB on the 1net coordination group or any other collaboration (e.g. the SP committees) actually represent, besides the five BB steering committee members? BB is a good initiative with good folks but I just don’t understand its status in this context. Nor do I understand what its position is on 1net and related, since key participants keep saying rather different things on the lists, some of them in rather ringingly definitive terms like “Civil society believes xyz” (needless to say, the rest of civil society was not asked and may not agree). I think it’d be helpful if the steering committee would pow wow and come out with a clear statement as to its positions and for whom exactly they are speaking, as the various messages have caused a lot of confusion among other stakeholders on 1net who’ve been asking off list who are these folks and what’s the deal with them, and I have no idea how to respond. Best Bill ISOC is a reasonable addition. ~~~ 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 jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Sun Dec 8 15:36:41 2013 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 21:36:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] In-Reply-To: <79746DE48F094F1382D72632510CDE42@Toshiba> References: <0f1401ceefcb$c55ed890$501c89b0$@gmail.com> <18BFEF69-E6F5-45F2-8FD0-A83A8F4A8B27@gmail.com> <52A39E7F.8060507@cafonso.ca> <3187daf1-410e-43ea-8025-a7ebd2f55541@email.android.com> <817BDF74-0F3A-42B7-B8B6-0FE3F58D3879@gmail.com> <79746DE48F094F1382D72632510CDE42@Toshiba> Message-ID: <4DC402AE-1D1D-48BA-AA62-B1ADFC779AB8@theglobaljournal.net> Thanks Ian for your comment. I was myself wondering about this last part of Bill's remark "for whom exactly they are speaking, as the various messages have caused a lot of confusion among other stakeholders on 1net who’ve been asking off list who are these folks and what’s the deal with them, and I have no idea how to respond" 1_ Is 'off-list' chatting more important than 'list' sharing? 2_Bill are you liaison for something here? And who are 'these folks' you are alluding to? Who are the "other stakeholders on 1net" you are referring to? Is the 1net list THE list now telling the mass? Would be nice if you would make it a bit more explicit, and if not, avoid allusion and confusion. Thanks __________________________ Jean-Christophe Nothias Le 8 déc. 2013 à 21:14, Ian Peter a écrit : > for whom exactly they are speaking, as the various messages have caused a lot of confusion among other stakeholders on 1net who’ve been asking off list who are these folks and what’s the deal with them, and I have no idea how to respond -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Dec 8 18:30:30 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 00:30:30 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Saving the Net In-Reply-To: <289004051.26371.1386452041639.JavaMail.www@wwinf1p08> References: <556805564.12993.1386427396772.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f01> <20131207182856.38d39426@quill> <289004051.26371.1386452041639.JavaMail.www@wwinf1p08> Message-ID: <501642451.25258.1386545430223.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j07> Dear Norbert, Michael and members of the list In addition to Norbert's arguments and Michael's previous comments there was an excellent report of a one page interview of French Minister of digital economy, Fleur Pelerin, in Le Monde dated Thursday December 5th. Of course, the report is in french and its (translared) title is : "Big Data can became Big Brother, and we try to resist thet" Unfortunately I'm a subscriber of the paper version only. Maybe one of our (french speaking) members has access to the electronic version and could send it to the list. Some short exerpts : "The speed of technical evolution hasn't been well percieved by the political authorities" "The underlying question is that of data processing, not by governments but by private companies. We are now facing a new danger (...) Potentially billions of people are being subject to surveillance programs of the NSA via private companies that are mainly North american. These companies behave as quasi-sovereign States and don't recognize european rights. We must face totally new actors, with a hegemonic vocation". "In Five to ten years there will be 50 billion connected objects (...) all that will generate even bigger masses of data, and this explosion will make Big Data become Big Brother, and it is that we try to resist to". Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack> Message du 07/12/13 22:34 > De : "Jean-Louis FULLSACK" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Norbert Bollow" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Saving the Net > > > > dear Michael> > You are right in stressing the danger of private data processing. With a State viololating its citizens' privacy we have at least the chance for changing ... its government, provided we are in a true democracy :-) > > More seriously, I understand your arguments and support particularly your secont point.> > Thanks for your mail and enjoy the week-end> > Jean-Louis> Message du 07/12/13 18:30 > De : "Norbert Bollow" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Saving the Net > > Thanks, Jean-Louis for sharing that! Some really good thoughts from > Glenn Greenwald there. The one point where I disagree is in regard to > the assertion that privacy violations by governments are more > dangerous than data processing by private companies: First, any data in > the hands of the private sector should be assumed to be also available > to intelligence services. Secondly, we really don't know what kind of > socioeconomic network effects might get empowered by such data, I don't > see any assurance that this can't create some kind of monster that > might take the shape of a new kind of digital analogue to racism or > even feudalism. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Am Sat, 7 Dec 2013 15:43:16 +0100 (CET) > schrieb Jean-Louis FULLSACK : > > > Dear members of the list > > > > A very interesting article which might be central to Internet > > governance because it's about the global misuse of it by one Big > > Brother State -the US- with "Five Eyes ". > > > > > > Title and subtitle : > > > > Saving the Net from the surveillance state: Glenn Greenwald speaks up > > (Q&A) The man to whom Edward Snowden entrusted his NSA documents > > isn't content just to save the Bill of Rights and reinvent > > journalism. He also wants to stop the Internet from becoming > > history's most dangerous spy tool. > > > > > > Lets take our time to read it. It's here : > > > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57613838-38/saving-the-net-from-the-surveillance-state-glenn-greenwald-speaks-up-q-a/?tag=nl.e496&s_cid=e496&ttag=e496&ftag=CAD1c318f6 > > > > Best regards > > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jovank at diplomacy.edu Sun Dec 8 18:33:39 2013 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 02:33:39 +0300 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257517A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257517A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi Milton, here are a few reflections on your questions about the practicalities of the inviolability of the root database: http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/international-inviolability-root-zone The main points are: - root zone issues, like diplomacy, have a high symbolic relevance both for the USA (US invention), and other countries (equality among countries in managing the Internet as a global critical infrastructure). - Some elements of diplomatic inviolability and immunity can be employed in addressing the root zone issue. - The root database can enjoy inviolability either as such (*in rem*) or via the physical server where it is loaded. - Root database inviolability would be ensured either through a new ‘root convention', or through the identification of the customary law (e.g. the fact that the USA has never acted unilaterally in management of domains of other countries). One option for the identification of the customary law, could be a request for an Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice. - A more complex question is the management of the root database. There are a few ideas, including the double-key approach, ICANN+ as a quasi-international organisation, use of the reformed UN Trusteeship Council as part of the new architecture, etc. - The closest institutional analogy for a possible ICANN+ as quasi-international organisation would be the International Committee on the Red Cross. - Root zone arrangement (inviolability) could be a reasonable compromise in the current IG debate. Sao Paolo could be the first step in developing this compromise solution. Let me know your comments. Regards, Jovan *Jovan Kurbalija* Director, DiploFoundation *Note: *If you have been waiting for a reply from me, this might explain my tardiness. Thank you for your patience! On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Jovan > > Helpful, thanks. But remember, when we talk about ICANN we are only > talking about the governance of unique identifiers (names and numbers) not > governance of “the Internet.” > > > > Can you elaborate more on what kind of “immunities” you think ICANN – as > DNS governor only – would need? > > > > *From:* Jovan Kurbalija [mailto:jovank at diplomacy.edu] > *Sent:* Monday, December 2, 2013 9:19 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller > *Cc:* parminder > *Subject:* Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for > the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance > > > > Thank you, Milton, Parminder and others for raising this issue. CS and > academia have the opportunity to contribute to more informed discussion on > jurisdiction and institutional architecture in the preparation for Sao > Paolo and beyond. There are two main options (IGO or private organisation) > and a few possibilities in between (hybrids): > > 1. Intergovernmental organisations > > This option is clear. The organisation would have to be established by an > intergovernmental agreement (convention, treaty, statute). The main > advantage of this option is immunity and independence from any national > jurisdiction. The main challenge is how to ensure accountability and > inclusive governance (involvement of civil society, business, and users > communities). It is important to keep in mind that while it can be > inter-governmental in making, a new entity could have a much more flexible > structure. For example, the ILO was established by governments, but it has > a tripartite governance structure consisting of representatives of > governments, employers and employees. > > 2. Private organisations (NGO, business, etc.) > > The other main option is to have private organisations registered under > national laws; i.e. the current status of ICANN and most international > non-profit organisations. They are international in their name and > function, but legally speaking they are national entities. The main legal > internationalisation of INGOs is provided by the European Convention on the > Recognition of the Legal Personality of INGOs (Council of Europe, 1986). > There are some arguments that UN-consultative status provides a ‘soft law’ > legal basis, but it is a far-fetched argument. > > > What are the in between options? > > 3. Quasi-international organisations > > This is part of an innovative legal development initiated in 2007 by the > Swiss Federal Council (Ordinance OLEH from 7 December 2007). It provides > certain fiscal and legal privileges. This quasi-international status has > been granted to the International Air Transport Association, the > International Olympic Committee, and the World Conservation Union. The main > limitation of this status – so far – is that it does not provide > jurisdictional immunity. > > 4. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) > > The ICRC model has been mentioned as a possible solution for ICANN. The > ICRC is a private foundation established under Swiss law while it receives > its mandate by international treaties (Geneva conventions). The ICRC > together with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent > (IFRC) creates a sometimes complex but carefully balanced system of Red > Cross community. There are many checks and balances and accountability > mechanisms involving national governments and Red Cross/Red Crescent > National Societies (non-governmental entities). The Red Cross model – > especially when it comes to accountability – could provide a number of > inspiring elements for the future ‘IG architecture’ > > 5. Montreaux model > > Some ideas for IG could be borrowed from the ‘Montreaux model’ which deals > with international governance of private and security companies. The > privatisation of security sector led some countries to request > international treaty (so-called Mercenaries convention). Others resisted > it. While there were differences in how to regulate them, there was > consensus that private security companies should observe human rights and > humanitarian law. Based on this convergence point, Switzerland (via DCAF) > initiated the private-public process with the Montreaux Document (2008) > which outlined the main principles. The next step was the International > Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers (November 2010) > which operationalised the principles. In October this year, the oversight > mechanism was established involving government, private sector and civil > society. This oversight mechanism is an interesting organisational > construct that may inspire some solutions for Internet governance. > > 6. On a more conceptual level, a solution could be found in identifying > the jurisdictional immunities of ICANN for specific activities (not general > immunity enjoyed by IGOs). Such a solution could relate well to the modern > trend in international law to distinguish immunities of states and IOs for > iure imperii (core public function) and iure gestionies (no immunity for > contracts and other activities of the organisation). > > In 2014, we plan to organise a few brainstorming events in Geneva on the > interplay between the Internet, jurisdiction and institutional law. There > is a lot of expertise in both the humanitarian and institutional law that > could help in finding some innovative solutions for the IG institutional > architecture. > > Best regards, Jovan > > > *Jovan Kurbalija, Phd* > > Director, DiploFoundation > > Rue de Lausanne 56 *| *1202 Geneva *|* Switzerland > > *Tel.* +41 (0) 22 7410435 *| **Mobile.* +41 (0) 797884226 > > *Email: *jovank at diplomacy.edu *| **Twitter:* @jovankurbalija > > *Note: *If you have been waiting for a reply from me, this might explain > my tardiness. Thank > you for your patience! > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > It's a basic error to equate a generic incorporation law with > comprehensive regulatory "oversight by the US legal system" as Parminder is > doing. I am not sure whether Parminder is just using a rhetorical ploy at > this point. But I am not averse to host-country type agreements that would > protect ICANN from legislative interference. > > > > An honest argument makes a comparison based on current facts. Regardless > of where ICANN is incorporated now, it has to be incorporated somewhere. We > are presented so far with 3 choices: > > 1. a Geneva-based INGO like FIFA or the Red Cross > > 2. California NPPBL > > 3. Some new international public law (treaty-based) that we have no > experience with and no concrete guarantees regarding its content (because > it doesn't exist yet) and which might take 3-10 years to conclude > > > > Take your pick. Open to good arguments for any, as well as hybrids and > other ideas. And if you can bring yourself to ignore the commentor's > nationality, Karl's argument that any feasible transitional arrangement has > to deal with real contracts and assets must be taken into account. > > > > --MM > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder [ > parminder at itforchange.net] > *Sent:* Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:24 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for > the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance > > > > On Saturday 30 November 2013 11:10 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > it is up to Milton to defend his position and I don't think that he > defended an continuity of any kind of US control. anyway you can read his > ideas in details at his blog. > > > For sure, I have read them. Yes, he does advocate continued oversight > ('control' if you like) by US legal system, or broadly, the US polity, over > ICANN, but extinguishing executive controls exercised through US DoC. > > But of course Milton can tell us if I am wrong in saying the above... > parminder > > > > I made the analogy to FIFA because it is international organisation > too if you mean diversity etc but also for the level of corruption and no > accountability there. I think that you can see the point here . > > we can argue a lot about the legal status of the organisation but what > matters at the end is the mechanism for accountability, transparency , > openness, inclusiveness . > > > > > > And as you say if you are not arguing that ICANN "should be an US org > under US laws ", then the question is "what kind of org and under what kind > of law" do you advocate. Thanks. > > > > I don't have an answer about the legal framework to be used or any other > organisational complexity, however I am thinking on how to avoid situation > where interests group try to expand trademark law there or governments use > GAC to push for content policy through gTLD or eroding privacy rights to > match LEA requests without any oversight or in contradiction to ehir own > data protection law. I am thinking on how we make the organisation > developing users-driven policies and not to respond to narrow governmental > or private interests. > > coming from a small developing country struggling with a complicated and > painful democratic transition, I am more keen to defend citizen interests > and not by any geopolitical interests of some governments > > > > > > Rafik > > > > parminder > > > > I have a question, maybe naive: if we have problem with one state to > have dominant role as assumed by mant, how adding more states will solve > the problem , a kind of zero sum game? > > another question, what benefit for the average users far from any > geopolitical consideration in such case? > > > > Rafik > > 2013/11/30 parminder > > > > On Saturday 30 November 2013 10:19 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > yes Milton it will make it the FIFA of IG world > > > Rafik > > > > Rafik, do you in that case agree that ICANN should remain an US > organisation, subject solely to US laws... parminder > > > > > > 2013/11/30 Milton L Mueller > > No, no, no, please. That level of specificity is counterproductive at > this stage. Many people who have studied this issue believe that turning > ICANN into an INGO is the surest way for it to escape what little > accountability it currently has. Those willing to go along with a general > call for reform in ICANN’s US-centered oversight need not commit themselves > to a particular solution at this point, and the language below does that. > > > > Please don’t come up with off the cuff quickie solutions for this. It will > take more than a scan of Wikipedia to solve. > > > > *From:* michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 7:49 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google' > *Cc:* 'Norbert Bollow'; Milton L Mueller > *Subject:* RE: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for > the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance > > > > What about > > > > 1) Transitioning ICANN and IANA to an International Non-Governmental > Organization (INGO) status: The Global Meeting should aim at developing a > suitable and widely acceptable means to achieve the desired transition of > ICANN and IANA away from its links to the USG and > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_nongovernmental_organization > > > > M > > > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] > *On Behalf Of *Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google > *Sent:* Friday, November 29, 2013 2:39 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Cc:* Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller > *Subject:* Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for > the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance > > > > ICANN (and its President/CEO) have been "encouraged" at several > opportunities to adjust its "internationalization" rhetoric/terminology and > thus its resulting INTERNATIONALIZATION thrust to one which is > significantly more embrasive of the objectives of, and indeed, spirit of > what GLOBALIZATION in theory, intends to achieve. > > I believe therefore that Milton's recommendation is timely and appropriate > ... whether we use the term "Globalization" or a perhaps more compromising > and less economics/free-market linked phrase or term such as "Global > Integration", or more radically, "Glocalization". > > ------ > Rgds, > > Tracy > > > > On Nov 29, 2013 4:52 PM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" < > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote: > > Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, > > > > If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual perspective, and > in my humble Global Governance observer capacity, for the pleasure of the > reflection: > > > > *Internationalization*: one wants to have a larger international basis: > more offices, more representatives, more of a network of local branches > that, being put together, creates an international network. Still each > element is mostly comparable to the starting point in terms of culture, > thinking... Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' kind of > uniformity. *Meaning many little ICANNs all around. * > > > > *Globalization*: this could happen without a network of offices around > the world. You can observe a very globalized entity containing so many > different elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet with a > governance of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than > one single corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a > single global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the many in a > global manner of thinking. > > *Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind.* > > > > *Transnationalization*: this tends to establish a community of people > based in various locations, trying to forget about their local identity, > interest or belonging, with the objective to address a more common, > regional, transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an > understanding of global magnitude. > > *Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds.* > > > > > > - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater control over > the network, and at the end of the day, you can pretend to be a global > minded outlet. Good communication value. > > - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, specially > if you are not starting from a fully independent culture. Very challenging > when one starts from a private or national basis. > > - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts trust in > the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable approach, and > ultimately, one that could deliver a true global minded system. > > > > Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to > explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG debate. > > > > Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate > objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from the > corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, executives would > convene 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade union, > politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable > definition and understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something > that usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... > > > > All the best, > > __________________________ > > Jean-Christophe Nothias > Editor in Chief > jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net > > @jc_nothias > > > > > > > > > > > > Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > > > > Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 > schrieb Milton L Mueller : > > Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family > > holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word > > "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in > > a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not > > an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena > > > That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their > governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has > certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global > phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of > decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is > happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national > relations. > > On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very > wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased > social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns > that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to address. > > Maybe yet another term could be used??? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 8 20:02:32 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 06:32:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] In-Reply-To: <4DC402AE-1D1D-48BA-AA62-B1ADFC779AB8@theglobaljournal.net> References: <0f1401ceefcb$c55ed890$501c89b0$@gmail.com> <18BFEF69-E6F5-45F2-8FD0-A83A8F4A8B27@gmail.com> <52A39E7F.8060507@cafonso.ca> <3187daf1-410e-43ea-8025-a7ebd2f55541@email.android.com> <817BDF74-0F3A-42B7-B8B6-0FE3F58D3879@gmail.com> <79746DE48F094F1382D72632510CDE42@Toshiba> <4DC402AE-1D1D-48BA-AA62-B1ADFC779AB8@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: Off list discussions are simply the online equivalent of stepping aside to privately discuss an issue before raising it in the caucus. It is an essential component of most discussion spaces, physical or online. --srs (iPad) > On 09-Dec-2013, at 2:06, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > > Thanks Ian for your comment. > > I was myself wondering about this last part of Bill's remark > "for whom exactly they are speaking, as the various messages have caused a lot of confusion among other stakeholders on 1net who’ve been asking off list who are these folks and what’s the deal with them, and I have no idea how to respond" > > 1_ Is 'off-list' chatting more important than 'list' sharing? > > > 2_Bill are you liaison for something here? And who are 'these folks' you are alluding to? > Who are the "other stakeholders on 1net" you are referring to? Is the 1net list THE list now telling the mass? Would be nice if you would make it a bit more explicit, and if not, avoid allusion and confusion. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Dec 8 20:26:02 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 02:26:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257517A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Jovan, In your blog, you wrote: "The USA has never used this technical possibility to remove a country from the Internet (US DOC authorizes ICANN via an IANA contract, to manage the root zone).[1]" Can you explain how the US could do this as a "technical possibilty". AFAIK, they only ascertain if the change was done according to IANA procedure. They don't have control over the zone itself. also: Giving this role to the GAC would be acceptable to me IF and only if they lost all their other advisory powers. At the moment, they have far greater power over the root than does NTIA. If you don't believe me, ask the folks who applied for .gcc/.amazon/.patagonia, etc. When you wrote "Such an ICANN+ would both host the root server, and manage the root database." Did you mean that they would be the rootzone admin and the database manager? They already host a rootserver (L) and are (via IANA function) the DB manager. -- 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, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:33 AM, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > Hi Milton, here are a few reflections on your questions about the > practicalities of the inviolability of the root database: > http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/international-inviolability-root-zone > > > The main points are: > > root zone issues, like diplomacy, have a high symbolic relevance both for > the USA (US invention), and other countries (equality among countries in > managing the Internet as a global critical infrastructure). > Some elements of diplomatic inviolability and immunity can be employed in > addressing the root zone issue. > The root database can enjoy inviolability either as such (in rem) or via the > physical server where it is loaded. > Root database inviolability would be ensured either through a new ‘root > convention', or through the identification of the customary law (e.g. the > fact that the USA has never acted unilaterally in management of domains of > other countries). One option for the identification of the customary law, > could be a request for an Advisory Opinion from the International Court of > Justice. > A more complex question is the management of the root database. There are a > few ideas, including the double-key approach, ICANN+ as a > quasi-international organisation, use of the reformed UN Trusteeship Council > as part of the new architecture, etc. > The closest institutional analogy for a possible ICANN+ as > quasi-international organisation would be the International Committee on the > Red Cross. > Root zone arrangement (inviolability) could be a reasonable compromise in > the current IG debate. Sao Paolo could be the first step in developing this > compromise solution. > > > Let me know your comments. > > Regards, Jovan > > > Jovan Kurbalija > > Director, DiploFoundation > > Note: If you have been waiting for a reply from me, this might explain my > tardiness. Thank you for your patience! > > > > On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> Jovan >> >> Helpful, thanks. But remember, when we talk about ICANN we are only >> talking about the governance of unique identifiers (names and numbers) not >> governance of “the Internet.” >> >> >> >> Can you elaborate more on what kind of “immunities” you think ICANN – as >> DNS governor only – would need? >> >> >> >> From: Jovan Kurbalija [mailto:jovank at diplomacy.edu] >> Sent: Monday, December 2, 2013 9:19 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller >> Cc: parminder >> Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the >> Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance >> >> >> >> Thank you, Milton, Parminder and others for raising this issue. CS and >> academia have the opportunity to contribute to more informed discussion on >> jurisdiction and institutional architecture in the preparation for Sao Paolo >> and beyond. There are two main options (IGO or private organisation) and a >> few possibilities in between (hybrids): >> >> 1. Intergovernmental organisations >> >> This option is clear. The organisation would have to be established by an >> intergovernmental agreement (convention, treaty, statute). The main >> advantage of this option is immunity and independence from any national >> jurisdiction. The main challenge is how to ensure accountability and >> inclusive governance (involvement of civil society, business, and users >> communities). It is important to keep in mind that while it can be >> inter-governmental in making, a new entity could have a much more flexible >> structure. For example, the ILO was established by governments, but it has a >> tripartite governance structure consisting of representatives of >> governments, employers and employees. >> >> 2. Private organisations (NGO, business, etc.) >> >> The other main option is to have private organisations registered under >> national laws; i.e. the current status of ICANN and most international >> non-profit organisations. They are international in their name and function, >> but legally speaking they are national entities. The main legal >> internationalisation of INGOs is provided by the European Convention on the >> Recognition of the Legal Personality of INGOs (Council of Europe, 1986). >> There are some arguments that UN-consultative status provides a ‘soft law’ >> legal basis, but it is a far-fetched argument. >> >> >> What are the in between options? >> >> 3. Quasi-international organisations >> >> This is part of an innovative legal development initiated in 2007 by the >> Swiss Federal Council (Ordinance OLEH from 7 December 2007). It provides >> certain fiscal and legal privileges. This quasi-international status has >> been granted to the International Air Transport Association, the >> International Olympic Committee, and the World Conservation Union. The main >> limitation of this status – so far – is that it does not provide >> jurisdictional immunity. >> >> 4. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) >> >> The ICRC model has been mentioned as a possible solution for ICANN. The >> ICRC is a private foundation established under Swiss law while it receives >> its mandate by international treaties (Geneva conventions). The ICRC >> together with the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent >> (IFRC) creates a sometimes complex but carefully balanced system of Red >> Cross community. There are many checks and balances and accountability >> mechanisms involving national governments and Red Cross/Red Crescent >> National Societies (non-governmental entities). The Red Cross model – >> especially when it comes to accountability – could provide a number of >> inspiring elements for the future ‘IG architecture’ >> >> 5. Montreaux model >> >> Some ideas for IG could be borrowed from the ‘Montreaux model’ which deals >> with international governance of private and security companies. The >> privatisation of security sector led some countries to request international >> treaty (so-called Mercenaries convention). Others resisted it. While there >> were differences in how to regulate them, there was consensus that private >> security companies should observe human rights and humanitarian law. Based >> on this convergence point, Switzerland (via DCAF) initiated the >> private-public process with the Montreaux Document (2008) which outlined the >> main principles. The next step was the International Code of Conduct for >> Private Security Service Providers (November 2010) which operationalised the >> principles. In October this year, the oversight mechanism was established >> involving government, private sector and civil society. This oversight >> mechanism is an interesting organisational construct that may inspire some >> solutions for Internet governance. >> >> 6. On a more conceptual level, a solution could be found in identifying >> the jurisdictional immunities of ICANN for specific activities (not general >> immunity enjoyed by IGOs). Such a solution could relate well to the modern >> trend in international law to distinguish immunities of states and IOs for >> iure imperii (core public function) and iure gestionies (no immunity for >> contracts and other activities of the organisation). >> >> In 2014, we plan to organise a few brainstorming events in Geneva on the >> interplay between the Internet, jurisdiction and institutional law. There is >> a lot of expertise in both the humanitarian and institutional law that could >> help in finding some innovative solutions for the IG institutional >> architecture. >> >> Best regards, Jovan >> >> >> Jovan Kurbalija, Phd >> >> Director, DiploFoundation >> >> Rue de Lausanne 56 | 1202 Geneva | Switzerland >> >> Tel. +41 (0) 22 7410435 | Mobile. +41 (0) 797884226 >> >> Email: jovank at diplomacy.edu | Twitter: @jovankurbalija >> >> Note: If you have been waiting for a reply from me, this might explain my >> tardiness. Thank you for your patience! >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> It's a basic error to equate a generic incorporation law with >> comprehensive regulatory "oversight by the US legal system" as Parminder is >> doing. I am not sure whether Parminder is just using a rhetorical ploy at >> this point. But I am not averse to host-country type agreements that would >> protect ICANN from legislative interference. >> >> >> >> An honest argument makes a comparison based on current facts. Regardless >> of where ICANN is incorporated now, it has to be incorporated somewhere. We >> are presented so far with 3 choices: >> >> 1. a Geneva-based INGO like FIFA or the Red Cross >> >> 2. California NPPBL >> >> 3. Some new international public law (treaty-based) that we have no >> experience with and no concrete guarantees regarding its content (because it >> doesn't exist yet) and which might take 3-10 years to conclude >> >> >> >> Take your pick. Open to good arguments for any, as well as hybrids and >> other ideas. And if you can bring yourself to ignore the commentor's >> nationality, Karl's argument that any feasible transitional arrangement has >> to deal with real contracts and assets must be taken into account. >> >> >> >> --MM >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder >> [parminder at itforchange.net] >> Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2013 2:24 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the >> Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance >> >> >> >> On Saturday 30 November 2013 11:10 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> it is up to Milton to defend his position and I don't think that he >> defended an continuity of any kind of US control. anyway you can read his >> ideas in details at his blog. >> >> >> For sure, I have read them. Yes, he does advocate continued oversight >> ('control' if you like) by US legal system, or broadly, the US polity, over >> ICANN, but extinguishing executive controls exercised through US DoC. >> >> But of course Milton can tell us if I am wrong in saying the above... >> parminder >> >> >> >> I made the analogy to FIFA because it is international organisation too >> if you mean diversity etc but also for the level of corruption and no >> accountability there. I think that you can see the point here . >> >> we can argue a lot about the legal status of the organisation but what >> matters at the end is the mechanism for accountability, transparency , >> openness, inclusiveness . >> >> >> >> >> >> And as you say if you are not arguing that ICANN "should be an US org >> under US laws ", then the question is "what kind of org and under what kind >> of law" do you advocate. Thanks. >> >> >> >> I don't have an answer about the legal framework to be used or any other >> organisational complexity, however I am thinking on how to avoid situation >> where interests group try to expand trademark law there or governments use >> GAC to push for content policy through gTLD or eroding privacy rights to >> match LEA requests without any oversight or in contradiction to ehir own >> data protection law. I am thinking on how we make the organisation >> developing users-driven policies and not to respond to narrow governmental >> or private interests. >> >> coming from a small developing country struggling with a complicated and >> painful democratic transition, I am more keen to defend citizen interests >> and not by any geopolitical interests of some governments >> >> >> >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> I have a question, maybe naive: if we have problem with one state to have >> dominant role as assumed by mant, how adding more states will solve the >> problem , a kind of zero sum game? >> >> another question, what benefit for the average users far from any >> geopolitical consideration in such case? >> >> >> >> Rafik >> >> 2013/11/30 parminder >> >> >> >> On Saturday 30 November 2013 10:19 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> yes Milton it will make it the FIFA of IG world >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> Rafik, do you in that case agree that ICANN should remain an US >> organisation, subject solely to US laws... parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> 2013/11/30 Milton L Mueller >> >> No, no, no, please. That level of specificity is counterproductive at this >> stage. Many people who have studied this issue believe that turning ICANN >> into an INGO is the surest way for it to escape what little accountability >> it currently has. Those willing to go along with a general call for reform >> in ICANN’s US-centered oversight need not commit themselves to a particular >> solution at this point, and the language below does that. >> >> >> >> Please don’t come up with off the cuff quickie solutions for this. It will >> take more than a scan of Wikipedia to solve. >> >> >> >> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 7:49 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google' >> Cc: 'Norbert Bollow'; Milton L Mueller >> Subject: RE: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the >> Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance >> >> >> >> What about >> >> >> >> 1) Transitioning ICANN and IANA to an International Non-Governmental >> Organization (INGO) status: The Global Meeting should aim at developing a >> suitable and widely acceptable means to achieve the desired transition of >> ICANN and IANA away from its links to the USG and >> >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_nongovernmental_organization >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Tracy F. >> Hackshaw @ Google >> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 2:39 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Cc: Norbert Bollow; Milton L Mueller >> Subject: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the >> Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance >> >> >> >> ICANN (and its President/CEO) have been "encouraged" at several >> opportunities to adjust its "internationalization" rhetoric/terminology and >> thus its resulting INTERNATIONALIZATION thrust to one which is significantly >> more embrasive of the objectives of, and indeed, spirit of what >> GLOBALIZATION in theory, intends to achieve. >> >> I believe therefore that Milton's recommendation is timely and appropriate >> ... whether we use the term "Globalization" or a perhaps more compromising >> and less economics/free-market linked phrase or term such as "Global >> Integration", or more radically, "Glocalization". >> >> ------ >> Rgds, >> >> Tracy >> >> >> >> On Nov 29, 2013 4:52 PM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" >> wrote: >> >> Dear Norbert, Dear Milton, >> >> >> >> If I may contribute, with a somehow different and unusual perspective, and >> in my humble Global Governance observer capacity, for the pleasure of the >> reflection: >> >> >> >> Internationalization: one wants to have a larger international basis: more >> offices, more representatives, more of a network of local branches that, >> being put together, creates an international network. Still each element is >> mostly comparable to the starting point in terms of culture, thinking... >> Clones spread around the world? 'One for all' kind of uniformity. Meaning >> many little ICANNs all around. >> >> >> >> Globalization: this could happen without a network of offices around the >> world. You can observe a very globalized entity containing so many different >> elements, co-exisiting, still assembling one strong outlet with a governance >> of its own, but embracing 'solutions' that could fit more than one single >> corporation, institution, nation. One voice, many voices... in a single >> global body. So one ICANN speaking from one point to the many in a global >> manner of thinking. >> >> Meaning one ICANN with a big global mind. >> >> >> >> Transnationalization: this tends to establish a community of people based >> in various locations, trying to forget about their local identity, interest >> or belonging, with the objective to address a more common, regional, >> transnational, trans-sectorial issue. A way to achieve an understanding of >> global magnitude. >> >> Meaning one ICANN talking to other minds. >> >> >> >> >> >> - The first option has a few advantages. You keep a greater control over >> the network, and at the end of the day, you can pretend to be a global >> minded outlet. Good communication value. >> >> - The second option is probably the most difficult to achieve, specially >> if you are not starting from a fully independent culture. Very challenging >> when one starts from a private or national basis. >> >> - The third option might be a good compromise, if each one puts trust in >> the other minds ('nods'?). But maybe a more sustainable approach, and >> ultimately, one that could deliver a true global minded system. >> >> >> >> Obviously, very much to be criticized, but at least worth trying to >> explore. And quiet appropriate with the current state of the IG debate. >> >> >> >> Semantic has a lasting effect over the narrative and the ultimate >> objective. A little bit like 'multistakeholder' which has emerged from the >> corporate jargon (to soften counter forces or opponents, executives would >> convene 'stakeholders' to the table for consultation (trade union, >> politician...). A pure communication tool. Plus, it has a very poor stable >> definition and understanding, and an even looser legal impact. Something >> that usually brings a lot of misunderstandings, deadlocks... >> >> >> >> All the best, >> >> __________________________ >> >> Jean-Christophe Nothias >> Editor in Chief >> jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net >> >> @jc_nothias >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Le 29 nov. 2013 à 20:52, Norbert Bollow a écrit : >> >> >> >> Am Fri, 29 Nov 2013 19:28:57 +0000 >> schrieb Milton L Mueller : >> >> Recognizing that this is a late intervention (Thursday a big family >> >> holiday in the US), is it possible to replace the word >> >> "internationalization" with "globalization"? Increasingly we live in >> >> a world where nations, and by extension the "inter-national" is not >> >> an adequate term to define transborder, global phenomena >> >> >> That's IMO a very valid point. Even though nation states and their >> governments of course continue to have a significant role, it has >> certainly become inadequate to try to understand transborder, global >> phenomena by the method (that was helpful in earlier times) of >> decomposing into what is happening at the national level plus what is >> happening in inter-national trade and other areas of inter-national >> relations. >> >> On the other hand, many civil society people including myself are very >> wary of the term "globalization", as globalization has often increased >> social injustices while doing nothing to resolve the kinds of concerns >> that the further "internationalization" of ICANN is intended to address. >> >> Maybe yet another term could be used??? >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Sun Dec 8 20:53:19 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 20:53:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <02d501ceec6a$ec667830$c5336890$@gmail.com> <20131129123452.4eae074b@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573B8F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131129205213.692f930b@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147 A7570370 CA01ECD257517A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi, On Dec 8, 2013, at 8:26 PM, McTim wrote: > "The USA has never used this technical possibility to remove a country > from the Internet (US DOC authorizes ICANN via an IANA contract, to > manage the root zone).[1]" > > Can you explain how the US could do this as a "technical possibilty". > AFAIK, they only ascertain if the change was done according to IANA > procedure. They don't have control over the zone itself. I gather the theory is that some part of the US Government would issue some sort of legally binding directive outside of the normal IANA root zone management function. Realistically, I'd imagine that directive would be applied to Verisign, not ICANN since Verisign is the only organization that has the technical capability to change the root zone unilaterally. Of course, it remains unclear whether the root server operators would accept such a change, but I gather we're talking symbology and theory here. > When you wrote "Such an ICANN+ would both host the root server, and > manage the root database." I'm not sure what "host the root server" means here. > Did you mean that they would be the rootzone admin and the database > manager? They already host a rootserver (L) and are (via IANA > function) the DB manager. There might be a bit of confusion here. To be explicit in the roles: - ICANN, as the IANA function operator, validates (in terms of syntax, semantics, and that the request can from an authorized party, i.e., the TLD administrator) root zone change requests and submits those validated requests for authorization to NTIA. ICANN is _not_ the database manager. - US Dept. of Commerce, NTIA authorizes those change requests, verifying ICANN has performed the IANA root zone management function appropriately. Once authorized, the change request is released to Verisign for implementation. - Verisign, under a cooperative agreement with NTIA, acts as the root zone maintainer. Verisign accepts the NTIA-authorized root zone change request, implements that change request in the root zone by updating the root zone database, resigns the root zone with the DNSSEC zone signing key (which has been signed by the key signing key maintained by ICANN), and then places the changed and newly signed root zone onto a distribution server, notifying (via the DNS protocol) that a new zone is available. - The 12 root server operators, either due to the notification sent by Verisign or because of timers built into the root zone, automatically pull the new root zone from the distribution server and place it on their servers (which, in most cases, actually a constellation of instances all over the planet). For example, ICANN, as one of the 12 root server operators, pulls the root zone from the distribution master server and then pushes it out to the 146 sites (300+ machines last I heard) that respond to DNS queries sent to the "L" root server address. I hope this clarifies. Regards, -drc -------------- 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Dec 8 21:27:01 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 11:27:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 8, 2013, at 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: > cc list trimmed to only one list. > > /transcript-president-opening-18nov13-en.pdf > > "USC, University of Southern California-Annenberg Foundation as well > as the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have partnered with us so we > ensure that this panel has some level of independency and is functioning > on a broader scale globally" > > WEF Adam > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> Thanks for this Ian, could someone please explain to me what is meant by >> this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other >> organizations.. Is he referring to Inet here? Who are the other two >> organizations? >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter >> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:34 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake >> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >> >> >> >> Hi Adam, >> >> >> >> Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a role of >> coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various reps >> should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the reps >> earlier). >> >> >> >> Hello Robin, >> >> >> >> I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off and >> regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just got >> back and ready for the next phase of work. >> >> >> >> As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to grow >> the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was announced, we >> made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc community, and >> only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for broader >> participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve while in >> Buenos Aires. >> >> >> >> At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as more >> independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will need to >> confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the Chairman of >> the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. >> >> >> >> I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will keep >> you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that Frank >> La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities interests very >> vigilantly on top of our agendas. >> >> >> >> Fadi >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Adam Peake >> >> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM >> >> To: Ian Peter >> >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >> Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >> >> >> >> Hi Ian, >> >> >> >> Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is >> due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> >> >>> Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as >> >>> an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at >> >>> this meeting in two weeks time. >> >>> >> >>> Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was >> >>> imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the >> >>> people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. >> >>> >> >>> I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit >> >>> names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing >> >>> would have been the alternative in this timeframe. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Ian Peter >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> 29 November 2013 >> >>> RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London >> >>> >> >>> Dear Fadi and Nora: >> >>> >> >>> I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of >> >>> representatives of the civil society networks most involved in >> >>> Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to >> >>> engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet >> >>> governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is >> >>> under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to >> >>> accept additional civil society participants to this panel to provide >> >>> more balance. >> >>> After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following >> >>> 2 civil society representatives to begin to balance against the much >> >>> larger numbers from government, the private sector, and technical >> >>> representatives placed on the initial panel. >> >>> Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High >> >>> Level Panel are: >> >>> 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) 2. Milton Mueller >> >>> (mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of >> >>> these names, and contact our representatives directly to arrange their >> >>> participation? >> >>> We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the >> >>> Diplo Foundation as a highly experienced and knowledgeable >> >>> facilitator. >> >>> We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable >> >>> representation of civil society in such panels and committees. >> >>> Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from >> >>> various civil society networks were: >> >>> Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation >> >>> Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) >> >>> Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Norbert >> >>> Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus >> >>> (IGC) >> >>> Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits >> >>> Signed, >> >>> Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 9 00:07:51 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 07:07:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] In-Reply-To: <79746DE48F094F1382D72632510CDE42@Toshiba> References: <0f1401ceefcb$c55ed890$501c89b0$@gmail.com> <18BFEF69-E6F5-45F2-8FD0-A83A8F4A8B27@gmail.com> <52A39E7F.8060507@cafonso.ca> <3187daf1-410e-43ea-8025-a7ebd2f55541@email.android.com> <817BDF74-0F3A-42B7-B8B6-0FE3F58D3879@gmail.com> <79746DE48F094F1382D72632510CDE42@Toshiba> Message-ID: <94484C8B-14FE-4262-8203-F86C4E00B02B@ciroap.org> On 8 Dec 2013, at 10:14 pm, Ian Peter wrote: > There has been no approach from ISOC to join. As far as I know ISOC organises technical community representation for MAG CSTD etc so probably has a quite different role to perform. For as long as ISOC is separately represented as part of a technical community stakeholder group, it is of course completely inappropriate for them to be part of the civil society coordination group and I would be strongly oppose that. > There has been confusion because some people are talking of a wider civil society coalition emerging (This prompted my questions and those of Carlos as to how this would relate to organisations such as Best Bits IGC etc). Although I have no problems which such an initiative if there is a need for it, I have made it clear that my personal involvement here is purely facilitating co-operation for the selection of common representatives, and any wider organisation establishment is a different process and will need to be facilitated separately. Let's see if we can make the existing coordination group work before we think about anything more ambitious. It is deliberately lightweight and has a narrow focus, and I'm not sure that a good case has been made for anything more. -- 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 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 Mon Dec 9 00:14:59 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 23:14:59 -0600 Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] In-Reply-To: <94484C8B-14FE-4262-8203-F86C4E00B02B@ciroap.org> References: <0f1401ceefcb$c55ed890$501c89b0$@gmail.com> <18BFEF69-E6F5-45F2-8FD0-A83A8F4A8B27@gmail.com> <52A39E7F.8060507@cafonso.ca> <3187daf1-410e-43ea-8025-a7ebd2f55541@email.android.com> <817BDF74-0F3A-42B7-B8B6-0FE3F58D3879@gmail.com> <79746DE48F094F1382D72632510CDE42@Toshiba> <94484C8B-14FE-4262-8203-F86C4E00B02B@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20131209051459.GA26156@hserus.net> Personally speaking, I would oppose certain "civil society" actors speaking for all of civil society, for specific countries, even for "the global south" with no sign of consensus or broad support that I've ever been able to discern. ISOC seems to do a much better job than such people, of representing civil society interests so pulling them down might not be as good an idea as it sounds. srs Jeremy Malcolm [09/12/13 07:07 +0200]: >On 8 Dec 2013, at 10:14 pm, Ian Peter wrote: > >> There has been no approach from ISOC to join. As far as I know ISOC organises technical community representation for MAG CSTD etc so probably has a quite different role to perform. > >For as long as ISOC is separately represented as part of a technical community stakeholder group, it is of course completely inappropriate for them to be part of the civil society coordination group and I would be strongly oppose that. > >> There has been confusion because some people are talking of a wider civil society coalition emerging (This prompted my questions and those of Carlos as to how this would relate to organisations such as Best Bits IGC etc). Although I have no problems which such an initiative if there is a need for it, I have made it clear that my personal involvement here is purely facilitating co-operation for the selection of common representatives, and any wider organisation establishment is a different process and will need to be facilitated separately. > >Let's see if we can make the existing coordination group work before we think about anything more ambitious. It is deliberately lightweight and has a narrow focus, and I'm not sure that a good case has been made for anything more. > >-- >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 chlebrum at gmail.com Mon Dec 9 01:44:51 2013 From: chlebrum at gmail.com (Chantal Lebrument) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 07:44:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Saving the Net In-Reply-To: <501642451.25258.1386545430223.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j07> References: <556805564.12993.1386427396772.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f01> <20131207182856.38d39426@quill> <289004051.26371.1386452041639.JavaMail.www@wwinf1p08> <501642451.25258.1386545430223.JavaMail.www@wwinf1j07> Message-ID: <38E9CC22-A561-48F6-BCC2-69916140AA1E@gmail.com> Jean-Louis Je suis abonnée au journal Le Monde mais le fichier est trop lourd et doit être traité. Dans la matinée... Chantal Envoyé de mon iPhone > Le 9 déc. 2013 à 00:30, Jean-Louis FULLSACK a écrit : > > > > Dear Norbert, Michael and members of the list > > > > In addition to Norbert's arguments and Michael's previous comments there was an excellent report of a one page interview of French Minister of digital economy, Fleur Pelerin, in Le Monde dated Thursday December 5th. Of course, the report is in french and its (translared) title is : > > > > "Big Data can became Big Brother, and we try to resist thet" > > > > Unfortunately I'm a subscriber of the paper version only. Maybe one of our (french speaking) members has access to the electronic version and could send it to the list. > > > > Some short exerpts : > > > > "The speed of technical evolution hasn't been well percieved by the political authorities" > > > > "The underlying question is that of data processing, not by governments but by private companies. We are now facing a new danger (...) Potentially billions of people are being subject to surveillance programs of the NSA via private companies that are mainly North american. These companies behave as quasi-sovereign States and don't recognize european rights. We must face totally new actors, with a hegemonic vocation". > > > > "In Five to ten years there will be 50 billion connected objects (...) all that will generate even bigger masses of data, and this explosion will make Big Data become Big Brother, and it is that we try to resist to". > > Best regards > > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > Message du 07/12/13 22:34 > > De : "Jean-Louis FULLSACK" > > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Norbert Bollow" > > Copie à : > > Objet : Re: [governance] Saving the Net > > > > > > > > > dear Michael > > > > > > You are right in stressing the danger of private data processing. With a State viololating its citizens' privacy we have at least the chance for changing ... its government, provided we are in a true democracy :-) > > > > > > More seriously, I understand your arguments and support particularly your secont point. > > > > > > Thanks for your mail and enjoy the week-end > > > > > > Jean-Louis > > > Message du 07/12/13 18:30 > > De : "Norbert Bollow" > > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Copie à : > > Objet : Re: [governance] Saving the Net > > > > Thanks, Jean-Louis for sharing that! Some really good thoughts from > > Glenn Greenwald there. The one point where I disagree is in regard to > > the assertion that privacy violations by governments are more > > dangerous than data processing by private companies: First, any data in > > the hands of the private sector should be assumed to be also available > > to intelligence services. Secondly, we really don't know what kind of > > socioeconomic network effects might get empowered by such data, I don't > > see any assurance that this can't create some kind of monster that > > might take the shape of a new kind of digital analogue to racism or > > even feudalism. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > Am Sat, 7 Dec 2013 15:43:16 +0100 (CET) > > schrieb Jean-Louis FULLSACK : > > > > > Dear members of the list > > > > > > A very interesting article which might be central to Internet > > > governance because it's about the global misuse of it by one Big > > > Brother State -the US- with "Five Eyes ". > > > > > > > > > Title and subtitle : > > > > > > Saving the Net from the surveillance state: Glenn Greenwald speaks up > > > (Q&A) The man to whom Edward Snowden entrusted his NSA documents > > > isn't content just to save the Bill of Rights and reinvent > > > journalism. He also wants to stop the Internet from becoming > > > history's most dangerous spy tool. > > > > > > > > > Lets take our time to read it. It's here : > > > > > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57613838-38/saving-the-net-from-the-surveillance-state-glenn-greenwald-speaks-up-q-a/?tag=nl.e496&s_cid=e496&ttag=e496&ftag=CAD1c318f6 > > > > > > Best regards > > > > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon Dec 9 03:02:21 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 09:02:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] In-Reply-To: <79746DE48F094F1382D72632510CDE42@Toshiba> References: <0f1401ceefcb$c55ed890$501c89b0$@gmail.com> <18BFEF69-E6F5-45F2-8FD0-A83A8F4A8B27@gmail.com> <52A39E7F.8060507@cafonso.ca> <3187daf1-410e-43ea-8025-a7ebd2f55541@email.android.com> <817BDF74-0F3A-42B7-B8B6-0FE3F58D3879@gmail.com> <79746DE48F094F1382D72632510CDE42@Toshiba> Message-ID: Hi Ian On Dec 8, 2013, at 9:14 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Bill, > > What you can tell your colleagues off list who are not already aware is that a group of civil society organisations, who in past years have nominated candidates to MAG CSTD etc separately, are working together to try to come up with common candidate slates for things like 1net steering committee, Brazil committees etc. I personally cant tell you the beginnings because I wasn’t there – I joined a little later when I was asked to take up a facilitation role. > > The current members are Best Bits, NCSG, Diplo, APC and IGC – although IGC is perhaps less active given the rather difficult state of its affairs recently. Hopefully this is a temporary situation. Yes I know about the nomcom, not my question. I was asking for some friendly clarifications about BB, presumably to the BB steering committee. > > There has been no approach from ISOC to join. As far as I know ISOC organises technical community representation for MAG CSTD etc so probably has a quite different role to perform. You must be responding to Avri here, I didn’t mention ISOC. > > There has been confusion because some people are talking of a wider civil society coalition emerging (This prompted my questions and those of Carlos as to how this would relate to organisations such as Best Bits IGC etc). Although I have no problems which such an initiative if there is a need for it, I have made it clear that my personal involvement here is purely facilitating co-operation for the selection of common representatives, and any wider organisation establishment is a different process and will need to be facilitated separately. > > I hope that helps. This is a genuine attempt to get common nominations from civil society groups, and certainly has involvement and support of some of those most active in this field. I recognize that, and was not asking about it. > And certainly the nominations and expressions of interest coming forward are from a very wide range of civil society interests who are involved with the above groups and their diverse global networks. > > As regards statements – all of the above organisations, and individuals within them, are likely to make statements on issues that others in this coordination group would not agree with, on this list and on others. There have been no official statements on issues from this group to date and if there are in future they will be clearly identified as such. Right. All the best, Bill > > > Ian Peter > > From: William Drake > Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 1:35 AM > To: Governance ; Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] > > Hi > > On Dec 8, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> If it is networks and not organizations, or organized entities, thanx I do not believe that IGC belongs in the list of enumerated networks. >> >> Especially since almost all the members of the IGC are also in the BB. To me this this looks like double dipping. > > I understand the argument but am not sure which is the second dip. To my knowledge, BB is a platform that allows orgs and individuals to sign onto statements, it doesn’t have a fixed membership. So absent a sign on in support, who would the representative of BB on the 1net coordination group or any other collaboration (e.g. the SP committees) actually represent, besides the five BB steering committee members? > > BB is a good initiative with good folks but I just don’t understand its status in this context. Nor do I understand what its position is on 1net and related, since key participants keep saying rather different things on the lists, some of them in rather ringingly definitive terms like “Civil society believes xyz” (needless to say, the rest of civil society was not asked and may not agree). I think it’d be helpful if the steering committee would pow wow and come out with a clear statement as to its positions and for whom exactly they are speaking, as the various messages have caused a lot of confusion among other stakeholders on 1net who’ve been asking off list who are these folks and what’s the deal with them, and I have no idea how to respond. > > Best > > Bill >> >> ISOC is a reasonable addition. >> ~~~ >> 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 chlebrum at gmail.com Mon Dec 9 03:19:47 2013 From: chlebrum at gmail.com (chlebrum .) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 09:19:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] Saving the Net In-Reply-To: <556805564.12993.1386427396772.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f01> References: <556805564.12993.1386427396772.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f01> Message-ID: Here is French Digital Ministry interview in Le Monde Newspaper, Chantal 2013/12/7 Jean-Louis FULLSACK > Dear members of the list > > > > A very interesting article which might be central to Internet governance > because it's about the global misuse of it by one Big Brother State -the > US- with "Five Eyes ". > > > > > > Title and subtitle : > > Saving the Net from the surveillance state: Glenn Greenwald speaks up > (Q&A) > > The man to whom Edward Snowden entrusted his NSA documents isn't content > just to save the Bill of Rights and reinvent journalism. He also wants to > stop the Internet from becoming history's most dangerous spy tool. > > > > Lets take our time to read it. It's here : > > > > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57613838-38/saving-the-net-from-the-surveillance-state-glenn-greenwald-speaks-up-q-a/?tag=nl.e496&s_cid=e496&ttag=e496&ftag=CAD1c318f6 > > > > > Best regards > > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, 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: 20131205_QUO 6_bd.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 252551 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 jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com Mon Dec 9 03:37:14 2013 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 09:37:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] Saving the Net In-Reply-To: References: <556805564.12993.1386427396772.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f01> Message-ID: <2F35A410-712F-4696-940B-CB58F43D04C7@gmail.com> What is a bit of concern is that Fleur Pellerin might not be with full support of other French ministers. Gilles Babinet, special French envoy to Nellie Kroes has just complained about the new French military programme and budget, showing reinforcement of surveillance spendings and capacities. A counter response to the US surveillance programmes. Not exactly in line with Fleur Pellerin. Certainly not the right way to address the issue. What's the quai d'Orsay saying? Martinon? Again, and again, we need to have, among other things, a governance ecosystem constraining states to better behavior. If this goes specifically through international law and a multilateral agreement, let's be it. With one global multilateral convention, we might stop this overall governmental escalation of paranoia. The US has not shown the right direction. Is Eli Noam right? Are we going toward an inevitable balkanization of the Internet? :-( JC Gilles Babinet : « Nous sommes à deux doigts de la dictature numérique » http://www.lesechos.fr/entreprises-secteurs/tech-medias/interview/0203176354634-gilles-babinet-nous-sommes-a-deux-doigts-de-la-dictature-numerique-635485.php?xtor=RSS-2059&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter No copyright infringement on this one. Le 9 déc. 2013 à 09:19, chlebrum . a écrit : > Here is French Digital Ministry interview in Le Monde Newspaper, > > Chantal > > > 2013/12/7 Jean-Louis FULLSACK > Dear members of the list > > > A very interesting article which might be central to Internet governance because it's about the global misuse of it by one Big Brother State -the US- with "Five Eyes ". > > > > Title and subtitle : > > > Saving the Net from the surveillance state: Glenn Greenwald speaks up (Q&A) > > The man to whom Edward Snowden entrusted his NSA documents isn't content just to save the Bill of Rights and reinvent journalism. He also wants to stop the Internet from becoming history's most dangerous spy tool. > > > > Lets take our time to read it. It's here : > > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57613838-38/saving-the-net-from-the-surveillance-state-glenn-greenwald-speaks-up-q-a/?tag=nl.e496&s_cid=e496&ttag=e496&ftag=CAD1c318f6 > > > Best regards > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > <20131205_QUO 6_bd.pdf>____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Dec 9 04:22:43 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 10:22:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Surveillance References: <0f1401ceefcb$c55ed890$501c89b0$@gmail.com> <18BFEF69-E6F5-45F2-8FD0-A83A8F4A8B27@gmail.com> <52A39E7F.8060507@cafonso.ca> <3187daf1-410e-43ea-8025-a7ebd2f55541@email.android.com> <817BDF74-0F3A-42B7-B8B6-0FE3F58D3879@gmail.com> <79746DE48F094F1382D72632510CDE42@Toshiba> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013322A0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://reformgovernmentsurveillance.com/ w -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ocl at gih.com Mon Dec 9 04:24:02 2013 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 09:24:02 +0000 Subject: [governance] Saving the Net In-Reply-To: <2F35A410-712F-4696-940B-CB58F43D04C7@gmail.com> References: <556805564.12993.1386427396772.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f01> <2F35A410-712F-4696-940B-CB58F43D04C7@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52A58C32.10507@gih.com> Hello all, this complaining about the (mainly US) Private Sector collecting information, working hand in hand with Governments to turn the Internet (and the world) into a huge Big Brother State contrasts with the message that the accused in this article are sending out: http://reformgovernmentsurveillance.com/ So everybody's accusing everybody else in this story. Somewhere among all of this virtual smoke lies the truth. Kind regards, Olivier On 09/12/2013 08:37, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: > What is a bit of concern is that Fleur Pellerin might not be with full > support of other French ministers. > > Gilles Babinet, special French envoy to Nellie Kroes has just > complained about the new French military programme and budget, showing > reinforcement of surveillance spendings and capacities. A counter > response to the US surveillance programmes. Not exactly in line with > Fleur Pellerin. Certainly not the right way to address the issue. > What's the quai d'Orsay saying? Martinon? > > Again, and again, we need to have, among other things, a governance > ecosystem constraining states to better behavior. If this goes > specifically through international law and a multilateral agreement, > let's be it. With one global multilateral convention, we might stop > this overall governmental escalation of paranoia. The US has not shown > the right direction. Is Eli Noam right? Are we going toward an > inevitable balkanization of the Internet? > > :-( > > JC > > > Gilles Babinet : « Nous sommes à deux doigts de la dictature numérique » > > > > > http://www.lesechos.fr/entreprises-secteurs/tech-medias/interview/0203176354634-gilles-babinet-nous-sommes-a-deux-doigts-de-la-dictature-numerique-635485.php?xtor=RSS-2059&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter > > No copyright infringement on this one. > > > > > > > > > > > Le 9 déc. 2013 à 09:19, chlebrum . a écrit : > >> Here is French Digital Ministry interview in Le Monde Newspaper, >> >> Chantal >> >> >> 2013/12/7 Jean-Louis FULLSACK > > >> >> Dear members of the list >> >> >> >> A very interesting article which might be central to Internet >> governance because it's about the global misuse of it by one Big >> Brother State -the US- with "Five Eyes ". >> >> >> >> >> Title and subtitle : >> >> >> >> >> Saving the Net from the surveillance state: Glenn Greenwald >> speaks up (Q&A) >> >> The man to whom Edward Snowden entrusted his NSA documents isn't >> content just to save the Bill of Rights and reinvent journalism. >> He also wants to stop the Internet from becoming history's most >> dangerous spy tool. >> >> >> >> >> Lets take our time to read it. It's here : >> >> >> >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57613838-38/saving-the-net-from-the-surveillance-state-glenn-greenwald-speaks-up-q-a/?tag=nl.e496&s_cid=e496&ttag=e496&ftag=CAD1c318f6 >> >> >> >> Best regards >> >> >> >> Jean-Louis Fullsack >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> <20131205_QUO >> 6_bd.pdf>____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Dec 9 04:29:33 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 18:29:33 +0900 Subject: [governance] Saving the Net In-Reply-To: <52A58C32.10507@gih.com> References: <556805564.12993.1386427396772.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f01> <2F35A410-712F-4696-940B-CB58F43D04C7@gmail.com> <52A58C32.10507@gih.com> Message-ID: The french gov complain in one hand and get inspiration in another about surveillance http://m.lesechos.fr/tech-medias/les-industriels-se-revoltent-contre-une-surveillance-renforcee-du-net-0203175656091.htm(link in french) Rafik 2013/12/9 Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > Hello all, > > this complaining about the (mainly US) Private Sector collecting > information, working hand in hand with Governments to turn the Internet > (and the world) into a huge Big Brother State contrasts with the message > that the accused in this article are sending out: > http://reformgovernmentsurveillance.com/ > > So everybody's accusing everybody else in this story. > > Somewhere among all of this virtual smoke lies the truth. > > Kind regards, > > Olivier > > > On 09/12/2013 08:37, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: > > What is a bit of concern is that Fleur Pellerin might not be with full > support of other French ministers. > > Gilles Babinet, special French envoy to Nellie Kroes has just complained > about the new French military programme and budget, showing reinforcement > of surveillance spendings and capacities. A counter response to the US > surveillance programmes. Not exactly in line with Fleur Pellerin. Certainly > not the right way to address the issue. What's the quai d'Orsay saying? > Martinon? > > Again, and again, we need to have, among other things, a governance > ecosystem constraining states to better behavior. If this goes specifically > through international law and a multilateral agreement, let's be it. With > one global multilateral convention, we might stop this overall governmental > escalation of paranoia. The US has not shown the right direction. Is Eli > Noam right? Are we going toward an inevitable balkanization of the Internet? > > :-( > > JC > > Gilles Babinet : « Nous sommes à deux doigts de la dictature > numérique » > > > > > http://www.lesechos.fr/entreprises-secteurs/tech-medias/interview/0203176354634-gilles-babinet-nous-sommes-a-deux-doigts-de-la-dictature-numerique-635485.php?xtor=RSS-2059&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter > > No copyright infringement on this one. > > > > > > > > > > > Le 9 déc. 2013 à 09:19, chlebrum . a écrit : > > Here is French Digital Ministry interview in Le Monde Newspaper, > > Chantal > > > 2013/12/7 Jean-Louis FULLSACK > >> Dear members of the list >> >> >> A very interesting article which might be central to Internet governance >> because it's about the global misuse of it by one Big Brother State -the >> US- with "Five Eyes ". >> >> >> >> Title and subtitle : >> >> Saving the Net from the surveillance state: Glenn Greenwald speaks up >> (Q&A) >> >> The man to whom Edward Snowden entrusted his NSA documents isn't content >> just to save the Bill of Rights and reinvent journalism. He also wants to >> stop the Internet from becoming history's most dangerous spy tool. >> >> >> >> Lets take our time to read it. It's here : >> >> >> >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57613838-38/saving-the-net-from-the-surveillance-state-glenn-greenwald-speaks-up-q-a/?tag=nl.e496&s_cid=e496&ttag=e496&ftag=CAD1c318f6 >> >> >> >> Best regards >> >> >> Jean-Louis Fullsack >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > <20131205_QUO 6_bd.pdf> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr Mon Dec 9 04:51:19 2013 From: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr (International Ivission) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 09:51:19 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] In-Reply-To: References: <0f1401ceefcb$c55ed890$501c89b0$@gmail.com> <18BFEF69-E6F5-45F2-8FD0-A83A8F4A8B27@gmail.com> <52A39E7F.8060507@cafonso.ca> <3187daf1-410e-43ea-8025-a7ebd2f55541@email.android.com> <817BDF74-0F3A-42B7-B8B6-0FE3F58D3879@gmail.com> <79746DE48F094F1382D72632510CDE42@Toshiba> Message-ID: <1386582679.56069.YahooMailNeo@web171303.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Receive warm greetings from Cameroon. I-Vission International is interested in this offer. Kindly find the answers next to questions below:   1. Name of the Organisation or Network (and when organisation or network was first formed) I-Vission International, formed on the 10th of September 2008 1. Details of Constituency represented (Please also identify whether this is a country based/regional or international) Represented in Sub Sahara Africa (Region) 1. Name of Coordinator of Organisation/Network Asama Abel Excel 1. Contact Details (including website) 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, My blog Web: www.ivission.net  Web album: www.flickr.com/ivission Facebook: ivission.internationl Twitter: www.twitter.com/ivission  NWK: www.meetup.com/ivission   1. Name of one Nominee to the Coalition who will speak on administrative matters where it comes to the wider coalition              Asama Abel Excel   ___________________________________ 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, My blogWeb: www.ivission.net  Web album: www.flickr.com/ivission Facebook: ivission.internationl Twitter: www.twitter.com/ivission  NWK: www.meetup.com/ivission Le Lundi 9 décembre 2013 9h00, William Drake a écrit : Hi Ian On Dec 8, 2013, at 9:14 PM, Ian Peter wrote: Hi Bill,   What you can tell your colleagues off list who are not already aware is that a group of civil society organisations, who in past years have nominated candidates to MAG CSTD etc separately, are working together to try to come up with common candidate slates for things like 1net steering committee, Brazil committees etc. I personally cant tell you the beginnings because I wasn’t there – I joined a little later when I was asked to take up a facilitation role.   The current members are Best Bits, NCSG, Diplo, APC and IGC – although IGC is perhaps less active given the rather difficult state of its affairs recently. Hopefully this is a temporary situation. Yes I know about the nomcom, not my question.  I was asking for some friendly clarifications about BB, presumably to the BB steering committee.   >There has been no approach from ISOC to join. As far as I know ISOC organises technical community representation for MAG CSTD etc so probably has a quite different role to perform. You must be responding to Avri here, I didn’t mention ISOC.   >There has been confusion because some people are talking of a wider civil society coalition emerging (This prompted my questions and those of Carlos as to how this would relate to organisations such as Best Bits IGC etc). Although I have no problems which such an initiative if there is a need for it, I have made it clear that my personal involvement here is purely facilitating co-operation for the selection of common representatives, and any wider organisation establishment is a different process and will need to be facilitated separately.  >  >I hope that helps. This is a genuine attempt to get common nominations from civil society groups, and certainly has involvement and support of some of those most active in this field. I recognize that, and was not asking about it. And certainly the nominations and expressions of interest coming forward are from a very wide range of civil society interests who are involved with the above groups and their diverse global networks. >  >As regards statements – all of the above organisations, and individuals within them, are likely to make statements on issues that others in this coordination group would not agree with, on this list and on others. There have been no official statements on issues from this group to date and if there are in future they will be clearly identified as such. Right. All the best, Bill   >  >Ian Peter  >From: William Drake >Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 1:35 AM >To: Governance ; Avri Doria >Subject: Re: [governance] Message to the IGC [Call for Wider Civil Society to engage in a Coalition] >  Hi >  >On Dec 8, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >Hi, >> >>If it is networks and not organizations, or organized entities, thanx I do not believe that IGC belongs in the list of enumerated networks. >> >>Especially since almost all the members of the IGC are also in the BB. To me this this looks like double dipping. >> > I understand the argument but am not sure which is the second dip.  To my knowledge, BB is a platform that allows orgs and individuals to sign onto statements, it doesn’t have a fixed membership.  So absent a sign on in support, who would the representative of BB on the 1net coordination group or any other collaboration (e.g. the SP committees) actually represent, besides the five BB steering committee members? >  >BB is a good initiative with good folks but I just don’t understand its status in this context.   Nor do I understand what its position is on 1net and related, since key participants keep saying rather different things on the lists, some of them in rather ringingly definitive terms like “Civil society believes xyz” (needless to say, the rest of civil society was not asked and may not agree).    I think it’d be helpful if the steering committee would pow wow and come out with a clear statement as to its positions and for whom exactly they are speaking, as the various messages have caused a lot of confusion among other stakeholders on 1net who’ve been asking off list who are these folks and what’s the deal with them, and I have no idea how to respond. >  >Best >  >Bill > >>ISOC is a reasonable addition. >>~~~ >>avri >> > > >________________________________ > ____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon Dec 9 04:57:16 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:57:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello I’ve mentioned this to a couple people privately and should probably state publicly as well that I will be participating in the High Level Panel process as an “expert” advisor, e.g. in London I’ll be giving a talk about the nature of IG, running a break out session, etc. I believe there may be a couple other people from other SGs similarly appointed, TBC. I don’t know how they intend to deal with the request for a CS “representative” panel member, but understand nothing will happen in time for the London meeting. I have suggested publicly announcing the agenda and providing options for people to provide written inputs, we’ll see what happens. The London meeting is in four days and there’s a lot late rushing around to pull it together, so it’s a bit difficult to predict exactly how everything will play out. Best, Bill ********************************************************** 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 *********************************************************** On Dec 9, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > On Dec 8, 2013, at 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: > >> cc list trimmed to only one list. >> >> /transcript-president-opening-18nov13-en.pdf >> >> "USC, University of Southern California-Annenberg Foundation as well >> as the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have partnered with us so we >> ensure that this panel has some level of independency and is functioning >> on a broader scale globally" >> >> > > > WEF > > Adam > > > >> >> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>> Thanks for this Ian, could someone please explain to me what is meant by >>> this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other >>> organizations.. Is he referring to Inet here? Who are the other two >>> organizations? >>> >>> >>> >>> M >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter >>> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:34 AM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake >>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Adam, >>> >>> >>> >>> Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a role of >>> coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various reps >>> should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the reps >>> earlier). >>> >>> >>> >>> Hello Robin, >>> >>> >>> >>> I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off and >>> regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just got >>> back and ready for the next phase of work. >>> >>> >>> >>> As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to grow >>> the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was announced, we >>> made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc community, and >>> only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for broader >>> participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve while in >>> Buenos Aires. >>> >>> >>> >>> At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as more >>> independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will need to >>> confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the Chairman of >>> the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. >>> >>> >>> >>> I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will keep >>> you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that Frank >>> La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities interests very >>> vigilantly on top of our agendas. >>> >>> >>> >>> Fadi >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> From: Adam Peake >>> >>> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM >>> >>> To: Ian Peter >>> >>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> >>> Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Ian, >>> >>> >>> >>> Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is >>> due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as >>> >>>> an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at >>> >>>> this meeting in two weeks time. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was >>> >>>> imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the >>> >>>> people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit >>> >>>> names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing >>> >>>> would have been the alternative in this timeframe. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Ian Peter >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> 29 November 2013 >>> >>>> RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Dear Fadi and Nora: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of >>> >>>> representatives of the civil society networks most involved in >>> >>>> Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to >>> >>>> engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet >>> >>>> governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is >>> >>>> under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to >>> >>>> accept additional civil society participants to this panel to provide >>> >>>> more balance. >>> >>>> After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following >>> >>>> 2 civil society representatives to begin to balance against the much >>> >>>> larger numbers from government, the private sector, and technical >>> >>>> representatives placed on the initial panel. >>> >>>> Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High >>> >>>> Level Panel are: >>> >>>> 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) 2. Milton Mueller >>> >>>> (mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of >>> >>>> these names, and contact our representatives directly to arrange their >>> >>>> participation? >>> >>>> We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the >>> >>>> Diplo Foundation as a highly experienced and knowledgeable >>> >>>> facilitator. >>> >>>> We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable >>> >>>> representation of civil society in such panels and committees. >>> >>>> Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from >>> >>>> various civil society networks were: >>> >>>> Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation >>> >>>> Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) >>> >>>> Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Norbert >>> >>>> Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus >>> >>>> (IGC) >>> >>>> Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits >>> >>>> Signed, >>> >>>> Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 9 05:08:47 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 19:08:47 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Bill. Thanks for letting us know. Good to know you'll be involved -- hope it goes well and please keep us informed. Adam On Dec 9, 2013, at 6:57 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hello > > I’ve mentioned this to a couple people privately and should probably state publicly as well that I will be participating in the High Level Panel process as an “expert” advisor, e.g. in London I’ll be giving a talk about the nature of IG, running a break out session, etc. I believe there may be a couple other people from other SGs similarly appointed, TBC. I don’t know how they intend to deal with the request for a CS “representative” panel member, but understand nothing will happen in time for the London meeting. > > I have suggested publicly announcing the agenda and providing options for people to provide written inputs, we’ll see what happens. The London meeting is in four days and there’s a lot late rushing around to pull it together, so it’s a bit difficult to predict exactly how everything will play out. > > Best, > > Bill > > ********************************************************** > 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 > *********************************************************** > > > > > > On Dec 9, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> >> On Dec 8, 2013, at 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: >> >>> cc list trimmed to only one list. >>> >>> /transcript-president-opening-18nov13-en.pdf >>> >>> "USC, University of Southern California-Annenberg Foundation as well >>> as the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have partnered with us so we >>> ensure that this panel has some level of independency and is functioning >>> on a broader scale globally" >>> >>> >> >> >> WEF >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>>> Thanks for this Ian, could someone please explain to me what is meant by >>>> this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other >>>> organizations.. Is he referring to Inet here? Who are the other two >>>> organizations? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> M >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter >>>> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:34 AM >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake >>>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Adam, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a role of >>>> coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various reps >>>> should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the reps >>>> earlier). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hello Robin, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off and >>>> regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just got >>>> back and ready for the next phase of work. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to grow >>>> the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was announced, we >>>> made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc community, and >>>> only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for broader >>>> participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve while in >>>> Buenos Aires. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as more >>>> independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will need to >>>> confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the Chairman of >>>> the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will keep >>>> you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that Frank >>>> La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities interests very >>>> vigilantly on top of our agendas. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Fadi >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >>>> From: Adam Peake >>>> >>>> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM >>>> >>>> To: Ian Peter >>>> >>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> >>>> Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Ian, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is >>>> due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as >>>> >>>>> an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at >>>> >>>>> this meeting in two weeks time. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was >>>> >>>>> imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the >>>> >>>>> people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit >>>> >>>>> names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing >>>> >>>>> would have been the alternative in this timeframe. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Ian Peter >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> 29 November 2013 >>>> >>>>> RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Dear Fadi and Nora: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of >>>> >>>>> representatives of the civil society networks most involved in >>>> >>>>> Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to >>>> >>>>> engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet >>>> >>>>> governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is >>>> >>>>> under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to >>>> >>>>> accept additional civil society participants to this panel to provide >>>> >>>>> more balance. >>>> >>>>> After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following >>>> >>>>> 2 civil society representatives to begin to balance against the much >>>> >>>>> larger numbers from government, the private sector, and technical >>>> >>>>> representatives placed on the initial panel. >>>> >>>>> Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High >>>> >>>>> Level Panel are: >>>> >>>>> 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) 2. Milton Mueller >>>> >>>>> (mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of >>>> >>>>> these names, and contact our representatives directly to arrange their >>>> >>>>> participation? >>>> >>>>> We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the >>>> >>>>> Diplo Foundation as a highly experienced and knowledgeable >>>> >>>>> facilitator. >>>> >>>>> We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable >>>> >>>>> representation of civil society in such panels and committees. >>>> >>>>> Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from >>>> >>>>> various civil society networks were: >>>> >>>>> Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation >>>> >>>>> Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) >>>> >>>>> Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Norbert >>>> >>>>> Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus >>>> >>>>> (IGC) >>>> >>>>> Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits >>>> >>>>> Signed, >>>> >>>>> Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator >>>> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Dec 9 05:13:38 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 19:13:38 +0900 Subject: [governance] Surveillance In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013322A0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <0f1401ceefcb$c55ed890$501c89b0$@gmail.com> <18BFEF69-E6F5-45F2-8FD0-A83A8F4A8B27@gmail.com> <52A39E7F.8060507@cafonso.ca> <3187daf1-410e-43ea-8025-a7ebd2f55541@email.android.com> <817BDF74-0F3A-42B7-B8B6-0FE3F58D3879@gmail.com> <79746DE48F094F1382D72632510CDE42@Toshiba> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013322A0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Thanks. BTW, is typosquatting still OK :-) Adam On Dec 9, 2013, at 6:22 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > FYI > > http://reformgovernmentsurveillance.com/ > > w > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Dec 9 05:40:58 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 16:10:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> Message-ID: I can't think of a better choice. --srs (iPad) > On 09-Dec-2013, at 15:38, Adam Peake wrote: > > Hi Bill. > > Thanks for letting us know. Good to know you'll be involved -- hope it goes well and please keep us informed. > > Adam > > > >> On Dec 9, 2013, at 6:57 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >> Hello >> >> I’ve mentioned this to a couple people privately and should probably state publicly as well that I will be participating in the High Level Panel process as an “expert” advisor, e.g. in London I’ll be giving a talk about the nature of IG, running a break out session, etc. I believe there may be a couple other people from other SGs similarly appointed, TBC. I don’t know how they intend to deal with the request for a CS “representative” panel member, but understand nothing will happen in time for the London meeting. >> >> I have suggested publicly announcing the agenda and providing options for people to provide written inputs, we’ll see what happens. The London meeting is in four days and there’s a lot late rushing around to pull it together, so it’s a bit difficult to predict exactly how everything will play out. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> ********************************************************** >> 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 >> *********************************************************** >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Dec 9, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Dec 8, 2013, at 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: >>>> >>>> cc list trimmed to only one list. >>>> >>>> /transcript-president-opening-18nov13-en.pdf >>>> >>>> "USC, University of Southern California-Annenberg Foundation as well >>>> as the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have partnered with us so we >>>> ensure that this panel has some level of independency and is functioning >>>> on a broader scale globally" >>> >>> >>> WEF >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>>>> Thanks for this Ian, could someone please explain to me what is meant by >>>>> this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other >>>>> organizations.. Is he referring to Inet here? Who are the other two >>>>> organizations? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> M >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter >>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:34 AM >>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake >>>>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Adam, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a role of >>>>> coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various reps >>>>> should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the reps >>>>> earlier). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hello Robin, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off and >>>>> regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just got >>>>> back and ready for the next phase of work. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to grow >>>>> the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was announced, we >>>>> made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc community, and >>>>> only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for broader >>>>> participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve while in >>>>> Buenos Aires. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as more >>>>> independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will need to >>>>> confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the Chairman of >>>>> the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will keep >>>>> you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that Frank >>>>> La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities interests very >>>>> vigilantly on top of our agendas. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Fadi >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> >>>>> From: Adam Peake >>>>> >>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM >>>>> >>>>> To: Ian Peter >>>>> >>>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>>> >>>>> Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Ian, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is >>>>> due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as >>>>> >>>>>> an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at >>>>> >>>>>> this meeting in two weeks time. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was >>>>> >>>>>> imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the >>>>> >>>>>> people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit >>>>> >>>>>> names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing >>>>> >>>>>> would have been the alternative in this timeframe. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Ian Peter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 29 November 2013 >>>>> >>>>>> RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Dear Fadi and Nora: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of >>>>> >>>>>> representatives of the civil society networks most involved in >>>>> >>>>>> Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to >>>>> >>>>>> engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet >>>>> >>>>>> governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is >>>>> >>>>>> under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to >>>>> >>>>>> accept additional civil society participants to this panel to provide >>>>> >>>>>> more balance. >>>>> >>>>>> After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following >>>>> >>>>>> 2 civil society representatives to begin to balance against the much >>>>> >>>>>> larger numbers from government, the private sector, and technical >>>>> >>>>>> representatives placed on the initial panel. >>>>> >>>>>> Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High >>>>> >>>>>> Level Panel are: >>>>> >>>>>> 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) 2. Milton Mueller >>>>> >>>>>> (mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of >>>>> >>>>>> these names, and contact our representatives directly to arrange their >>>>> >>>>>> participation? >>>>> >>>>>> We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the >>>>> >>>>>> Diplo Foundation as a highly experienced and knowledgeable >>>>> >>>>>> facilitator. >>>>> >>>>>> We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable >>>>> >>>>>> representation of civil society in such panels and committees. >>>>> >>>>>> Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from >>>>> >>>>>> various civil society networks were: >>>>> >>>>>> Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation >>>>> >>>>>> Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) >>>>> >>>>>> Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Norbert >>>>> >>>>>> Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus >>>>> >>>>>> (IGC) >>>>> >>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits >>>>> >>>>>> Signed, >>>>> >>>>>> Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Dec 9 06:03:01 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 12:03:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Background information on Montevideo meeting Message-ID: <20131209120301.70fb1c3e@quill> Dear all Since I'm probably not the only one here interested in this kind of thing: I've just come across background information on the I* meeting from which the Montevideo statement came. This is in the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtOfsC2n_lQ starting at minute 31.00 (ISOC President/CEO Lynn St. Amour is speaking there.) 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 jovank at diplomacy.edu Mon Dec 9 07:07:08 2013 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 13:07:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370 CA01ECD257517A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> Thank you David, for clarifying this point. Tim, additional clarification is in footnote [1]: ...... the UN Charter in the article 41 specifies that sanctions may include ‘complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations’. The possibility of ‘deleting a country from the Internet’ or cutting the Internet links was not used in any of the main international conflicts or sanctions regimes, from the Balkans in 1990s till the recent one in Syria. Although the UN Charter provides a legal basis, the possibility of stopping services of 'resolving' top level domain of countries under the sanctions has never been used. Tim, on this question... Did you mean that they would be the rootzone admin and the database/manager? They already host a rootserver (L) and are (via IANA function) the DB manager./// JOVAN: David clarified that ICANN does not host the root server. In the blog text, the Verisign option would be covered in "continuing to use the current location would require changes in the US national law, in order to ensure international inviolability of the root database". Since a change in the US law for this type of immunity/inviolability could be a complex exercise, the solution for hosting the server by ICANN could be simpler, especially if a broader arrangement is made for ICANN+ (making ICANN a quasi-international organisation). This could be also a solution for immunity for ICANN's role as DB manager. David, I agree that root zone issue is a symbolic one. The US 'deletion’ move is almost as improbable as the chance that the Higgs Boson experiment in CERN will create anti-matter field which can siphon the Earth through a black hole. But, this probability excited some journalist in Geneva (nice Dan Brown style story). The rootzone question is symbolic and it should be addressed that way. Otherwise, we will - at best - continue wasting our time on it or - at worst - have it escalating into the major issue in the fast shifting political context. Regards, Jovan On 12/9/13 2:53 AM, David Conrad wrote: > Hi, > > On Dec 8, 2013, at 8:26 PM, McTim wrote: >> "The USA has never used this technical possibility to remove a country >> from the Internet (US DOC authorizes ICANN via an IANA contract, to >> manage the root zone).[1]" >> >> Can you explain how the US could do this as a "technical possibilty". >> AFAIK, they only ascertain if the change was done according to IANA >> procedure. They don't have control over the zone itself. > I gather the theory is that some part of the US Government would issue some sort of legally binding directive outside of the normal IANA root zone management function. Realistically, I'd imagine that directive would be applied to Verisign, not ICANN since Verisign is the only organization that has the technical capability to change the root zone unilaterally. Of course, it remains unclear whether the root server operators would accept such a change, but I gather we're talking symbology and theory here. > >> When you wrote "Such an ICANN+ would both host the root server, and >> manage the root database." > I'm not sure what "host the root server" means here. > >> Did you mean that they would be the rootzone admin and the database >> manager? They already host a rootserver (L) and are (via IANA >> function) the DB manager. > There might be a bit of confusion here. To be explicit in the roles: > > - ICANN, as the IANA function operator, validates (in terms of syntax, semantics, and that the request can from an authorized party, i.e., the TLD administrator) root zone change requests and submits those validated requests for authorization to NTIA. ICANN is _not_ the database manager. > > - US Dept. of Commerce, NTIA authorizes those change requests, verifying ICANN has performed the IANA root zone management function appropriately. Once authorized, the change request is released to Verisign for implementation. > > - Verisign, under a cooperative agreement with NTIA, acts as the root zone maintainer. Verisign accepts the NTIA-authorized root zone change request, implements that change request in the root zone by updating the root zone database, resigns the root zone with the DNSSEC zone signing key (which has been signed by the key signing key maintained by ICANN), and then places the changed and newly signed root zone onto a distribution server, notifying (via the DNS protocol) that a new zone is available. > > - The 12 root server operators, either due to the notification sent by Verisign or because of timers built into the root zone, automatically pull the new root zone from the distribution server and place it on their servers (which, in most cases, actually a constellation of instances all over the planet). For example, ICANN, as one of the 12 root server operators, pulls the root zone from the distribution master server and then pushes it out to the 146 sites (300+ machines last I heard) that respond to DNS queries sent to the "L" root server address. > > I hope this clarifies. > > Regards, > -drc > -- *Jovan Kurbalija, PhD* Director, DiploFoundation Rue de Lausanne 56 *| *1202 Geneva*|***Switzerland *Tel.*+41 (0) 22 7410435 *| **Mobile.*+41 (0) 797884226 *Email: *jovank at diplomacy.edu*| **Twitter:*@jovankurbalija *The latest from Diplo:*today – this week – this month *l* Conference on Innovation in Diplomacy (Malta, 19-20 November 2012) *l *new online courses -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Dec 9 07:23:33 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 13:23:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: HI Jovan, On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > Thank you David, for clarifying this point. Tim, additional clarification is > in footnote [1]: ...... the UN Charter in the article 41 specifies that > sanctions may include ‘complete or partial interruption of economic > relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means > of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations’. The > possibility of ‘deleting a country from the Internet’ or cutting the > Internet links was not used in any of the main international conflicts or > sanctions regimes, from the Balkans in 1990s till the recent one in Syria. I think you missed my point. I was wondering HOW the US could delete a ccTLD? Only the zone admin can technically edit a zone file (unless you are talking about hacking into VRSN). I guess what I was saying is that you seem to think they have this power to edit currently. That is not my understanding, and David's clarification backs that up. > > > > Although the UN Charter provides a legal basis, the possibility of stopping > services of 'resolving' top level domain of countries under the sanctions > has never been used. So what you are saying is that the UN could tell the US to stop serving the records for a ccTLD and the US could then tell VRSN (by court order?) to delete that ccTLD? If that is the case, and VRSN complied (which I think they would fight BTW) then it would be a UN "power" and the US would just be an agent of the UN? > > Tim, on this question... > > > Did you mean that they would be the rootzone admin and the database manager? > They already host a rootserver (L) and are (via IANA function) the DB > manager. > > > > > JOVAN: David clarified that ICANN does not host the root server. I think he clarified that IANA is the DB admin (which was always clear to me). ICANN runs the IANA function now. I had lumped them together in my "they". http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db VRSN runs the distribution server, is this what you mean by "host the root server"? ICANN runs "L" rootserver. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel In the blog > text, the Verisign option would be covered in "continuing to use the current > location would require changes in the US national law, in order to ensure > international inviolability of the root database". Since a change in the US > law for this type of immunity/inviolability could be a complex exercise, the > solution for hosting the server by ICANN could be simpler, especially if a > broader arrangement is made for ICANN+ (making ICANN a quasi-international > organisation). This could be also a solution for immunity for ICANN's role > as DB manager. > > David, I agree that root zone issue is a symbolic one. The US 'deletion’ > move is almost as improbable as the chance that the Higgs Boson experiment > in CERN will create anti-matter field which can siphon the Earth through a > black hole. But, this probability excited some journalist in Geneva (nice > Dan Brown style story). > > > > The rootzone question is symbolic and it should be addressed that way. > Otherwise, we will - at best - continue wasting our time on it or - at worst > - have it escalating into the major issue in the fast shifting political > context. > > > Regards, Jovan > > > > On 12/9/13 2:53 AM, David Conrad wrote: > > Hi, > > On Dec 8, 2013, at 8:26 PM, McTim wrote: > > "The USA has never used this technical possibility to remove a country > from the Internet (US DOC authorizes ICANN via an IANA contract, to > manage the root zone).[1]" > > Can you explain how the US could do this as a "technical possibilty". > AFAIK, they only ascertain if the change was done according to IANA > procedure. They don't have control over the zone itself. > > I gather the theory is that some part of the US Government would issue some > sort of legally binding directive outside of the normal IANA root zone > management function. Realistically, I'd imagine that directive would be > applied to Verisign, not ICANN since Verisign is the only organization that > has the technical capability to change the root zone unilaterally. Of > course, it remains unclear whether the root server operators would accept > such a change, but I gather we're talking symbology and theory here. > > When you wrote "Such an ICANN+ would both host the root server, and > manage the root database." > > I'm not sure what "host the root server" means here. > > Did you mean that they would be the rootzone admin and the database > manager? They already host a rootserver (L) and are (via IANA > function) the DB manager. > > There might be a bit of confusion here. To be explicit in the roles: > > - ICANN, as the IANA function operator, validates (in terms of syntax, > semantics, and that the request can from an authorized party, i.e., the TLD > administrator) root zone change requests and submits those validated > requests for authorization to NTIA. ICANN is _not_ the database manager. > > - US Dept. of Commerce, NTIA authorizes those change requests, verifying > ICANN has performed the IANA root zone management function appropriately. > Once authorized, the change request is released to Verisign for > implementation. > > - Verisign, under a cooperative agreement with NTIA, acts as the root zone > maintainer. Verisign accepts the NTIA-authorized root zone change request, > implements that change request in the root zone by updating the root zone > database, resigns the root zone with the DNSSEC zone signing key (which has > been signed by the key signing key maintained by ICANN), and then places the > changed and newly signed root zone onto a distribution server, notifying > (via the DNS protocol) that a new zone is available. > > - The 12 root server operators, either due to the notification sent by > Verisign or because of timers built into the root zone, automatically pull > the new root zone from the distribution server and place it on their servers > (which, in most cases, actually a constellation of instances all over the > planet). For example, ICANN, as one of the 12 root server operators, pulls > the root zone from the distribution master server and then pushes it out to > the 146 sites (300+ machines last I heard) that respond to DNS queries sent > to the "L" root server address. > > I hope this clarifies. > > Regards, > -drc > > > -- > > > > Jovan Kurbalija, PhD > > Director, DiploFoundation > > Rue de Lausanne 56 | 1202 Geneva | Switzerland > > Tel. +41 (0) 22 7410435 | Mobile. +41 (0) 797884226 > > Email: jovank at diplomacy.edu | Twitter: @jovankurbalija > > > > > > The latest from Diplo: today – this week – this month l Conference on > Innovation in Diplomacy (Malta, 19-20 November 2012) l new online courses -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Mon Dec 9 07:48:24 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 10:48:24 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello all, It is positive that they include experts like Bill. If someone knows if there will be other experts and facilitators and who are they, it would be great to have this information. It is pretty disappointing that we have no certainty that the two names appointed by CS will be included, and also that neither will be included before London. It would be sensitive to have them there, at least as observers. I believe that whoever is able to be present from CS could raise a couple points about the procedures that HL should adopt to increase transparency. It does not matter that this is an ICANN initiative, the importance of the topic and the fact that this is an issue of interest to the whole community justify the request for transparency. Some points that come to my mind are: - the agenda of the HL panel meetings should be publicized in advance - channels to receive inputs (procedural or substantive) should be created or clarified - their meetings should be open to observers (like the meetings of the CSTD ECWG) - Reports of the meetings should be published. They could follow Chatam House rules Best wishes! Marília On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I can't think of a better choice. > > --srs (iPad) > > > On 09-Dec-2013, at 15:38, Adam Peake wrote: > > > > Hi Bill. > > > > Thanks for letting us know. Good to know you'll be involved -- hope it > goes well and please keep us informed. > > > > Adam > > > > > > > >> On Dec 9, 2013, at 6:57 PM, William Drake wrote: > >> > >> Hello > >> > >> I’ve mentioned this to a couple people privately and should probably > state publicly as well that I will be participating in the High Level Panel > process as an “expert” advisor, e.g. in London I’ll be giving a talk about > the nature of IG, running a break out session, etc. I believe there may be > a couple other people from other SGs similarly appointed, TBC. I don’t > know how they intend to deal with the request for a CS “representative” > panel member, but understand nothing will happen in time for the London > meeting. > >> > >> I have suggested publicly announcing the agenda and providing options > for people to provide written inputs, we’ll see what happens. The London > meeting is in four days and there’s a lot late rushing around to pull it > together, so it’s a bit difficult to predict exactly how everything will > play out. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Bill > >> > >> ********************************************************** > >> 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 > >> *********************************************************** > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Dec 9, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Dec 8, 2013, at 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: > >>>> > >>>> cc list trimmed to only one list. > >>>> > >>>> /transcript-president-opening-18nov13-en.pdf > >>>> > >>>> "USC, University of Southern California-Annenberg Foundation as well > >>>> as the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have partnered with us so we > >>>> ensure that this panel has some level of independency and is > functioning > >>>> on a broader scale globally" > >>> > >>> > >>> WEF < > http://www.weforum.org/content/global-agenda-council-future-internet-2012-2014 > > > >>> > >>> Adam > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, michael gurstein < > gurstein at gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> Thanks for this Ian, could someone please explain to me what is > meant by > >>>>> this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other > >>>>> organizations.. Is he referring to Inet here? Who are the other two > >>>>> organizations? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> M > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > >>>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter > >>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:34 AM > >>>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake > >>>>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Adam, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a > role of > >>>>> coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various > reps > >>>>> should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the > reps > >>>>> earlier). > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Hello Robin, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off > and > >>>>> regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just > got > >>>>> back and ready for the next phase of work. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to > grow > >>>>> the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was > announced, we > >>>>> made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc > community, and > >>>>> only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for > broader > >>>>> participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve > while in > >>>>> Buenos Aires. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as > more > >>>>> independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will > need to > >>>>> confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the > Chairman of > >>>>> the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will > keep > >>>>> you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that > Frank > >>>>> La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities > interests very > >>>>> vigilantly on top of our agendas. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Fadi > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>> > >>>>> From: Adam Peake > >>>>> > >>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM > >>>>> > >>>>> To: Ian Peter > >>>>> > >>>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > >>>>> > >>>>> Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Ian, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level > panel is > >>>>> due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Adam > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as > >>>>> > >>>>>> an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation > at > >>>>> > >>>>>> this meeting in two weeks time. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result > was > >>>>> > >>>>>> imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the > >>>>> > >>>>>> people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation > process. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit > >>>>> > >>>>>> names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying > nothing > >>>>> > >>>>>> would have been the alternative in this timeframe. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Ian Peter > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> 29 November 2013 > >>>>> > >>>>>> RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> Dear Fadi and Nora: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition > of > >>>>> > >>>>>> representatives of the civil society networks most involved in > >>>>> > >>>>>> Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to > >>>>> > >>>>>> engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet > >>>>> > >>>>>> governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society > is > >>>>> > >>>>>> under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to > >>>>> > >>>>>> accept additional civil society participants to this panel to > provide > >>>>> > >>>>>> more balance. > >>>>> > >>>>>> After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the > following > >>>>> > >>>>>> 2 civil society representatives to begin to balance against the much > >>>>> > >>>>>> larger numbers from government, the private sector, and technical > >>>>> > >>>>>> representatives placed on the initial panel. > >>>>> > >>>>>> Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High > >>>>> > >>>>>> Level Panel are: > >>>>> > >>>>>> 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) 2. Milton Mueller > >>>>> > >>>>>> (mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance > of > >>>>> > >>>>>> these names, and contact our representatives directly to arrange > their > >>>>> > >>>>>> participation? > >>>>> > >>>>>> We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the > >>>>> > >>>>>> Diplo Foundation as a highly experienced and knowledgeable > >>>>> > >>>>>> facilitator. > >>>>> > >>>>>> We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more > equitable > >>>>> > >>>>>> representation of civil society in such panels and committees. > >>>>> > >>>>>> Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from > >>>>> > >>>>>> various civil society networks were: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation > >>>>> > >>>>>> Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications > (APC) > >>>>> > >>>>>> Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) > Norbert > >>>>> > >>>>>> Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus > >>>>> > >>>>>> (IGC) > >>>>> > >>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits > >>>>> > >>>>>> Signed, > >>>>> > >>>>>> Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Dec 9 11:53:15 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 16:53:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Let me be indelicate enough to raise an issue that probably no one wants to deal with but needs to be raised. And despite certain appearances, it is not a personal interest here but a process one. The IGC, and several other groups, worked together to forward two recommended names to the President of ICANN. Congrats to some extent on being appointed to this HLLM, but your name was not on that CS-provided list, Bill. At this stage of the game I am certainly not suggesting that you turn it down, but one does want to know what kind of a process we are in and what kind of criteria are being applied? Other people are asking us for recommended lists of names for various positions. Aside from the usual junk associated with people positioning for these things, we need to assess the good faith and cooperative spirit of those who are making these requests. To put a finer point on it, what are the implications of CS being asked to provide recommended names, providing them, and then having a completely different name selected? I know it's an uncomfortable topic but I think we'd have to be self-delusional not to discuss it. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 4:57 AM To: Governance; Adam Peake Cc: McTim McTim; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Hello I've mentioned this to a couple people privately and should probably state publicly as well that I will be participating in the High Level Panel process as an "expert" advisor, e.g. in London I'll be giving a talk about the nature of IG, running a break out session, etc. I believe there may be a couple other people from other SGs similarly appointed, TBC. I don't know how they intend to deal with the request for a CS "representative" panel member, but understand nothing will happen in time for the London meeting. I have suggested publicly announcing the agenda and providing options for people to provide written inputs, we'll see what happens. The London meeting is in four days and there's a lot late rushing around to pull it together, so it's a bit difficult to predict exactly how everything will play out. Best, Bill ********************************************************** 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 *********************************************************** On Dec 9, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Adam Peake > wrote: On Dec 8, 2013, at 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: cc list trimmed to only one list. /transcript-president-opening-18nov13-en.pdf "USC, University of Southern California-Annenberg Foundation as well as the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have partnered with us so we ensure that this panel has some level of independency and is functioning on a broader scale globally" WEF Adam On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: Thanks for this Ian, could someone please explain to me what is meant by this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other organizations.. Is he referring to Inet here? Who are the other two organizations? M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:34 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Hi Adam, Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a role of coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various reps should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the reps earlier). Hello Robin, I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off and regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just got back and ready for the next phase of work. As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to grow the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was announced, we made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc community, and only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for broader participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve while in Buenos Aires. At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will need to confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the Chairman of the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will keep you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that Frank La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities interests very vigilantly on top of our agendas. Fadi -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM To: Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Hi Ian, Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. Best, Adam On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at this meeting in two weeks time. Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing would have been the alternative in this timeframe. Ian Peter 29 November 2013 RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London Dear Fadi and Nora: I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of representatives of the civil society networks most involved in Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to accept additional civil society participants to this panel to provide more balance. After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following 2 civil society representatives to begin to balance against the much larger numbers from government, the private sector, and technical representatives placed on the initial panel. Civil society's two nominated representatives for the London High Level Panel are: 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) 2. Milton Mueller (mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of these names, and contact our representatives directly to arrange their participation? We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the Diplo Foundation as a highly experienced and knowledgeable facilitator. We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable representation of civil society in such panels and committees. Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from various civil society networks were: Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Norbert Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Signed, Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 9 12:00:32 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 18:00:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Let me be indelicate enough to raise an issue that probably no one wants to > deal with but needs to be raised. And despite certain appearances, it is not > a personal interest here but a process one. > > The IGC, and several other groups, worked together to forward two > recommended names to the President of ICANN. Which we were deluding ourselves into thinking that 2 would be named tot he Panel. One was offered IIUC, and only post-London. > > > > Congrats to some extent on being appointed to this HLLM IIUC, he is not on the Panel itself, just advising/capacity-building. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Dec 9 12:18:32 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 17:18:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> ,<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Point taken Milton given this ongoing rush of events, as much cs-self-transparency as possible is welcome/required, so thanks Bill for sharing and good luck! There is a difference in role/responsibility between being an appointed cs expert contributor and process facilitator, and designated CS rep. And there's room for more than a few more cesers in both categories I suggest, which would also help distribute the work-load. And, would lend further instant global credibility by demonstrate Fadi's/ICANN's/1net's/hllm's/whomever's good faith efforts to lead an all-inclusive step-forward effort towards and beyond Brazil. Lee PS Yeah Fadi that's a hint that we want more ; ) ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 11:53 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Let me be indelicate enough to raise an issue that probably no one wants to deal with but needs to be raised. And despite certain appearances, it is not a personal interest here but a process one. The IGC, and several other groups, worked together to forward two recommended names to the President of ICANN. Congrats to some extent on being appointed to this HLLM, but your name was not on that CS-provided list, Bill. At this stage of the game I am certainly not suggesting that you turn it down, but one does want to know what kind of a process we are in and what kind of criteria are being applied? Other people are asking us for recommended lists of names for various positions. Aside from the usual junk associated with people positioning for these things, we need to assess the good faith and cooperative spirit of those who are making these requests. To put a finer point on it, what are the implications of CS being asked to provide recommended names, providing them, and then having a completely different name selected? I know it’s an uncomfortable topic but I think we’d have to be self-delusional not to discuss it. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 4:57 AM To: Governance; Adam Peake Cc: McTim McTim; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Hello I’ve mentioned this to a couple people privately and should probably state publicly as well that I will be participating in the High Level Panel process as an “expert” advisor, e.g. in London I’ll be giving a talk about the nature of IG, running a break out session, etc. I believe there may be a couple other people from other SGs similarly appointed, TBC. I don’t know how they intend to deal with the request for a CS “representative” panel member, but understand nothing will happen in time for the London meeting. I have suggested publicly announcing the agenda and providing options for people to provide written inputs, we’ll see what happens. The London meeting is in four days and there’s a lot late rushing around to pull it together, so it’s a bit difficult to predict exactly how everything will play out. Best, Bill ********************************************************** 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 *********************************************************** On Dec 9, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Adam Peake > wrote: On Dec 8, 2013, at 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: cc list trimmed to only one list. /transcript-president-opening-18nov13-en.pdf "USC, University of Southern California-Annenberg Foundation as well as the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have partnered with us so we ensure that this panel has some level of independency and is functioning on a broader scale globally" WEF Adam On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: Thanks for this Ian, could someone please explain to me what is meant by this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other organizations.. Is he referring to Inet here? Who are the other two organizations? M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:34 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Hi Adam, Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a role of coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various reps should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the reps earlier). Hello Robin, I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off and regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just got back and ready for the next phase of work. As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to grow the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was announced, we made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc community, and only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for broader participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve while in Buenos Aires. At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will need to confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the Chairman of the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will keep you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that Frank La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities interests very vigilantly on top of our agendas. Fadi -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM To: Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Hi Ian, Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. Best, Adam On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at this meeting in two weeks time. Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing would have been the alternative in this timeframe. Ian Peter 29 November 2013 RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London Dear Fadi and Nora: I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of representatives of the civil society networks most involved in Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to accept additional civil society participants to this panel to provide more balance. After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following 2 civil society representatives to begin to balance against the much larger numbers from government, the private sector, and technical representatives placed on the initial panel. Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High Level Panel are: 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) 2. Milton Mueller (mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of these names, and contact our representatives directly to arrange their participation? We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the Diplo Foundation as a highly experienced and knowledgeable facilitator. We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable representation of civil society in such panels and committees. Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from various civil society networks were: Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Norbert Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Signed, Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com Mon Dec 9 13:23:39 2013 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 19:23:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> ,<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: All of this is very impressive! Does the lists feel comfortable with that type of situation? It seems that, in this IG world, many things have no stable definition at all. What's about the definition of 'trust', or 'respect'? Too complex? I think what we observe here is not the right path to heal the 'governance gap'* , nor to come to a 'single definition of Internet Governance'**, nor to address 'orphan issues'*** and certainly not a good way to look at a 'single list of governance issues'****. And obviously not help to define a 'single set of principles'*****. We should not worry about that. Why? see below. These 'expressions' are forbidden since ICANN48, as per Alejandro Pisanty, chair of ISOC Mexico, stated that these expressions have to be banned from the I stars (I*, 1Net, ISOC...) narrative. Surprisingly everyone in the room seemed to enjoy that rather odd collection of 'NO'! I need t to find a couple of speeches by notorious totalitarians using such a restrictive vision of a democratic debate. Here what ISOC Mexico Chair suggested to all ISOCs around the planet: * "We should not accept the term 'governance gap'. That’s an invention that has been a very popular invention (inaudible) but we should not use it in our vocabulary." ** "We should have 'no single definition of Internet governance'. We should push against the idea that the Brazil meeting, or anything else, will produce a definition of Internet Governance which would be good for everybody, every time and for many years. We have different definitions of Internet Governance depending of countries, regions, interests, religions and so forth and we should thrive for them to stay diverse." *** "We should not use in our vocabulary ‘orphan issues’. It might be argued that there are organ, sorry orphan issues in IG but most of the time if something is an issue, there is already someone, some organization, couple of engineers trying to work on it. They may be not of enough scale or expertise to grow globally or to split up multi regionally. There are very few real orphan issues in IG. Many of the things that appear as orphan issues are not IG issue but legal issues. Your judges are not well trained to identify cybercrime as a form of crime, or you do not have that law but it’s a national law not a global law." **** "We should not have a 'single list of issues for governance'. There are people who got it one way, people who got it another way. There are people who put spam and pfishing together. Other pfishing and cybersecurity together. Let that happen. Let these thousand flowers of definition blossom." ***** "We should avoid to establish a 'single set of principles' which is among other things, one declared an objective of the Brazilian meeting. During the eight years of IGF, there are already been two dozens or so of IG definition. They are not all compatible." etc, etc, etc... Former president of South Africa, back in the 50's once explained to the media and their audiences, the meaning of 'APARTHEID'. "This Afrikaner word meant 'GOOD NEIGHBORING'. An expression of progress". A beautiful way to twist reality. Manipulating and alluding people, erasing definitions, avoiding debates... All of these drive toward what the worst regimes can offer to its subordinates. "We are the revolutionaries. They are the counter revolutionaries." Comfortable? JC Off-list: Now that Bill is part of the HLP as an expert, members of the lists could kindly suggest that Bill serves as a CS liaison to the HLP. At the end of the day, that would have been a good way for ICANN to... More trust coming. Le 9 déc. 2013 à 18:18, Lee W McKnight a écrit : > Point taken Milton given this ongoing rush of events, as much cs-self-transparency as possible is welcome/required, so thanks Bill for sharing and good luck! > > There is a difference in role/responsibility between being an appointed cs expert contributor and process facilitator, and designated CS rep. > > And there's room for more than a few more cesers in both categories I suggest, which would also help distribute the work-load. > > And, would lend further instant global credibility by demonstrate Fadi's/ICANN's/1net's/hllm's/whomever's good faith efforts to lead an all-inclusive step-forward effort towards and beyond Brazil. > > Lee > > PS Yeah Fadi that's a hint that we want more ; ) > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 11:53 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > Let me be indelicate enough to raise an issue that probably no one wants to deal with but needs to be raised. And despite certain appearances, it is not a personal interest here but a process one. > The IGC, and several other groups, worked together to forward two recommended names to the President of ICANN. > > Congrats to some extent on being appointed to this HLLM, but your name was not on that CS-provided list, Bill. At this stage of the game I am certainly not suggesting that you turn it down, but one does want to know what kind of a process we are in and what kind of criteria are being applied? > > Other people are asking us for recommended lists of names for various positions. Aside from the usual junk associated with people positioning for these things, we need to assess the good faith and cooperative spirit of those who are making these requests. To put a finer point on it, what are the implications of CS being asked to provide recommended names, providing them, and then having a completely different name selected? > > I know it’s an uncomfortable topic but I think we’d have to be self-delusional not to discuss it. > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake > Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 4:57 AM > To: Governance; Adam Peake > Cc: McTim McTim; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > Hello > > I’ve mentioned this to a couple people privately and should probably state publicly as well that I will be participating in the High Level Panel process as an “expert” advisor, e.g. in London I’ll be giving a talk about the nature of IG, running a break out session, etc. I believe there may be a couple other people from other SGs similarly appointed, TBC. I don’t know how they intend to deal with the request for a CS “representative” panel member, but understand nothing will happen in time for the London meeting. > > I have suggested publicly announcing the agenda and providing options for people to provide written inputs, we’ll see what happens. The London meeting is in four days and there’s a lot late rushing around to pull it together, so it’s a bit difficult to predict exactly how everything will play out. > > Best, > > Bill > > ********************************************************** > 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 > *********************************************************** > > > > > On Dec 9, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > > On Dec 8, 2013, at 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: > > > cc list trimmed to only one list. > > /transcript-president-opening-18nov13-en.pdf > > "USC, University of Southern California-Annenberg Foundation as well > as the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have partnered with us so we > ensure that this panel has some level of independency and is functioning > on a broader scale globally" > > > > > WEF > > Adam > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Thanks for this Ian, could someone please explain to me what is meant by > this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other > organizations.. Is he referring to Inet here? Who are the other two > organizations? > > > > M > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:34 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > > > Hi Adam, > > > > Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a role of > coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various reps > should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the reps > earlier). > > > > Hello Robin, > > > > I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off and > regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just got > back and ready for the next phase of work. > > > > As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to grow > the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was announced, we > made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc community, and > only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for broader > participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve while in > Buenos Aires. > > > > At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as more > independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will need to > confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the Chairman of > the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. > > > > I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will keep > you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that Frank > La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities interests very > vigilantly on top of our agendas. > > > > Fadi > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Peake > > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM > > To: Ian Peter > > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > > > Hi Ian, > > > > Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is > due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. > > > > Best, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > > Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as > > > an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at > > > this meeting in two weeks time. > > > > > > Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was > > > imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the > > > people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. > > > > > > I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit > > > names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing > > > would have been the alternative in this timeframe. > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > 29 November 2013 > > > RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London > > > > > > Dear Fadi and Nora: > > > > > > I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of > > > representatives of the civil society networks most involved in > > > Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to > > > engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet > > > governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is > > > under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to > > > accept additional civil society participants to this panel to provide > > > more balance. > > > After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following > > > 2 civil society representatives to begin to balance against the much > > > larger numbers from government, the private sector, and technical > > > representatives placed on the initial panel. > > > Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High > > > Level Panel are: > > > 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) 2. Milton Mueller > > > (mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of > > > these names, and contact our representatives directly to arrange their > > > participation? > > > We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the > > > Diplo Foundation as a highly experienced and knowledgeable > > > facilitator. > > > We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable > > > representation of civil society in such panels and committees. > > > Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from > > > various civil society networks were: > > > Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation > > > Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > > > Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Norbert > > > Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus > > > (IGC) > > > Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits > > > Signed, > > > Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon Dec 9 14:50:03 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 20:50:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <3d6e6d1c-671c-4269-9c37-a2a4742cf0b9@email.android.com> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3d6e6d1c-671c-4269-9c37-a2a4742cf0b9@email.android.com> Message-ID: <9A696999-3990-42C6-89ED-808188B5BE75@uzh.ch> Hi Thanks, Avri. Milton I told you about this F2F in Bern the other day and said it again in the message to which you replied, so I’m not sure what the disconnect is. Read it again? No relation to the process you mention. Cheers Bill On Dec 9, 2013, at 5:58 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > As i understood it, he has not been appointed to the HLLN, but rather that they have approached him as an expert, which he is, on many things. > > These are very different things. > ~~~ > avri > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > Let me be indelicate enough to raise an issue that probably no one wants to deal with but needs to be raised. And despite certain appearances, it is not a personal interest here but a process one. > > > The IGC, and several other groups, worked together to forward two recommended names to the President of ICANN. > > > > > Congrats to some extent on being appointed to this HLLM, but your name was not on that CS-provided list, Bill. At this stage of the game I am certainly not suggesting that you turn it down, but one does want to know what kind of a process we are in and what kind of criteria are being applied? > > > > > Other people are asking us for recommended lists of names for various positions. Aside from the usual junk associated with people positioning for these things, we need to assess the good faith and cooperative spirit of those who are making these requests. To put a finer point on it, what are the implications of CS being asked to provide recommended names, providing them, and then having a completely different name selected? > > > > > I know it’s an uncomfortable topic but I think we’d have to be self-delusional not to discuss it. > > > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake > Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 4:57 AM > To: Governance; Adam Peake > Cc: McTim McTim; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > > > Hello > > > I’ve mentioned this to a couple people privately and should probably state publicly as well that I will be participating in the High Level Panel process as an “expert” advisor, e.g. in London I’ll be giving a talk about the nature of IG, running a break out session, etc. I believe there may be a couple other people from other SGs similarly appointed, TBC. I don’t know how they intend to deal with the request for a CS “representative” panel member, but understand nothing will happen in time for the London meeting. > > > I have suggested publicly announcing the agenda and providing options for people to provide written inputs, we’ll see what happens. The London meeting is in four days and there’s a lot late rushing around to pull it together, so it’s a bit difficult to predict exactly how everything will play out. > > > Best, > > > Bill > > > ********************************************************** > 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 > *********************************************************** > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 9, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 8, 2013, at 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: > > > > cc list trimmed to only one list. > > /transcript-president-opening-18nov13-en.pdf > > "USC, University of Southern California-Annenberg Foundation as well > as the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have partnered with us so we > ensure that this panel has some level of independency and is functioning > on a broader scale globally" > > > > > > WEF > > Adam > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > Thanks for this Ian, could someone please explain to me what is meant by > this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other > organizations.. Is he referring to Inet here? Who are the other two > organizations? > > > > M > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:34 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > > > Hi Adam, > > > > Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a role of > coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various reps > should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the reps > earlier). > > > > Hello Robin, > > > > I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off and > regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just got > back and ready for the next phase of work. > > > > As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to grow > the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was announced, we > made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc community, and > only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for broader > participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve while in > Buenos Aires. > > > > At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as more > independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will need to > confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the Chairman of > the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. > > > > I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will keep > you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that Frank > La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities interests very > vigilantly on top of our agendas. > > > > Fadi > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Peake > > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM > > To: Ian Peter > > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > > > Hi Ian, > > > > Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is > due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. > > > > Best, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > > > Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as > > > > > an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at > > > > > this meeting in two weeks time. > > > > > > > > > Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was > > > > > imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the > > > > > people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. > > > > > > > > > I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit > > > > > names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing > > > > > would have been the alternative in this timeframe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > 29 November 2013 > > > > > RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London > > > > > > > > > Dear Fadi and Nora: > > > > > > > > > I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of > > > > > representatives of the civil society networks most involved in > > > > > Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to > > > > > engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet > > > > > governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is > > > > > under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to > > > > > accept additional civil society participants to this panel to provide > > > > > more balance. > > > > > After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following > > > > > 2 civil society representatives to begin to balance against the much > > > > > larger numbers from government, the private sector, and technical > > > > > representatives placed on the initial panel. > > > > > Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High > > > > > Level Panel are: > > > > > 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) 2. Milton Mueller > > > > > (mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of > > > > > these names, and contact our representatives directly to arrange their > > > > > participation? > > > > > We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the > > > > > Diplo Foundation as a highly experienced and knowledgeable > > > > > facilitator. > > > > > We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable > > > > > representation of civil society in such panels and committees. > > > > > Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from > > > > > various civil society networks were: > > > > > Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation > > > > > Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > > > > > Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Norbert > > > > > Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus > > > > > (IGC) > > > > > Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits > > > > > Signed, > > > > > Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ********************************************************** 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 drc at virtualized.org Mon Dec 9 15:34:43 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 15:34:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <"855077AC3D7A7147A7570370 CA01ECD257517A"@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B 26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: Jovan, On Dec 9, 2013, at 7:07 AM, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > David clarified that ICANN does not host the root server. To clarify my clarification (:)): ICANN operates the "Whois" database for the root. However that database is not particularly an operational concern (yes, it would be annoying if you couldn't look up the contact information for the administrators for a TLD, but it wouldn't have immediate operational impact). Verisign operates the root zone database. This database is probably what most people consider to be "the root server". > The US 'deletion’ move is almost as improbable as the chance that the Higgs Boson experiment in CERN will create anti-matter field which can siphon the Earth through a black hole. An interesting thought experiment would be what would happen if the UN asked (and the US government complied) with such a request. Assuming both ICANN and Verisign abided by the US government request: First, the root server operators would need to accept the removal. They ultimately control the DNS data they serve. If they do nothing special, they will serve the updated zone. If the change removing the TLD was initiated using the regular process (that is, through the IANA), I suspect there would be a high likelihood most if not all of the root servers would comply. However, if the change came outside of normal processes (which is almost certainly the case since the normal process would require the country in question to agree to be removed), I believe at least some of the root servers would refuse to accept the modified zone. But let's assume the root servers accepted the change. Next, the world's resolver operators would need to accept the removal. If they disagreed and were sufficiently motivated, there are a variety of mechanisms by which they could choose to serve the unmodified zone. It is important to note that since DNSSEC validation is typically done at the resolver, DNSSEC protections do not necessarily apply. The implication of all of this is that any action to remove a TLD without general agreement/acceptance of the root server operators and resolver operators (who are generally every ISP in the world), will likely result in a reasonable facsimile of chaos, a fracturing of the "One Internet", and, more to the point, unlikely to be particularly successful. This is why I've never really thought this was a realistic scenario, particularly given we're talking about _names_ that make it easy for people to get to the resources, not the resources in question. It would be like removing from the telephone directory as opposed to canceling their credit cards or arresting them. 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 jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Mon Dec 9 15:43:25 2013 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 21:43:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <"855077AC3D7A7147A7570370 CA01ECD257517A"@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B 26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: <62E8430B-D672-4186-8CB7-AEFC6C808F4C@theglobaljournal.net> David, When Jon Postel re-rooted 7 or 8 of the 12 root servers to another 'master' (away from #13), the heads of these 7/8 servers immediately agreed to do so. What's the difference with today? Does that mean such a move is not that 'difficult' to do on a technical level - not talking about everyone's reaction in the chain. But just technically, would that be 'very' difficult? Thanks JC __________________________ Jean-Christophe Le 9 déc. 2013 à 21:34, David Conrad a écrit : > Jovan, > > On Dec 9, 2013, at 7:07 AM, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: >> David clarified that ICANN does not host the root server. > > > To clarify my clarification (:)): > > ICANN operates the "Whois" database for the root. However that database is not particularly an operational concern (yes, it would be annoying if you couldn't look up the contact information for the administrators for a TLD, but it wouldn't have immediate operational impact). Verisign operates the root zone database. This database is probably what most people consider to be "the root server". > >> The US 'deletion’ move is almost as improbable as the chance that the Higgs Boson experiment in CERN will create anti-matter field which can siphon the Earth through a black hole. > > An interesting thought experiment would be what would happen if the UN asked (and the US government complied) with such a request. Assuming both ICANN and Verisign abided by the US government request: > > First, the root server operators would need to accept the removal. They ultimately control the DNS data they serve. If they do nothing special, they will serve the updated zone. If the change removing the TLD was initiated using the regular process (that is, through the IANA), I suspect there would be a high likelihood most if not all of the root servers would comply. However, if the change came outside of normal processes (which is almost certainly the case since the normal process would require the country in question to agree to be removed), I believe at least some of the root servers would refuse to accept the modified zone. > > But let's assume the root servers accepted the change. Next, the world's resolver operators would need to accept the removal. If they disagreed and were sufficiently motivated, there are a variety of mechanisms by which they could choose to serve the unmodified zone. It is important to note that since DNSSEC validation is typically done at the resolver, DNSSEC protections do not necessarily apply. > > The implication of all of this is that any action to remove a TLD without general agreement/acceptance of the root server operators and resolver operators (who are generally every ISP in the world), will likely result in a reasonable facsimile of chaos, a fracturing of the "One Internet", and, more to the point, unlikely to be particularly successful. This is why I've never really thought this was a realistic scenario, particularly given we're talking about _names_ that make it easy for people to get to the resources, not the resources in question. It would be like removing from the telephone directory as opposed to canceling their credit cards or arresting them. > >> > > Regards, > -drc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jovank at diplomacy.edu Mon Dec 9 16:20:37 2013 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 00:20:37 +0300 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: Here are a few comments in line with JK So what you are saying is that the UN could tell the US to stop serving the records for a ccTLD and the US could then tell VRSN (by court order?) to delete that ccTLD? JK: Sanctions cannot be adopted without the US support. Any action under UN Chapter VII, including sanctions, must be agreed by the all 5 permanent members of the Security Council ( http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml). If that is the case, and VRSN complied (which I think they would fight BTW) then it would be a UN "power" and the US would just be an agent of the UN? JK: If the USA, like any other state, adopts certain UN convention or policy, it has obligation to implement it. If the USA supports decision on sanctions against certain country, it should implement the sanction regime. On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 3:23 PM, McTim wrote: > HI Jovan, > > On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Jovan Kurbalija > wrote: > > Thank you David, for clarifying this point. Tim, additional > clarification is > > in footnote [1]: ...... the UN Charter in the article 41 specifies that > > sanctions may include ‘complete or partial interruption of economic > > relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other > means > > of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations’. The > > possibility of ‘deleting a country from the Internet’ or cutting the > > Internet links was not used in any of the main international conflicts or > > sanctions regimes, from the Balkans in 1990s till the recent one in > Syria. > > > I think you missed my point. I was wondering HOW the US could delete > a ccTLD? Only the zone admin can technically edit a zone file (unless > you are talking about hacking into VRSN). I guess what I was saying > is that you seem to think they have this power to edit currently. > That is not my understanding, and David's clarification backs that up. > > > > > > > > > Although the UN Charter provides a legal basis, the possibility of > stopping > > services of 'resolving' top level domain of countries under the sanctions > > has never been used. > > > So what you are saying is that the UN could tell the US to stop > serving the records for a ccTLD and the US could then tell VRSN (by > court order?) to delete that ccTLD? > > If that is the case, and VRSN complied (which I think they would fight > BTW) then it would be a UN "power" and the US would just be an agent > of the UN? > > > > > > Tim, on this question... > > > > > > Did you mean that they would be the rootzone admin and the database > manager? > > They already host a rootserver (L) and are (via IANA function) the DB > > manager. > > > > > > > > > > JOVAN: David clarified that ICANN does not host the root server. > > > I think he clarified that IANA is the DB admin (which was always clear > to me). ICANN runs the IANA function now. I had lumped them together > in my "they". > > http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db > > VRSN runs the distribution server, is this what you mean by "host the > root server"? > > ICANN runs "L" rootserver. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > In the blog > > text, the Verisign option would be covered in "continuing to use the > current > > location would require changes in the US national law, in order to ensure > > international inviolability of the root database". Since a change in > the US > > law for this type of immunity/inviolability could be a complex exercise, > the > > solution for hosting the server by ICANN could be simpler, especially if > a > > broader arrangement is made for ICANN+ (making ICANN a > quasi-international > > organisation). This could be also a solution for immunity for ICANN's > role > > as DB manager. > > > > David, I agree that root zone issue is a symbolic one. The US 'deletion’ > > move is almost as improbable as the chance that the Higgs Boson > experiment > > in CERN will create anti-matter field which can siphon the Earth through > a > > black hole. But, this probability excited some journalist in Geneva (nice > > Dan Brown style story). > > > > > > > > The rootzone question is symbolic and it should be addressed that way. > > Otherwise, we will - at best - continue wasting our time on it or - at > worst > > - have it escalating into the major issue in the fast shifting political > > context. > > > > > > Regards, Jovan > > > > > > > > On 12/9/13 2:53 AM, David Conrad wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Dec 8, 2013, at 8:26 PM, McTim wrote: > > > > "The USA has never used this technical possibility to remove a country > > from the Internet (US DOC authorizes ICANN via an IANA contract, to > > manage the root zone).[1]" > > > > Can you explain how the US could do this as a "technical possibilty". > > AFAIK, they only ascertain if the change was done according to IANA > > procedure. They don't have control over the zone itself. > > > > I gather the theory is that some part of the US Government would issue > some > > sort of legally binding directive outside of the normal IANA root zone > > management function. Realistically, I'd imagine that directive would be > > applied to Verisign, not ICANN since Verisign is the only organization > that > > has the technical capability to change the root zone unilaterally. Of > > course, it remains unclear whether the root server operators would accept > > such a change, but I gather we're talking symbology and theory here. > > > > When you wrote "Such an ICANN+ would both host the root server, and > > manage the root database." > > > > I'm not sure what "host the root server" means here. > > > > Did you mean that they would be the rootzone admin and the database > > manager? They already host a rootserver (L) and are (via IANA > > function) the DB manager. > > > > There might be a bit of confusion here. To be explicit in the roles: > > > > - ICANN, as the IANA function operator, validates (in terms of syntax, > > semantics, and that the request can from an authorized party, i.e., the > TLD > > administrator) root zone change requests and submits those validated > > requests for authorization to NTIA. ICANN is _not_ the database manager. > > > > - US Dept. of Commerce, NTIA authorizes those change requests, verifying > > ICANN has performed the IANA root zone management function appropriately. > > Once authorized, the change request is released to Verisign for > > implementation. > > > > - Verisign, under a cooperative agreement with NTIA, acts as the root > zone > > maintainer. Verisign accepts the NTIA-authorized root zone change > request, > > implements that change request in the root zone by updating the root zone > > database, resigns the root zone with the DNSSEC zone signing key (which > has > > been signed by the key signing key maintained by ICANN), and then places > the > > changed and newly signed root zone onto a distribution server, notifying > > (via the DNS protocol) that a new zone is available. > > > > - The 12 root server operators, either due to the notification sent by > > Verisign or because of timers built into the root zone, automatically > pull > > the new root zone from the distribution server and place it on their > servers > > (which, in most cases, actually a constellation of instances all over the > > planet). For example, ICANN, as one of the 12 root server operators, > pulls > > the root zone from the distribution master server and then pushes it out > to > > the 146 sites (300+ machines last I heard) that respond to DNS queries > sent > > to the "L" root server address. > > > > I hope this clarifies. > > > > Regards, > > -drc > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Jovan Kurbalija, PhD > > > > Director, DiploFoundation > > > > Rue de Lausanne 56 | 1202 Geneva | Switzerland > > > > Tel. +41 (0) 22 7410435 | Mobile. +41 (0) 797884226 > > > > Email: jovank at diplomacy.edu | Twitter: @jovankurbalija > > > > > > > > > > > > The latest from Diplo: today – this week – this month l Conference on > > Innovation in Diplomacy (Malta, 19-20 November 2012) l new online courses > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Mon Dec 9 17:46:32 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 17:46:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <62E8430B-D672-4186-8CB7-AEFC6C808F4C@theglobaljournal.net> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <"855077AC3D7A7147A7570370 CA01ECD257517A"@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <"52A5 B 26C.8090601"@diplomacy.edu> <62E8430B-D672-4186-8CB7-AEFC6C808F4C@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <475F4D97-7760-4EFE-BBF4-9F3DD2AC8619@virtualized.org> Jean-Christophe, On Dec 9, 2013, at 3:43 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > When Jon Postel re-rooted 7 or 8 of the 12 root servers to another 'master' (away from #13), the heads of these 7/8 servers immediately agreed to do so. What's the difference with today? 1. Jon died. 2. Relationships between the IANA and the root server operators, the US government, and other related parties have become more well understood and/or formalized in the decade+ since the event. Back when that change of distribution master occurred, it was more of a ... collegial environment than a business environment. > Does that mean such a move is not that 'difficult' to do on a technical level - not talking about everyone's reaction in the chain. But just technically, would that be 'very' difficult? Changing the master distribution server for the root zone is technically trivial (it requires changing one or two IP addresses and a shared secret in a configuration file). I suspect the challenging bit will be getting universal agreement among the various actors on who the new master distribution server operator is. This will most likely be a non-technical issue. 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Dec 9 21:25:03 2013 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 07:55:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] Twitter, Facebook and more demand sweeping changes to US surveillance Message-ID: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/09/nsa-surveillance-tech-companies-demand-sweeping-changes-to-us-laws Sivasubramanian M India -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 10 01:24:47 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 06:24:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <9A696999-3990-42C6-89ED-808188B5BE75@uzh.ch> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3d6e6d1c-671c-4269-9c37-a2a4742cf0b9@email.android.com>,<9A696999-3990-42C6-89ED-808188B5BE75@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2578F49@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> The distinction between Bill's appointment as an expert and the CS groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is not so clear to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, especially since the London meeting of the group starts in two days. Either one could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS demands to be included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a substitute for the other. At this stage, I would assume that if there is no appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, that there will not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be given. The fact that Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway meeting isn't something that inspires confidence, is it? ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of William Drake [william.drake at uzh.ch] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 2:50 PM To: Avri Doria Cc: Governance; Best Bits Subject: Re: Re: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Hi Thanks, Avri. Milton I told you about this F2F in Bern the other day and said it again in the message to which you replied, so I’m not sure what the disconnect is. Read it again? No relation to the process you mention. Cheers Bill On Dec 9, 2013, at 5:58 PM, Avri Doria > wrote: As i understood it, he has not been appointed to the HLLN, but rather that they have approached him as an expert, which he is, on many things. These are very different things. ~~~ avri Milton L Mueller > wrote: Let me be indelicate enough to raise an issue that probably no one wants to deal with but needs to be raised. And despite certain appearances, it is not a personal interest here but a process one. The IGC, and several other groups, worked together to forward two recommended names to the President of ICANN. Congrats to some extent on being appointed to this HLLM, but your name was not on that CS-provided list, Bill. At this stage of the game I am certainly not suggesting that you turn it down, but one does want to know what kind of a process we are in and what kind of criteria are being applied? Other people are asking us for recommended lists of names for various positions. Aside from the usual junk associated with people positioning for these things, we need to assess the good faith and cooperative spirit of those who are making these requests. To put a finer point on it, what are the implications of CS being asked to provide recommended names, providing them, and then having a completely different name selected? I know it’s an uncomfortable topic but I think we’d have to be self-delusional not to discuss it. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 4:57 AM To: Governance; Adam Peake Cc: McTim McTim; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Hello I’ve mentioned this to a couple people privately and should probably state publicly as well that I will be participating in the High Level Panel process as an “expert” advisor, e.g. in London I’ll be giving a talk about the nature of IG, running a break out session, etc. I believe there may be a couple other people from other SGs similarly appointed, TBC. I don’t know how they intend to deal with the request for a CS “representative” panel member, but understand nothing will happen in time for the London meeting. I have suggested publicly announcing the agenda and providing options for people to provide written inputs, we’ll see what happens. The London meeting is in four days and there’s a lot late rushing around to pull it together, so it’s a bit difficult to predict exactly how everything will play out. Best, Bill ********************************************************** 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 *********************************************************** On Dec 9, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Adam Peake > wrote: On Dec 8, 2013, at 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: cc list trimmed to only one list. /transcript-president-opening-18nov13-en.pdf "USC, University of Southern California-Annenberg Foundation as well as the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have partnered with us so we ensure that this panel has some level of independency and is functioning on a broader scale globally" WEF Adam On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: Thanks for this Ian, could someone please explain to me what is meant by this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other organizations.. Is he referring to Inet here? Who are the other two organizations? M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:34 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Hi Adam, Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a role of coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various reps should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the reps earlier). Hello Robin, I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off and regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just got back and ready for the next phase of work. As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to grow the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was announced, we made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc community, and only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for broader participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve while in Buenos Aires. At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will need to confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the Chairman of the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will keep you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that Frank La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities interests very vigilantly on top of our agendas. Fadi -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM To: Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Hi Ian, Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. Best, Adam On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at this meeting in two weeks time. Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing would have been the alternative in this timeframe. Ian Peter 29 November 2013 RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London Dear Fadi and Nora: I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of representatives of the civil society networks most involved in Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to accept additional civil society participants to this panel to provide more balance. After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following 2 civil society representatives to begin to balance against the much larger numbers from government, the private sector, and technical representatives placed on the initial panel. Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High Level Panel are: 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) 2. Milton Mueller (mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of these names, and contact our representatives directly to arrange their participation? We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the Diplo Foundation as a highly experienced and knowledgeable facilitator. We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable representation of civil society in such panels and committees. Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from various civil society networks were: Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Norbert Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits Signed, Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ********************************************************** 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 Tue Dec 10 04:28:33 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:28:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20131210102833.6d19a9e8@quill> In relation to Jean-Christophe's posting quoted below... Those remarks of Alejandro Pisanty (who by the way is not only Chair of ISOC Mexico, but also definitely an influential person in the global technical community, for example he has served three terms as an ICANN board member, and he is currently on ISOC's Board of Trustees) are at minutes 50:00-57:00 in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtOfsC2n_lQ Although the agenda that he is promoting is absolutely shocking when looked at from any mainstream civil society perspective (in the sense of what is mainstream among civil society movements in general, if we look beyond the community of those who specialize on Internet governance), what he is saying is unfortunately an influential view among many technical people. In effect, he's saying that all power should be in the hands of the engineers and by implication in the hands of the companies for which they're working, and he is promoting the use of smoke screen tactics that aim at preventing anyone else from gaining an effective influence. Civil society absolutely needs to find a good way to deal with this kind of tactics. These tactics have been successfully used *within* civil society networks such as the IGC with the aim of preventing IGC from being an effective civil society voice (again in the sense of what is mainstream among civil society movements in general, looking beyond the community of those who specialize on Internet governance). If IGC in its current incarnation is not capable of dealing with this challenge effectively, we need to create an IGC v2 that has that capability. Greetings, Norbert Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: > All of this is very impressive! Does the lists feel comfortable with > that type of situation? > > It seems that, in this IG world, many things have no stable > definition at all. > > What's about the definition of 'trust', or 'respect'? Too complex? > > I think what we observe here is not the right path to heal the > 'governance gap'* , nor to come to a 'single definition of Internet > Governance'**, nor to address 'orphan issues'*** and certainly not a > good way to look at a 'single list of governance issues'****. And > obviously not help to define a 'single set of principles'*****. We > should not worry about that. Why? see below. > > > These 'expressions' are forbidden since ICANN48, as per Alejandro > Pisanty, chair of ISOC Mexico, stated that these expressions have to > be banned from the I stars (I*, 1Net, ISOC...) narrative. > Surprisingly everyone in the room seemed to enjoy that rather odd > collection of 'NO'! I need t to find a couple of speeches by > notorious totalitarians using such a restrictive vision of a > democratic debate. > > Here what ISOC Mexico Chair suggested to all ISOCs around the planet: > > * > "We should not accept the term 'governance gap'. That’s an invention > that has been a very popular invention (inaudible) but we should not > use it in our vocabulary." > > ** > "We should have 'no single definition of Internet governance'. We > should push against the idea that the Brazil meeting, or anything > else, will produce a definition of Internet Governance which would be > good for everybody, every time and for many years. We have different > definitions of Internet Governance depending of countries, regions, > interests, religions and so forth and we should thrive for them to > stay diverse." > > *** > "We should not use in our vocabulary ‘orphan issues’. It might be > argued that there are organ, sorry orphan issues in IG but most of > the time if something is an issue, there is already someone, some > organization, couple of engineers trying to work on it. They may be > not of enough scale or expertise to grow globally or to split up > multi regionally. There are very few real orphan issues in IG. Many > of the things that appear as orphan issues are not IG issue but legal > issues. Your judges are not well trained to identify cybercrime as a > form of crime, or you do not have that law but it’s a national law > not a global law." > > **** > "We should not have a 'single list of issues for governance'. There > are people who got it one way, people who got it another way. There > are people who put spam and pfishing together. Other pfishing and > cybersecurity together. Let that happen. Let these thousand flowers > of definition blossom." > > ***** > "We should avoid to establish a 'single set of principles' which is > among other things, one declared an objective of the Brazilian > meeting. During the eight years of IGF, there are already been two > dozens or so of IG definition. They are not all compatible." > > etc, etc, etc... > > Former president of South Africa, back in the 50's once explained to > the media and their audiences, the meaning of 'APARTHEID'. "This > Afrikaner word meant 'GOOD NEIGHBORING'. An expression of progress". > A beautiful way to twist reality. Manipulating and alluding people, > erasing definitions, avoiding debates... All of these drive toward > what the worst regimes can offer to its subordinates. > > "We are the revolutionaries. They are the counter revolutionaries." > > Comfortable? > > JC -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 10 04:37:30 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:07:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) Message-ID: If you find competent people for what he is advocating in civil society, then why sure. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Norbert Bollow" To: Cc: "Jean-Christophe Nothias" Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) Date: Tue, Dec 10, 2013 2:58 PM In relation to Jean-Christophe's posting quoted below... Those remarks of Alejandro Pisanty (who by the way is not only Chair of ISOC Mexico, but also definitely an influential person in the global technical community, for example he has served three terms as an ICANN board member, and he is currently on ISOC's Board of Trustees) are at minutes 50:00-57:00 in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtOfsC2n_lQ Although the agenda that he is promoting is absolutely shocking when looked at from any mainstream civil society perspective (in the sense of what is mainstream among civil society movements in general, if we look beyond the community of those who specialize on Internet governance), what he is saying is unfortunately an influential view among many technical people. In effect, he's saying that all power should be in the hands of the engineers and by implication in the hands of the companies for which they're working, and he is promoting the use of smoke screen tactics that aim at preventing anyone else from gaining an effective influence. Civil society absolutely needs to find a good way to deal with this kind of tactics. These tactics have been successfully used *within* civil society networks such as the IGC with the aim of preventing IGC from being an effective civil society voice (again in the sense of what is mainstream among civil society movements in general, looking beyond the community of those who specialize on Internet governance). If IGC in its current incarnation is not capable of dealing with this challenge effectively, we need to create an IGC v2 that has that capability. Greetings, Norbert Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: > All of this is very impressive! Does the lists feel comfortable with > that type of situation? > > It seems that, in this IG world, many things have no stable > definition at all. > > What's about the definition of 'trust', or 'respect'? Too complex? > > I think what we observe here is not the right path to heal the > 'governance gap'* , nor to come to a 'single definition of Internet > Governance'**, nor to address 'orphan issues'*** and certainly not a > good way to look at a 'single list of governance issues'****. And > obviously not help to define a 'single set of principles'*****. We > should not worry about that. Why? see below. > > > These 'expressions' are forbidden since ICANN48, as per Alejandro > Pisanty, chair of ISOC Mexico, stated that these expressions have to > be banned from the I stars (I*, 1Net, ISOC...) narrative. > Surprisingly everyone in the room seemed to enjoy that rather odd > collection of 'NO'! I need t to find a couple of speeches by > notorious totalitarians using such a restrictive vision of a > democratic debate. > > Here what ISOC Mexico Chair suggested to all ISOCs around the planet: > > * > "We should not accept the term 'governance gap'. That’s an invention > that has been a very popular invention (inaudible) but we should not > use it in our vocabulary." > > ** > "We should have 'no single definition of Internet governance'. We > should push against the idea that the Brazil meeting, or anything > else, will produce a definition of Internet Governance which would be > good for everybody, every time and for many years. We have different > definitions of Internet Governance depending of countries, regions, > interests, religions and so forth and we should thrive for them to > stay diverse." > > *** > "We should not use in our vocabulary ‘orphan issues’. It might be > argued that there are organ, sorry orphan issues in IG but most of > the time if something is an issue, there is already someone, some > organization, couple of engineers trying to work on it. They may be > not of enough scale or expertise to grow globally or to split up > multi regionally. There are very few real orphan issues in IG. Many > of the things that appear as orphan issues are not IG issue but legal > issues. Your judges are not well trained to identify cybercrime as a > form of crime, or you do not have that law but it’s a national law > not a global law." > > **** > "We should not have a 'single list of issues for governance'. There > are people who got it one way, people who got it another way. There > are people who put spam and pfishing together. Other pfishing and > cybersecurity together. Let that happen. Let these thousand flowers > of definition blossom." > > ***** > "We should avoid to establish a 'single set of principles' which is > among other things, one declared an objective of the Brazilian > meeting. During the eight years of IGF, there are already been two > dozens or so of IG definition. They are not all compatible." > > etc, etc, etc... > > Former president of South Africa, back in the 50's once explained to > the media and their audiences, the meaning of 'APARTHEID'. "This > Afrikaner word meant 'GOOD NEIGHBORING'. An expression of progress". > A beautiful way to twist reality. Manipulating and alluding people, > erasing definitions, avoiding debates... All of these drive toward > what the worst regimes can offer to its subordinates. > > "We are the revolutionaries. They are the counter revolutionaries." > > Comfortable? > > JC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 05:14:30 2013 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:14:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Suresh, Sorry about that, but what do you mean? Can you elaborate a little bit? Was it humor, irony? Maybe you have a concrete idea for following up on Norbert's view - which I entirely agree with. Thanks for being a bit more explicit. JC Le 10 déc. 2013 à 10:37, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > If you find competent people for what he is advocating in civil society, then why sure. > > --srs (htc one x) > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Norbert Bollow" > To: > Cc: "Jean-Christophe Nothias" > Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) > Date: Tue, Dec 10, 2013 2:58 PM > > In relation to Jean-Christophe's posting quoted below... > > Those remarks of Alejandro Pisanty (who by the way is not only Chair of > ISOC Mexico, but also definitely an influential person in the global > technical community, for example he has served three terms as an ICANN > board member, and he is currently on ISOC's Board of Trustees) are at > minutes 50:00-57:00 in this video: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtOfsC2n_lQ > > Although the agenda that he is promoting is absolutely shocking when > looked at from any mainstream civil society perspective (in the sense > of what is mainstream among civil society movements in general, if we > look beyond the community of those who specialize on Internet > governance), what he is saying is unfortunately an influential view > among many technical people. > > In effect, he's saying that all power should be in the hands of the > engineers and by implication in the hands of the companies for which > they're working, and he is promoting the use of smoke screen tactics > that aim at preventing anyone else from gaining an effective influence. > > Civil society absolutely needs to find a good way to deal with this > kind of tactics. > > These tactics have been successfully used *within* civil society > networks such as the IGC with the aim of preventing IGC from being an > effective civil society voice (again in the sense of what is mainstream > among civil society movements in general, looking beyond the community > of those who specialize on Internet governance). > > If IGC in its current incarnation is not capable of dealing with this > challenge effectively, we need to create an IGC v2 that has that > capability. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: > > > All of this is very impressive! Does the lists feel comfortable with > > that type of situation? > > > > It seems that, in this IG world, many things have no stable > > definition at all. > > > > What's about the definition of 'trust', or 'respect'? Too complex? > > > > I think what we observe here is not the right path to heal the > > 'governance gap'* , nor to come to a 'single definition of Internet > > Governance'**, nor to address 'orphan issues'*** and certainly not a > > good way to look at a 'single list of governance issues'****. And > > obviously not help to define a 'single set of principles'*****. We > > should not worry about that. Why? see below. > > > > > > These 'expressions' are forbidden since ICANN48, as per Alejandro > > Pisanty, chair of ISOC Mexico, stated that these expressions have to > > be banned from the I stars (I*, 1Net, ISOC...) narrative. > > Surprisingly everyone in the room seemed to enjoy that rather odd > > collection of 'NO'! I need t to find a couple of speeches by > > notorious totalitarians using such a restrictive vision of a > > democratic debate. > > > > Here what ISOC Mexico Chair suggested to all ISOCs around the planet: > > > > * > > "We should not accept the term 'governance gap'. That’s an invention > > that has been a very popular invention (inaudible) but we should not > > use it in our vocabulary." > > > > ** > > "We should have 'no single definition of Internet governance'. We > > should push against the idea that the Brazil meeting, or anything > > else, will produce a definition of Internet Governance which would be > > good for everybody, every time and for many years. We have different > > definitions of Internet Governance depending of countries, regions, > > interests, religions and so forth and we should thrive for them to > > stay diverse." > > > > *** > > "We should not use in our vocabulary ‘orphan issues’. It might be > > argued that there are organ, sorry orphan issues in IG but most of > > the time if something is an issue, there is already someone, some > > organization, couple of engineers trying to work on it. They may be > > not of enough scale or expertise to grow globally or to split up > > multi regionally. There are very few real orphan issues in IG. Many > > of the things that appear as orphan issues are not IG issue but legal > > issues. Your judges are not well trained to identify cybercrime as a > > form of crime, or you do not have that law but it’s a national law > > not a global law." > > > > **** > > "We should not have a 'single list of issues for governance'. There > > are people who got it one way, people who got it another way. There > > are people who put spam and pfishing together. Other pfishing and > > cybersecurity together. Let that happen. Let these thousand flowers > > of definition blossom." > > > > ***** > > "We should avoid to establish a 'single set of principles' which is > > among other things, one declared an objective of the Brazilian > > meeting. During the eight years of IGF, there are already been two > > dozens or so of IG definition. They are not all compatible." > > > > etc, etc, etc... > > > > Former president of South Africa, back in the 50's once explained to > > the media and their audiences, the meaning of 'APARTHEID'. "This > > Afrikaner word meant 'GOOD NEIGHBORING'. An expression of progress". > > A beautiful way to twist reality. Manipulating and alluding people, > > erasing definitions, avoiding debates... All of these drive toward > > what the worst regimes can offer to its subordinates. > > > > "We are the revolutionaries. They are the counter revolutionaries." > > > > Comfortable? > > > > JC > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 10 05:35:09 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:35:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2578F49@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3d6e6d1c-671c-4269-9c37-a2a4742cf0b9@email.android.com> <9A696999-3990-42C6-89ED-808188B5BE75@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2578F49@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20131210113509.71808d4b@quill> Milton L Mueller wrote: > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an expert and the CS > groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is not so clear > to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, especially > since the London meeting of the group starts in two days. Either one > could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS demands to be > included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a substitute for > the other. At this stage, I would assume that if there is no > appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, that there will > not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be given. The fact that > Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway meeting isn't > something that inspires confidence, is it? +1 Especially given that there was in fact a coordinated civil society process through which names have been put forward. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 10 05:43:17 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:13:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) Message-ID: Yes. Norbert said civil society should participate. My question was who from civil society can effectively and productively participate. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Jean-Christophe Nothias" To: , "Suresh Ramasubramanian" Cc: "Norbert Bollow" Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) Date: Tue, Dec 10, 2013 3:44 PM Hi Suresh, Sorry about that, but what do you mean? Can you elaborate a little bit? Was it humor, irony? Maybe you have a concrete idea for following up on Norbert's view - which I entirely agree with. Thanks for being a bit more explicit. JC Le 10 déc. 2013 à 10:37, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > If you find competent people for what he is advocating in civil society, then why sure. > > --srs (htc one x) > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Norbert Bollow" > To: > Cc: "Jean-Christophe Nothias" > Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) > Date: Tue, Dec 10, 2013 2:58 PM > > In relation to Jean-Christophe's posting quoted below... > > Those remarks of Alejandro Pisanty (who by the way is not only Chair of > ISOC Mexico, but also definitely an influential person in the global > technical community, for example he has served three terms as an ICANN > board member, and he is currently on ISOC's Board of Trustees) are at > minutes 50:00-57:00 in this video: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtOfsC2n_lQ > > Although the agenda that he is promoting is absolutely shocking when > looked at from any mainstream civil society perspective (in the sense > of what is mainstream among civil society movements in general, if we > look beyond the community of those who specialize on Internet > governance), what he is saying is unfortunately an influential view > among many technical people. > > In effect, he's saying that all power should be in the hands of the > engineers and by implication in the hands of the companies for which > they're working, and he is promoting the use of smoke screen tactics > that aim at preventing anyone else from gaining an effective influence. > > Civil society absolutely needs to find a good way to deal with this > kind of tactics. > > These tactics have been successfully used *within* civil society > networks such as the IGC with the aim of preventing IGC from being an > effective civil society voice (again in the sense of what is mainstream > among civil society movements in general, looking beyond the community > of those who specialize on Internet governance). > > If IGC in its current incarnation is not capable of dealing with this > challenge effectively, we need to create an IGC v2 that has that > capability. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: > > > All of this is very impressive! Does the lists feel comfortable with > > that type of situation? > > > > It seems that, in this IG world, many things have no stable > > definition at all. > > > > What's about the definition of 'trust', or 'respect'? Too complex? > > > > I think what we observe here is not the right path to heal the > > 'governance gap'* , nor to come to a 'single definition of Internet > > Governance'**, nor to address 'orphan issues'*** and certainly not a > > good way to look at a 'single list of governance issues'****. And > > obviously not help to define a 'single set of principles'*****. We > > should not worry about that. Why? see below. > > > > > > These 'expressions' are forbidden since ICANN48, as per Alejandro > > Pisanty, chair of ISOC Mexico, stated that these expressions have to > > be banned from the I stars (I*, 1Net, ISOC...) narrative. > > Surprisingly everyone in the room seemed to enjoy that rather odd > > collection of 'NO'! I need t to find a couple of speeches by > > notorious totalitarians using such a restrictive vision of a > > democratic debate. > > > > Here what ISOC Mexico Chair suggested to all ISOCs around the planet: > > > > * > > "We should not accept the term 'governance gap'. That’s an invention > > that has been a very popular invention (inaudible) but we should not > > use it in our vocabulary." > > > > ** > > "We should have 'no single definition of Internet governance'. We > > should push against the idea that the Brazil meeting, or anything > > else, will produce a definition of Internet Governance which would be > > good for everybody, every time and for many years. We have different > > definitions of Internet Governance depending of countries, regions, > > interests, religions and so forth and we should thrive for them to > > stay diverse." > > > > *** > > "We should not use in our vocabulary ‘orphan issues’. It might be > > argued that there are organ, sorry orphan issues in IG but most of > > the time if something is an issue, there is already someone, some > > organization, couple of engineers trying to work on it. They may be > > not of enough scale or expertise to grow globally or to split up > > multi regionally. There are very few real orphan issues in IG. Many > > of the things that appear as orphan issues are not IG issue but legal > > issues. Your judges are not well trained to identify cybercrime as a > > form of crime, or you do not have that law but it’s a national law > > not a global law." > > > > **** > > "We should not have a 'single list of issues for governance'. There > > are people who got it one way, people who got it another way. There > > are people who put spam and pfishing together. Other pfishing and > > cybersecurity together. Let that happen. Let these thousand flowers > > of definition blossom." > > > > ***** > > "We should avoid to establish a 'single set of principles' which is > > among other things, one declared an objective of the Brazilian > > meeting. During the eight years of IGF, there are already been two > > dozens or so of IG definition. They are not all compatible." > > > > etc, etc, etc... > > > > Former president of South Africa, back in the 50's once explained to > > the media and their audiences, the meaning of 'APARTHEID'. "This > > Afrikaner word meant 'GOOD NEIGHBORING'. An expression of progress". > > A beautiful way to twist reality. Manipulating and alluding people, > > erasing definitions, avoiding debates... All of these drive toward > > what the worst regimes can offer to its subordinates. > > > > "We are the revolutionaries. They are the counter revolutionaries." > > > > Comfortable? > > > > JC > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Dec 10 05:51:13 2013 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:51:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52A6F221.5040905@panamo.eu> Rule Nr 2: /A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings/. @+, best, Dom Le 10/12/13 11:43, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > Yes. Norbert said civil society should participate. My question was who from civil society can effectively and productively participate. > > --srs (htc one x) > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Jean-Christophe Nothias" > To: , "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > Cc: "Norbert Bollow" > Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) > Date: Tue, Dec 10, 2013 3:44 PM > > Hi Suresh, > > Sorry about that, but what do you mean? Can you elaborate a little bit? Was it humor, irony? Maybe you have a concrete idea for following up on Norbert's view - which I entirely agree with. > > Thanks for being a bit more explicit. > > JC > > [...] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 10 05:58:45 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:28:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) Message-ID: If the technical community were mindless robots rather than active and valued participants in civil society... --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Dominique Lacroix"
To: Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) Date: Tue, Dec 10, 2013 4:21 PM Rule Nr 2: /A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings/. @+, best, Dom Le 10/12/13 11:43, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > Yes. Norbert said civil society should participate. My question was who from civil society can effectively and productively participate. > > --srs (htc one x) > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Jean-Christophe Nothias" > To: , "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > Cc: "Norbert Bollow" > Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) > Date: Tue, Dec 10, 2013 3:44 PM > > Hi Suresh, > > Sorry about that, but what do you mean? Can you elaborate a little bit? Was it humor, irony? Maybe you have a concrete idea for following up on Norbert's view - which I entirely agree with. > > Thanks for being a bit more explicit. > > JC > > [...] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dominique.lacroix at ies-france.eu Tue Dec 10 06:20:19 2013 From: dominique.lacroix at ies-france.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 12:20:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52A6F8F3.7040900@ies-france.eu> It's not a question of persons. But only on a philosophical principle. To whom must be given the final decision in networks great matters? To representative people elected by the whole population? Or to coopted engineers? @+, best, Dom Le 10/12/13 11:58, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > If the technical community were mindless robots rather than active and valued participants in civil society... > > --srs (htc one x) > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Dominique Lacroix"
> To: > Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) > Date: Tue, Dec 10, 2013 4:21 PM > > Rule Nr 2: /A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings/. > > @+, best, Dom > > > Le 10/12/13 11:43, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : >> Yes. Norbert said civil society should participate. My question was who from civil society can effectively and productively participate. >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "Jean-Christophe Nothias" >> To: , "Suresh Ramasubramanian" >> Cc: "Norbert Bollow" >> Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) >> Date: Tue, Dec 10, 2013 3:44 PM >> >> Hi Suresh, >> >> Sorry about that, but what do you mean? Can you elaborate a little bit? Was it humor, irony? Maybe you have a concrete idea for following up on Norbert's view - which I entirely agree with. >> >> Thanks for being a bit more explicit. >> >> JC >> >> [...] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 06:41:46 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 06:41:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: <20131210102833.6d19a9e8@quill> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20131210102833.6d19a9e8@quill> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > In relation to Jean-Christophe's posting quoted below... > > Those remarks of Alejandro Pisanty (who by the way is not only Chair of > ISOC Mexico, but also definitely an influential person in the global > technical community, for example he has served three terms as an ICANN > board member, and he is currently on ISOC's Board of Trustees) and a member of this list (at least formerly and perhaps currently as a lurker) and therefore part of CS. are at > minutes 50:00-57:00 in this video: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtOfsC2n_lQ > > Although the agenda that he is promoting is absolutely shocking when > looked at from any mainstream civil society perspective What exactly is shocking? (in the sense > of what is mainstream among civil society movements in general, if we > look beyond the community of those who specialize on Internet > governance), what he is saying is unfortunately an influential view > among many technical people. > > In effect, he's saying that all power should be in the hands of the > engineers and by implication in the hands of the companies for which > they're working He didn't say that at all. Listen to it again maybe? , and he is promoting the use of smoke screen tactics > that aim at preventing anyone else from gaining an effective influence. > > Civil society absolutely needs to find a good way to deal with this > kind of tactics. > > These tactics have been successfully used *within* civil society > networks such as the IGC with the aim of preventing IGC from being an > effective civil society voice So voicing a truly held opinion is a "tactic"? Your inability to accept diversity of opinion is showing (again). again in the sense of what is mainstream > among civil society movements in general, looking beyond the community > of those who specialize on Internet governance). > > If IGC in its current incarnation is not capable of dealing with this > challenge effectively, we need to create an IGC v2 that has that > capability. It is called Best Bits I think or maybe 1Net, the jury us still out on both. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 06:43:24 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 06:43:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: <52A6F8F3.7040900@ies-france.eu> References: <52A6F8F3.7040900@ies-france.eu> Message-ID: Dominique, On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 6:20 AM, Dominique Lacroix wrote: > It's not a question of persons. But only on a philosophical principle. > To whom must be given the final decision in networks great matters? Correct! > To representative people elected by the whole population? Or to coopted > engineers? or to end users who do not need gov't intermediaries to represent them? The above is a false dichotomy. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 10 06:47:23 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 17:17:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: <52A6F8F3.7040900@ies-france.eu> References: <52A6F8F3.7040900@ies-france.eu> Message-ID: A network? Surely the people who own it and operate it should have a say Else for multistakeholder processes find stakeholders rather than steak holders who are insistent on a stake just because, rather than because they can contribute meaningfully --srs (iPad) > On 10-Dec-2013, at 16:50, Dominique Lacroix wrote: > > It's not a question of persons. But only on a philosophical principle. > To whom must be given the final decision in networks great matters? > To representative people elected by the whole population? Or to coopted engineers? > > @+, best, Dom > > Le 10/12/13 11:58, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : >> If the technical community were mindless robots rather than active and valued participants in civil society... >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "Dominique Lacroix"
>> To: >> Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) >> Date: Tue, Dec 10, 2013 4:21 PM >> >> Rule Nr 2: /A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings/. >> >> @+, best, Dom >> >> >> Le 10/12/13 11:43, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : >>> Yes. Norbert said civil society should participate. My question was who from civil society can effectively and productively participate. >>> >>> --srs (htc one x) >>> >>> ----- Reply message ----- >>> From: "Jean-Christophe Nothias" >>> To: , "Suresh Ramasubramanian" >>> Cc: "Norbert Bollow" >>> Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) >>> Date: Tue, Dec 10, 2013 3:44 PM >>> >>> Hi Suresh, >>> >>> Sorry about that, but what do you mean? Can you elaborate a little bit? Was it humor, irony? Maybe you have a concrete idea for following up on Norbert's view - which I entirely agree with. >>> >>> Thanks for being a bit more explicit. >>> >>> JC >>> >>> [...] > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 08:05:00 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:05:00 -0200 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <20131210113509.71808d4b@quill> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3d6e6d1c-671c-4269-9c37-a2a4742cf0b9@email.android.com> <9A696999-3990-42C6-89ED-808188B5BE75@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2578F49@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131210113509.71808d4b@quill> Message-ID: Milton is right about the (lack of) process. On the one hand, it is positive that we have someone we trust there. On the other hand, it does seem that they are including who they want and how they want, totally disregarding the serious process we have been conducting to appoint names. I think that a letter signed by all organizations that participated in the nomination process should be sent to ICANN and ideally read during the meeting, expressing our frustration and adding some concrete suggestions. I come back to the points I made earlier: - the agenda of the HL panel meetings should be publicized in advance - channels to receive inputs (procedural or substantive) should be created or clarified - their meetings should be open to observers (like the meetings of the CSTD ECWG) - Reports of the meetings should be published. They could follow Chatam House rules And - CS representatives (names), who were appointed following an internal and legitimate process carried out by CS, should be immediately included in the HL panel to ensure minimum CS representation. Marília On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an expert and the CS > > groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is not so clear > > to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, especially > > since the London meeting of the group starts in two days. Either one > > could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS demands to be > > included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a substitute for > > the other. At this stage, I would assume that if there is no > > appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, that there will > > not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be given. The fact that > > Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway meeting isn't > > something that inspires confidence, is it? > > +1 > > Especially given that there was in fact a coordinated civil society > process through which names have been put forward. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From marie.georges at noos.fr Tue Dec 10 08:29:50 2013 From: marie.georges at noos.fr (Marie GEORGES) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:29:50 +0100 Subject: Great Coincidence: this appeal to UN /convention anti mass surveillance on The Mandala's DAY Re: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3d6e6d1c-671c-4269-9c37-a2a4742cf0b9@email.android.com> <9A696999-3990-42C6-89ED-808188B5BE75@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2578F49@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131210113509.71808d4b@quill> Message-ID: <333BE8B3-AFB6-42A8-9CF6-974B65269D28@noos.fr> and petition..... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2521155/More-500-worlds-famous-writers-sign-petition-calling-end-mass-surveillance-NSA-spying-program.html All the best to you MG Le 10 déc. 2013 à 14:05, Marilia Maciel a écrit : > Milton is right about the (lack of) process. On the one hand, it is positive that we have someone we trust there. On the other hand, it does seem that they are including who they want and how they want, totally disregarding the serious process we have been conducting to appoint names. > > I think that a letter signed by all organizations that participated in the nomination process should be sent to ICANN and ideally read during the meeting, expressing our frustration and adding some concrete suggestions. I come back to the points I made earlier: > - the agenda of the HL panel meetings should be publicized in advance > - channels to receive inputs (procedural or substantive) should be created or clarified > - their meetings should be open to observers (like the meetings of the CSTD ECWG) > - Reports of the meetings should be published. They could follow Chatam House rules > And > - CS representatives (names), who were appointed following an internal and legitimate process carried out by CS, should be immediately included in the HL panel to ensure minimum CS representation. > > Marília > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an expert and the CS > > groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is not so clear > > to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, especially > > since the London meeting of the group starts in two days. Either one > > could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS demands to be > > included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a substitute for > > the other. At this stage, I would assume that if there is no > > appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, that there will > > not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be given. The fact that > > Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway meeting isn't > > something that inspires confidence, is it? > > +1 > > Especially given that there was in fact a coordinated civil society > process through which names have been put forward. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > Marília Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 08:49:26 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:49:26 +0900 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3d6e6d1c-671c-4269-9c37-a2a4742cf0b9@email.android.com> <9A696999-3990-42C6-89ED-808188B5BE75@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2578F49@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131210113509.71808d4b@quill> Message-ID: Hello, I am wondering if we are not giving too much weight to HLM than it should be and doing for it a free promotion! honestly, I was not in favour of the ICANN strategic panels since they are not bottom-up, formed by handpicked members and bypassing the usual process. I found now that we want badly to be in that high level panel and making it relevant and maybe even giving it a big role for Brazil meeting! hope that we wont regret such decision later. we can ask for giving inputs, openness etc but that will be definitely depending to the will ICANN/WEF/Anneberg Foundation and there won't be any guarantee on how they process the inputs or how it will be included in their deliverable. everything is ad-hoc there and any decision will depend to the will of the organisers. why shall we encourage such process? Back to the previous discussion, Bill was invited as expert and the name of panel is not "an expert group" , I don't see the confusion here. Rafik 2013/12/10 Marilia Maciel > Milton is right about the (lack of) process. On the one hand, it is > positive that we have someone we trust there. On the other hand, it does > seem that they are including who they want and how they want, totally > disregarding the serious process we have been conducting to appoint names. > > I think that a letter signed by all organizations that participated in the > nomination process should be sent to ICANN and ideally read during the > meeting, expressing our frustration and adding some concrete suggestions. I > come back to the points I made earlier: > - the agenda of the HL panel meetings should be publicized in advance > - channels to receive inputs (procedural or substantive) should be created > or clarified > - their meetings should be open to observers (like the meetings of the > CSTD ECWG) > - Reports of the meetings should be published. They could follow Chatam > House rules > And > - CS representatives (names), who were appointed following an internal and > legitimate process carried out by CS, should be immediately included in the > HL panel to ensure minimum CS representation. > > Marília > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an expert and the CS >> > groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is not so clear >> > to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, especially >> > since the London meeting of the group starts in two days. Either one >> > could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS demands to be >> > included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a substitute for >> > the other. At this stage, I would assume that if there is no >> > appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, that there will >> > not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be given. The fact that >> > Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway meeting isn't >> > something that inspires confidence, is it? >> >> +1 >> >> Especially given that there was in fact a coordinated civil society >> process through which names have been put forward. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 10 09:07:21 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:07:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] Thought experiment on TLD removal from the root zone (was Re: DMP} Statement...) In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <"855077AC3D7A7147A7570370 CA01ECD257517A"@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B 26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: <20131210150721.0817bbed@quill> David Conrad wrote: > On Dec 9, 2013, at 7:07 AM, Jovan Kurbalija > wrote: > > > The US 'deletion’ move is almost as improbable as the chance that > > the Higgs Boson experiment in CERN will create anti-matter field > > which can siphon the Earth through a black hole. > > An interesting thought experiment would be what would happen if the > UN asked (and the US government complied) with such a request. > Assuming both ICANN and Verisign abided by the US government request: > > First, the root server operators would need to accept the removal. > They ultimately control the DNS data they serve. If they do nothing > special, they will serve the updated zone. If the change removing the > TLD was initiated using the regular process (that is, through the > IANA), I suspect there would be a high likelihood most if not all of > the root servers would comply. However, if the change came outside > of normal processes (which is almost certainly the case since the > normal process would require the country in question to agree to be > removed), I believe at least some of the root servers would refuse to > accept the modified zone. Wouldn't that cause DNSSEC validation to start failing after a couple of days? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 190 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 09:11:13 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 12:11:13 -0200 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3d6e6d1c-671c-4269-9c37-a2a4742cf0b9@email.android.com> <9A696999-3990-42C6-89ED-808188B5BE75@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2578F49@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131210113509.71808d4b@quill> Message-ID: Hi Rafik, in the diplomatic world, I think this panel is likely to have some weight, wether we like it or not. It is not CS's attention to the panel (or lack of it) that will make a huge difference, or will be a measure of the importance of this panel to next year's meeting. Once the panel is already created and once we already decided to engage with it when we put together a NomCom (I was personally against the idea of a HL panel too, but this train has left the station), we cannot pretend that this lack of due process is irrelevant or has "nothing to do" with us. That this is ICANN's turf and we should just disregard it. If we chose to give names, we should now go all the way and push for our names to be included, as promised. And we should make noise and re-asses our strategy of engagement if they are not. And again, it is not about Bill personally or the invitation of some experts. This is about not finding the conditions no nominate either name from CS, while finding the time to invite experts of their choosing. Invited experts should go to London and make the best contributions they can. But I think they should also raise the point of the problems of lack of transparency surrounding this meeting. There is no clear information about the agenda or the admission of observers. We would not be complacent with such an opaque process in the UN. Why should be complacent now, when things under discussion are of interest to the wide community as well? Our decision about how much to engage and about the importance and value of this process depends on accountability and transparency. Best Marília On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hello, > > I am wondering if we are not giving too much weight to HLM than it should > be and doing for it a free promotion! honestly, I was not in favour of > the ICANN strategic panels since they are not bottom-up, formed by > handpicked members and bypassing the usual process. I found now that we > want badly to be in that high level panel and making it relevant and maybe > even giving it a big role for Brazil meeting! hope that we wont regret such > decision later. > > we can ask for giving inputs, openness etc but that will be definitely > depending to the will ICANN/WEF/Anneberg Foundation and there won't be any > guarantee on how they process the inputs or how it will be included in > their deliverable. everything is ad-hoc there and any decision will depend > to the will of the organisers. why shall we encourage such process? > > Back to the previous discussion, Bill was invited as expert and the name > of panel is not "an expert group" , I don't see the confusion here. > > Rafik > > > 2013/12/10 Marilia Maciel > >> Milton is right about the (lack of) process. On the one hand, it is >> positive that we have someone we trust there. On the other hand, it does >> seem that they are including who they want and how they want, totally >> disregarding the serious process we have been conducting to appoint names. >> >> I think that a letter signed by all organizations that participated in >> the nomination process should be sent to ICANN and ideally read during the >> meeting, expressing our frustration and adding some concrete suggestions. I >> come back to the points I made earlier: >> - the agenda of the HL panel meetings should be publicized in advance >> - channels to receive inputs (procedural or substantive) should be >> created or clarified >> - their meetings should be open to observers (like the meetings of the >> CSTD ECWG) >> - Reports of the meetings should be published. They could follow Chatam >> House rules >> And >> - CS representatives (names), who were appointed following an internal >> and legitimate process carried out by CS, should be immediately included in >> the HL panel to ensure minimum CS representation. >> >> Marília >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an expert and the CS >>> > groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is not so clear >>> > to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, especially >>> > since the London meeting of the group starts in two days. Either one >>> > could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS demands to be >>> > included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a substitute for >>> > the other. At this stage, I would assume that if there is no >>> > appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, that there will >>> > not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be given. The fact that >>> > Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway meeting isn't >>> > something that inspires confidence, is it? >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> Especially given that there was in fact a coordinated civil society >>> process through which names have been put forward. >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Marília Maciel* >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 09:25:16 2013 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 23:25:16 +0900 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3d6e6d1c-671c-4269-9c37-a2a4742cf0b9@email.android.com> <9A696999-3990-42C6-89ED-808188B5BE75@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2578F49@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20131210113509.71808d4b@quill> Message-ID: Hi Marilia, 2013/12/10 Marilia Maciel > Hi Rafik, in the diplomatic world, I think this panel is likely to have > some weight, wether we like it or not. It is not CS's attention to the > panel (or lack of it) that will make a huge difference, or will be a > measure of the importance of this panel to next year's meeting. > > which diplomatic world are we talking about? some people already made comparison here to WEF to the global agenda council on internet http://www.weforum.org/content/global-agenda-council-future-internet-2012-2014and yet it is not relevant too. giving it weight looks like self-fulfilling prophecy . you gave importance to the panel so to its outcome and so diminishing the importance of direct inputs from the community to brazil conf. Once the panel is already created and once we already decided to engage > with it when we put together a NomCom (I was personally against the idea of > a HL panel too, but this train has left the station), we cannot pretend > that this lack of due process is irrelevant or has "nothing to do" with us. > That this is ICANN's turf and we should just disregard it. If we chose to > give names, we should now go all the way and push for our names to be > included, as promised. And we should make noise and re-asses our strategy > of engagement if they are not. > > well, we decided to play the game because we went in hurry to appoint people, we didn't have time(or we didnt make) to strategize for it and it is too late to complain for sure but we can assess the situation. And again, it is not about Bill personally or the invitation of some > experts. This is about not finding the conditions no nominate either name > from CS, while finding the time to invite experts of their choosing. > Invited experts should go to London and make the best contributions they > can. But I think they should also raise the point of the problems of lack > of transparency surrounding this meeting. > yes we can raise the issue. but like other who experienced that before, we will hear just a sorry . > There is no clear information about the agenda or the admission of > observers. We would not be complacent with such an opaque process in the > UN. Why should be complacent now, when things under discussion are of > interest to the wide community as well? Our decision about how much to > engage and about the importance and value of this process depends on > accountability and transparency. > lesson to learn, never run to engage when you don't have any minimal guarantee about openness because it will be always too late to ask for that after you join . anyway, we can ask for having the two representatives from CS there and about openness. something we didn't discuss how our representative will "represent" us there and work to carry a community PoV in such panel? Best, Rafik > Best > Marília > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I am wondering if we are not giving too much weight to HLM than it should >> be and doing for it a free promotion! honestly, I was not in favour of >> the ICANN strategic panels since they are not bottom-up, formed by >> handpicked members and bypassing the usual process. I found now that we >> want badly to be in that high level panel and making it relevant and maybe >> even giving it a big role for Brazil meeting! hope that we wont regret such >> decision later. >> >> we can ask for giving inputs, openness etc but that will be definitely >> depending to the will ICANN/WEF/Anneberg Foundation and there won't be any >> guarantee on how they process the inputs or how it will be included in >> their deliverable. everything is ad-hoc there and any decision will depend >> to the will of the organisers. why shall we encourage such process? >> >> Back to the previous discussion, Bill was invited as expert and the name >> of panel is not "an expert group" , I don't see the confusion here. >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2013/12/10 Marilia Maciel >> >>> Milton is right about the (lack of) process. On the one hand, it is >>> positive that we have someone we trust there. On the other hand, it does >>> seem that they are including who they want and how they want, totally >>> disregarding the serious process we have been conducting to appoint names. >>> >>> I think that a letter signed by all organizations that participated in >>> the nomination process should be sent to ICANN and ideally read during the >>> meeting, expressing our frustration and adding some concrete suggestions. I >>> come back to the points I made earlier: >>> - the agenda of the HL panel meetings should be publicized in advance >>> - channels to receive inputs (procedural or substantive) should be >>> created or clarified >>> - their meetings should be open to observers (like the meetings of the >>> CSTD ECWG) >>> - Reports of the meetings should be published. They could follow Chatam >>> House rules >>> And >>> - CS representatives (names), who were appointed following an internal >>> and legitimate process carried out by CS, should be immediately included in >>> the HL panel to ensure minimum CS representation. >>> >>> Marília >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>>> Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>> >>>> > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an expert and the CS >>>> > groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is not so clear >>>> > to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, especially >>>> > since the London meeting of the group starts in two days. Either one >>>> > could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS demands to be >>>> > included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a substitute for >>>> > the other. At this stage, I would assume that if there is no >>>> > appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, that there will >>>> > not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be given. The fact that >>>> > Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway meeting isn't >>>> > something that inspires confidence, is it? >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> Especially given that there was in fact a coordinated civil society >>>> process through which names have been put forward. >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Marília Maciel* >>> Pesquisadora Gestora >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>> >>> Researcher and Coordinator >>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>> >>> DiploFoundation associate >>> www.diplomacy.edu >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Tue Dec 10 09:39:48 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:39:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2578F49@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3d6e6d1c-671c-4269-9c37-a2a4742cf0b9@email.android.com>,<9A696999-3990-42C6-89ED-808188B5BE75@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2578F49@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Dec 10, 2013, at 7:24 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an expert and the CS groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is not so clear to me, Well, don’t let that stop you. It is however crystal clear to me, to ICANN, to the HLP, and to everyone else involved. For the third time Milton, I was invited as an “expert” advisor to “speak to” the group. I am NOT a member of the group. I am NOT the CS representative to the group. In fact, as far as I know, there are no representatives to the group. That’s what business was complaining about in Buenos Aires. The registries don’t have a representative. The registrars don’t have a representative. The intellectual property constituency doesn’t have a representative. The ISP constituency doesn’t have a representative. And so on. I have no idea how they may be dealing with that now, but I’m guessing it’s not in the same manner. More to the point, I’ve been told of others who were were similarly invited as speakers, at least three of whom are subscribed to these lists. I don’t know if they have accepted or not, as they have not been stupid enough to mention it here. Should they do so, I look forward to you explaining their status to them in the same manner. > and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, You are saying he lacks the clarity to understand the difference between the panelists and the speakers to the panelists? And yet you demand that he appoint you as a panelist, right? > especially since the London meeting of the group starts in two days. Either one could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS demands to be included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a substitute for the other. Yes, the only possible explanation for my being invited to speak about Internet governance is that a concession is being made to “CS demands". > At this stage, I would assume that if there is no appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, that there will not be one at all, Given how you are playing this, that may well prove true. If it does, please take it up with Fadi and leave me out of it. > and Bill is all we will be given. I am not being given to anyone. > The fact that Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway meeting isn't something that inspires confidence, is it? I am unaware of any random F2F hallway meeting. I have never met the person who wrote to invite me. > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of William Drake [william.drake at uzh.ch] > Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 2:50 PM > To: Avri Doria > Cc: Governance; Best Bits > Subject: Re: Re: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > Hi > > Thanks, Avri. Milton I told you about this F2F in Bern the other day and said it again in the message to which you replied, so I’m not sure what the disconnect is. Read it again? No relation to the process you mention. > > Cheers > > Bill > > > > On Dec 9, 2013, at 5:58 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> As i understood it, he has not been appointed to the HLLN, but rather that they have approached him as an expert, which he is, on many things. >> >> These are very different things. >> ~~~ >> avri >> >> Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Let me be indelicate enough to raise an issue that probably no one wants to deal with but needs to be raised. And despite certain appearances, it is not a personal interest here but a process one. >> >> >> The IGC, and several other groups, worked together to forward two recommended names to the President of ICANN. >> >> >> >> >> >> Congrats to some extent on being appointed to this HLLM, but your name was not on that CS-provided list, Bill. At this stage of the game I am certainly not suggesting that you turn it down, but one does want to know what kind of a process we are in and what kind of criteria are being applied? >> >> >> >> >> >> Other people are asking us for recommended lists of names for various positions. Aside from the usual junk associated with people positioning for these things, we need to assess the good faith and cooperative spirit of those who are making these requests. To put a finer point on it, what are the implications of CS being asked to provide recommended names, providing them, and then having a completely different name selected? >> >> >> >> >> >> I know it’s an uncomfortable topic but I think we’d have to be self-delusional not to discuss it. >> >> >> >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake >> Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 4:57 AM >> To: Governance; Adam Peake >> Cc: McTim McTim; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits >> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >> >> >> >> >> Hello >> >> >> >> I’ve mentioned this to a couple people privately and should probably state publicly as well that I will be participating in the High Level Panel process as an “expert” advisor, e.g. in London I’ll be giving a talk about the nature of IG, running a break out session, etc. I believe there may be a couple other people from other SGs similarly appointed, TBC. I don’t know how they intend to deal with the request for a CS “representative” panel member, but understand nothing will happen in time for the London meeting. >> >> >> >> I have suggested publicly announcing the agenda and providing options for people to provide written inputs, we’ll see what happens. The London meeting is in four days and there’s a lot late rushing around to pull it together, so it’s a bit difficult to predict exactly how everything will play out. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> ********************************************************** >> 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 >> *********************************************************** >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Dec 9, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Dec 8, 2013, at 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> >> >> cc list trimmed to only one list. >> >> /transcript-president-opening-18nov13-en.pdf >> >> "USC, University of Southern California-Annenberg Foundation as well >> as the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have partnered with us so we >> ensure that this panel has some level of independency and is functioning >> on a broader scale globally" >> >> >> >> >> >> WEF >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> >> Thanks for this Ian, could someone please explain to me what is meant by >> this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other >> organizations.. Is he referring to Inet here? Who are the other two >> organizations? >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter >> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:34 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake >> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >> >> >> >> Hi Adam, >> >> >> >> Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a role of >> coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various reps >> should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the reps >> earlier). >> >> >> >> Hello Robin, >> >> >> >> I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off and >> regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just got >> back and ready for the next phase of work. >> >> >> >> As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to grow >> the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was announced, we >> made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc community, and >> only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for broader >> participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve while in >> Buenos Aires. >> >> >> >> At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as more >> independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will need to >> confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the Chairman of >> the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. >> >> >> >> I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will keep >> you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that Frank >> La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities interests very >> vigilantly on top of our agendas. >> >> >> >> Fadi >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Adam Peake >> >> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM >> >> To: Ian Peter >> >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >> Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >> >> >> >> Hi Ian, >> >> >> >> Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is >> due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as >> >> >> >> >> an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at >> >> >> >> >> this meeting in two weeks time. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was >> >> >> >> >> imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the >> >> >> >> >> people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit >> >> >> >> >> names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing >> >> >> >> >> would have been the alternative in this timeframe. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 29 November 2013 >> >> >> >> >> RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear Fadi and Nora: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of >> >> >> >> >> representatives of the civil society networks most involved in >> >> >> >> >> Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to >> >> >> >> >> engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet >> >> >> >> >> governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is >> >> >> >> >> under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to >> >> >> >> >> accept additional civil society participants to this panel to provide >> >> >> >> >> more balance. >> >> >> >> >> After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following >> >> >> >> >> 2 civil society representatives to begin to balance against the much >> >> >> >> >> larger numbers from government, the private sector, and technical >> >> >> >> >> representatives placed on the initial panel. >> >> >> >> >> Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High >> >> >> >> >> Level Panel are: >> >> >> >> >> 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) 2. Milton Mueller >> >> >> >> >> (mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of >> >> >> >> >> these names, and contact our representatives directly to arrange their >> >> >> >> >> participation? >> >> >> >> >> We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the >> >> >> >> >> Diplo Foundation as a highly experienced and knowledgeable >> >> >> >> >> facilitator. >> >> >> >> >> We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable >> >> >> >> >> representation of civil society in such panels and committees. >> >> >> >> >> Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from >> >> >> >> >> various civil society networks were: >> >> >> >> >> Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation >> >> >> >> >> Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) >> >> >> >> >> Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Norbert >> >> >> >> >> Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus >> >> >> >> >> (IGC) >> >> >> >> >> Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits >> >> >> >> >> Signed, >> >> >> >> >> Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ********************************************************** > 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 > *********************************************************** > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ********************************************************** 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 Tue Dec 10 09:51:59 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:51:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20131210102833.6d19a9e8@quill> Message-ID: <20131210155159.47914fc0@quill> McTim wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > In relation to Jean-Christophe's posting quoted below... > > > > Those remarks of Alejandro Pisanty (who by the way is not only > > Chair of ISOC Mexico, but also definitely an influential person in > > the global technical community, for example he has served three > > terms as an ICANN board member, and he is currently on ISOC's Board > > of Trustees) > > and a member of this list (at least formerly and perhaps currently as > a lurker) and therefore part of CS. Are you seriously proposing being a current or past subscriber to this or any other mailing list results in the person being "therefore" part of civil society??? (There are several reasonable approaches to roughly defining the "civil society" stakeholder category, and there's room for reasonable disagreement between proponents of them, but I wouldn't expect anyone to seriously view being a subscriber to the list as being indicative in one way or the other!) > are at > > minutes 50:00-57:00 in this video: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtOfsC2n_lQ > > > > Although the agenda that he is promoting is absolutely shocking when > > looked at from any mainstream civil society perspective > > What exactly is shocking? a) what he actually said, in particular the statements that Jean-Christophe has quoted b) the agenda which in my view / analysis is behind those statements c) these things being well received in the context where they were said > > In effect, he's saying that all power should be in the hands of the > > engineers and by implication in the hands of the companies for which > > they're working > > He didn't say that at all. Listen to it again maybe? I started that sentence with "in effect, he's saying". In other words, the sentence presents my analysis of what he's saying means in effect. > > , and he is promoting the use of smoke screen tactics > > that aim at preventing anyone else from gaining an effective > > influence. > > > > Civil society absolutely needs to find a good way to deal with this > > kind of tactics. > > > > These tactics have been successfully used *within* civil society > > networks such as the IGC with the aim of preventing IGC from being > > an effective civil society voice > > So voicing a truly held opinion is a "tactic"? Not necessarily; it can be part of a tactic though. Choices about where and how to voice one's opinion, and on which subset of the topics under discussion, are tactical in nature though. > Your inability to accept diversity of opinion is showing (again). Thanks for the insult. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 10:03:52 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:03:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: <20131210155159.47914fc0@quill> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20131210102833.6d19a9e8@quill> <20131210155159.47914fc0@quill> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > McTim wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> > In relation to Jean-Christophe's posting quoted below... >> > >> > Those remarks of Alejandro Pisanty (who by the way is not only >> > Chair of ISOC Mexico, but also definitely an influential person in >> > the global technical community, for example he has served three >> > terms as an ICANN board member, and he is currently on ISOC's Board >> > of Trustees) >> >> and a member of this list (at least formerly and perhaps currently as >> a lurker) and therefore part of CS. > > Are you seriously proposing being a current or past subscriber to this > or any other mailing list results in the person being "therefore" part > of civil society??? yes (There are several reasonable approaches to roughly > defining the "civil society" stakeholder category, and there's room for > reasonable disagreement between proponents of them, but I wouldn't > expect anyone to seriously view being a subscriber to the list as being > indicative in one way or the other!) What you consider unreasonable seems reasonable to me. >> are at >> > minutes 50:00-57:00 in this video: >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtOfsC2n_lQ >> > >> > Although the agenda that he is promoting is absolutely shocking when >> > looked at from any mainstream civil society perspective >> >> What exactly is shocking? > > a) what he actually said, in particular the statements that > Jean-Christophe has quoted Which sentences exactly, or is it everything? > > b) the agenda which in my view / analysis is behind those statements > > c) these things being well received in the context where they were said > >> > In effect, he's saying that all power should be in the hands of the >> > engineers and by implication in the hands of the companies for which >> > they're working >> >> He didn't say that at all. Listen to it again maybe? > > I started that sentence with "in effect, he's saying". In other words, > the sentence presents my analysis of what he's saying means in effect. > >> > , and he is promoting the use of smoke screen tactics >> > that aim at preventing anyone else from gaining an effective >> > influence. >> > >> > Civil society absolutely needs to find a good way to deal with this >> > kind of tactics. >> > >> > These tactics have been successfully used *within* civil society >> > networks such as the IGC with the aim of preventing IGC from being >> > an effective civil society voice >> >> So voicing a truly held opinion is a "tactic"? > > Not necessarily; it can be part of a tactic though. Choices about where > and how to voice one's opinion, and on which subset of the topics under > discussion, are tactical in nature though. > >> Your inability to accept diversity of opinion is showing (again). > > Thanks for the insult. Is it an insult if it is the truth? I joined IGC because ALL voices could be heard. Once again an attempt is being made to divide, not build bridges. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 10:13:35 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:13:35 -0600 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <3d6e6d1c-671c-4269-9c37-a2a4742cf0b9@email.android.com> <9A696999-3990-42C6-89ED-808188B5BE75@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2578F49@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I think this is an important discussion, as a healthy part of our transparency process. In particular, we must learn how to institutionalize CS inclusion. I certainly don't think we can boycott meetings--removing ourselves from the very spaces we need to increase our engagement. In this case, DiploFoundation was also invited to be an observer at the HLM. After serious discussion, we have decided it is important to have someone attend. If possible, (travel arrangements, etc.) Vlada Radunovic will attend (as an observer), and will report back to the IGC/CS. I am sharing this prematurely, in the interests of that same transparency, and to add detail/substance to Bill's point. Thanks for sharing your attendance, Bill. I am sure you can take the flak :) 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 10 December 2013 08:39, William Drake wrote: > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 7:24 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an expert and the CS > groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is not so clear to me, > > > Well, don’t let that stop you. It is however crystal clear to me, to > ICANN, to the HLP, and to everyone else involved. For the third time > Milton, I was invited as an “expert” advisor to “speak to” the group. I am > NOT a member of the group. I am NOT the CS representative to the group. > In fact, as far as I know, there are no representatives to the group. > That’s what business was complaining about in Buenos Aires. The > registries don’t have a representative. The registrars don’t have a > representative. The intellectual property constituency doesn’t have a > representative. The ISP constituency doesn’t have a representative. And > so on. I have no idea how they may be dealing with that now, but I’m > guessing it’s not in the same manner. > > More to the point, I’ve been told of others who were were similarly > invited as speakers, at least three of whom are subscribed to these lists. > I don’t know if they have accepted or not, as they have not been stupid > enough to mention it here. Should they do so, I look forward to you > explaining their status to them in the same manner. > > and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, > > > You are saying he lacks the clarity to understand the difference between > the panelists and the speakers to the panelists? And yet you demand that > he appoint you as a panelist, right? > > especially since the London meeting of the group starts in two > days. Either one could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS demands > to be included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a substitute > for the other. > > > Yes, the only possible explanation for my being invited to speak about > Internet governance is that a concession is being made to “CS demands". > > At this stage, I would assume that if there is no appointment of another > CS rep to the HL Panel by now, that there will not be one at all, > > > Given how you are playing this, that may well prove true. If it does, > please take it up with Fadi and leave me out of it. > > and Bill is all we will be given. > > > I am not being given to anyone. > > The fact that Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway meeting > isn't something that inspires confidence, is it? > > > I am unaware of any random F2F hallway meeting. I have never met the > person who wrote to invite me. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of William Drake [ > william.drake at uzh.ch] > *Sent:* Monday, December 09, 2013 2:50 PM > *To:* Avri Doria > *Cc:* Governance; Best Bits > *Subject:* Re: Re: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > Hi > > Thanks, Avri. Milton I told you about this F2F in Bern the other day and > said it again in the message to which you replied, so I’m not sure what the > disconnect is. Read it again? No relation to the process you mention. > > Cheers > > Bill > > > > On Dec 9, 2013, at 5:58 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > As i understood it, he has not been appointed to the HLLN, but rather that > they have approached him as an expert, which he is, on many things. > > These are very different things. > ~~~ > avri > > Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> Let me be indelicate enough to raise an issue that probably no one wants >> to deal with but needs to be raised. And despite certain appearances, it is >> not a personal interest here but a process one. >> >> >> The IGC, and several other groups, worked together to forward two >> recommended names to the President of ICANN. >> >> >> >> >> >> Congrats to some extent on being appointed to this HLLM, but your name >> was not on that CS-provided list, Bill. At this stage of the game I am >> certainly not suggesting that you turn it down, but one does want to know >> what kind of a process we are in and what kind of criteria are being >> applied? >> >> >> >> >> >> Other people are asking us for recommended lists of names for various >> positions. Aside from the usual junk associated with people positioning for >> these things, we need to assess the good faith and cooperative spirit of >> those who are making these requests. To put a finer point on it, what are >> the implications of CS being asked to provide recommended names, providing >> them, and then having a completely different name selected? >> >> >> >> >> >> I know it’s an uncomfortable topic but I think we’d have to be >> self-delusional not to discuss it. >> >> >> >> >> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ >> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> ] *On Behalf Of *William Drake >> *Sent:* Monday, December 9, 2013 4:57 AM >> *To:* Governance; Adam Peake >> *Cc:* McTim McTim; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >> >> >> >> >> Hello >> >> >> >> I’ve mentioned this to a couple people privately and should probably >> state publicly as well that I will be participating in the High Level Panel >> process as an “expert” advisor, e.g. in London I’ll be giving a talk about >> the nature of IG, running a break out session, etc. I believe there may be >> a couple other people from other SGs similarly appointed, TBC. I don’t >> know how they intend to deal with the request for a CS “representative” >> panel member, but understand nothing will happen in time for the London >> meeting. >> >> >> >> I have suggested publicly announcing the agenda and providing options for >> people to provide written inputs, we’ll see what happens. The London >> meeting is in four days and there’s a lot late rushing around to pull it >> together, so it’s a bit difficult to predict exactly how everything will >> play out. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> ********************************************************** >> 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 >> *********************************************************** >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Dec 9, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Dec 8, 2013, at 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> >> >> cc list trimmed to only one list. >> >> /transcript-president-opening-18nov13-en.pdf >> >> "USC, University of Southern California-Annenberg Foundation as well >> as the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have partnered with us so we >> ensure that this panel has some level of independency and is functioning >> on a broader scale globally" >> >> >> >> >> WEF < >> http://www.weforum.org/content/global-agenda-council-future-internet-2012-2014 >> > >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, michael gurstein >> wrote: >> >> >> Thanks for this Ian, could someone please explain to me what is meant by >> this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other >> organizations.. Is he referring to Inet here? Who are the other two >> organizations? >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] >> On Behalf Of Ian Peter >> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:34 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake >> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >> >> >> >> Hi Adam, >> >> >> >> Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a role >> of >> coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various reps >> should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the reps >> earlier). >> >> >> >> Hello Robin, >> >> >> >> I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off and >> regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just got >> back and ready for the next phase of work. >> >> >> >> As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to grow >> the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was announced, we >> made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc community, >> and >> only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for broader >> participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve while >> in >> Buenos Aires. >> >> >> >> At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as more >> independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will need to >> confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the Chairman of >> the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. >> >> >> >> I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will keep >> you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that Frank >> La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities interests >> very >> vigilantly on top of our agendas. >> >> >> >> Fadi >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Adam Peake >> >> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM >> >> To: Ian Peter >> >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >> Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >> >> >> >> Hi Ian, >> >> >> >> Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is >> due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as >> >> >> >> >> an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at >> >> >> >> >> this meeting in two weeks time. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was >> >> >> >> >> imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the >> >> >> >> >> people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit >> >> >> >> >> names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing >> >> >> >> >> would have been the alternative in this timeframe. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 29 November 2013 >> >> >> >> >> RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear Fadi and Nora: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of >> >> >> >> >> representatives of the civil society networks most involved in >> >> >> >> >> Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to >> >> >> >> >> engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet >> >> >> >> >> governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is >> >> >> >> >> under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to >> >> >> >> >> accept additional civil society participants to this panel to provide >> >> >> >> >> more balance. >> >> >> >> >> After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following >> >> >> >> >> 2 civil society representatives to begin to balance against the much >> >> >> >> >> larger numbers from government, the private sector, and technical >> >> >> >> >> representatives placed on the initial panel. >> >> >> >> >> Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High >> >> >> >> >> Level Panel are: >> >> >> >> >> 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) 2. Milton Mueller >> >> >> >> >> (mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of >> >> >> >> >> these names, and contact our representatives directly to arrange their >> >> >> >> >> participation? >> >> >> >> >> We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the >> >> >> >> >> Diplo Foundation as a highly experienced and knowledgeable >> >> >> >> >> facilitator. >> >> >> >> >> We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable >> >> >> >> >> representation of civil society in such panels and committees. >> >> >> >> >> Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from >> >> >> >> >> various civil society networks were: >> >> >> >> >> Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation >> >> >> >> >> Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) >> >> >> >> >> Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Norbert >> >> >> >> >> Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus >> >> >> >> >> (IGC) >> >> >> >> >> Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits >> >> >> >> >> Signed, >> >> >> >> >> Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator >> >> >> >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ********************************************************** > 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 > *********************************************************** > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ********************************************************** > 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 > *********************************************************** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Tue Dec 10 10:17:27 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:17:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] Thought experiment on TLD removal from the root zone (was Re: DMP} Statement...) In-Reply-To: <20131210150721.0817bbed@quill> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <"855077AC3D7A7147A7570370 CA01ECD257517A"@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <"52A5B 26C.8090601"@diplomacy.edu> <20131210150721.0817bbed@quill> Message-ID: Norbert, On Dec 10, 2013, at 9:07 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> I believe at least some of the root servers would refuse to >> accept the modified zone. > Wouldn't that cause DNSSEC validation to start failing after a couple > of days? Yes and no. If the zone is modified, it will cause DNSSEC validation failures immediately. However, instead of modifying the zone, they could restore a previous version of the zone (with the DNSSEC information that was relevant at the time intact). This would provide about 1 week (until the zone expired) for an alternative signing infrastructure to be established. Given the scenario, I believe it would be safe to assume the resolver operators who were unhappy with the change would update their trust anchors to use the new signing infrastructure/root servers sooner rather than later. It's also probably worth noting that according to http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2013-07/dnssec-google.html, as of May 2013, about 8.3% of the Internet would actually notice an invalid signature (I believe around 7% are behind a single validating resolver (Google's Public DNS)). Regards, -drc -------------- 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Dec 10 10:29:11 2013 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:29:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> Message-ID: <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> I fully agree with Rafik's concern. In fact, both the IGC and the bestbits list seem to have become rather obsessed with filling positions on various committtees. In another message from last week that probably got lost or still awaits the moderator's approvement, I noticed a growing madness about committee positions and other appointments which is more or less pushing aside the debate over issues and opinions. Besides, I also think that a distinction should be made between appointed experts and stakeholder representatives. Generally, I wished we paid less attention to the issue of representatives and focused more on the message we want to convey. jeanette Am 10.12.13 14:49, schrieb Rafik Dammak: > Hello,dfasfd > > I am wondering if we are not giving too much weight to HLM than it > should be and doing for it a free promotion! honestly, I was not in > favour of the ICANN strategic panels since they are not bottom-up, > formed by handpicked members and bypassing the usual process. I found > now that we want badly to be in that high level panel and making it > relevant and maybe even giving it a big role for Brazil meeting! hope > that we wont regret such decision later. > > we can ask for giving inputs, openness etc but that will be definitely > depending to the will ICANN/WEF/Anneberg Foundation and there won't be > any guarantee on how they process the inputs or how it will be included > in their deliverable. everything is ad-hoc there and any decision will > depend to the will of the organisers. why shall we encourage such process? > > Back to the previous discussion, Bill was invited as expert and the name > of panel is not "an expert group" , I don't see the confusion here. > > Rafik > > > 2013/12/10 Marilia Maciel > > > Milton is right about the (lack of) process. On the one hand, it is > positive that we have someone we trust there. On the other hand, it > does seem that they are including who they want and how they want, > totally disregarding the serious process we have been conducting to > appoint names. > > I think that a letter signed by all organizations that participated > in the nomination process should be sent to ICANN and ideally read > during the meeting, expressing our frustration and adding some > concrete suggestions. I come back to the points I made earlier: > - the agenda of the HL panel meetings should be publicized in advance > - channels to receive inputs (procedural or substantive) should be > created or clarified > - their meetings should be open to observers (like the meetings of > the CSTD ECWG) > - Reports of the meetings should be published. They could follow > Chatam House rules > And > - CS representatives (names), who were appointed following an > internal and legitimate process carried out by CS, should be > immediately included in the HL panel to ensure minimum CS > representation. > > Marília > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Norbert Bollow > wrote: > > Milton L Mueller > wrote: > > > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an expert and > the CS > > groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is not so > clear > > to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, especially > > since the London meeting of the group starts in two days. > Either one > > could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS demands to be > > included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a > substitute for > > the other. At this stage, I would assume that if there is no > > appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, that > there will > > not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be given. The fact > that > > Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway meeting isn't > > something that inspires confidence, is it? > > +1 > > Especially given that there was in fact a coordinated civil society > process through which names have been put forward. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Dec 10 10:58:05 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:58:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com> I strongly share Jeanette's opinion. Representatives of civil society causes (RCSC) (that characterization typifies many of the people on the list, I think) have both positive messages and concerns. The positive messages are those that many of us automatically subscribe to when they are expressed at the highest level, such as 'freedom of expression. These are positive messages. The concerns come because such desired states are often weakened by others, typically by governments but also by certain trends in other sectors. Hence the need, often expressed by RCSCs to be 'at the table' with other sectors, comes from the possibility that these positions will be eroded, consciously or unconsciously, by other sectors. The desire to be included is a quite understandable reaction to that possibility. But what I don't understand is the intense internal process and disputes regarding who gets to represent a group that appears homogeneous at the top level. Is the homogeneity superficial? If so, it would be more useful to explore and understand the differences within the RCSC. Is the dispute based upon ideological purity of the process for selection? That seems counterproductive and generally a waste of time to me. Is the dispute based upon lack of trust among group members? Are there other reasons. Is the representation process an end in itself, regardless of its effect upon pursuing other CS goals. If so, then perhaps this should be reconstituted as a political science theory group. It seems to me that rather than spending so much time discussing and debating representation issues, it would be more useful to discuss why representation issues are so important, often IMO to the detriment of working on real civil society issues. I'm with Jeanette. Concentrate upon issues, and that means areas of agreement and disagreement with other sectors as well as within the RCSC community. Disputes about representation seem unproductive, unless they imply unaddressed issues within the community. If so, it surely seems more productive to address them directly rather than through this proxy dispute based on representation. George On Dec 10, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > I fully agree with Rafik's concern. In fact, both the IGC and the > bestbits list seem to have become rather obsessed with filling positions > on various committtees. > > In another message from last week that probably got lost or still awaits > the moderator's approvement, I noticed a growing madness about committee > positions and other appointments which is more or less pushing aside > the debate over issues and opinions. > > Besides, I also think that a distinction should be made between > appointed experts and stakeholder representatives. Generally, I wished > we paid less attention to the issue of representatives and focused more > on the message we want to convey. > > jeanette > > Am 10.12.13 14:49, schrieb Rafik Dammak: >> Hello,dfasfd >> >> I am wondering if we are not giving too much weight to HLM than it >> should be and doing for it a free promotion! honestly, I was not in >> favour of the ICANN strategic panels since they are not bottom-up, >> formed by handpicked members and bypassing the usual process. I found >> now that we want badly to be in that high level panel and making it >> relevant and maybe even giving it a big role for Brazil meeting! hope >> that we wont regret such decision later. >> >> we can ask for giving inputs, openness etc but that will be definitely >> depending to the will ICANN/WEF/Anneberg Foundation and there won't be >> any guarantee on how they process the inputs or how it will be included >> in their deliverable. everything is ad-hoc there and any decision will >> depend to the will of the organisers. why shall we encourage such process? >> >> Back to the previous discussion, Bill was invited as expert and the name >> of panel is not "an expert group" , I don't see the confusion here. >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2013/12/10 Marilia Maciel > > >> >> Milton is right about the (lack of) process. On the one hand, it is >> positive that we have someone we trust there. On the other hand, it >> does seem that they are including who they want and how they want, >> totally disregarding the serious process we have been conducting to >> appoint names. >> >> I think that a letter signed by all organizations that participated >> in the nomination process should be sent to ICANN and ideally read >> during the meeting, expressing our frustration and adding some >> concrete suggestions. I come back to the points I made earlier: >> - the agenda of the HL panel meetings should be publicized in advance >> - channels to receive inputs (procedural or substantive) should be >> created or clarified >> - their meetings should be open to observers (like the meetings of >> the CSTD ECWG) >> - Reports of the meetings should be published. They could follow >> Chatam House rules >> And >> - CS representatives (names), who were appointed following an >> internal and legitimate process carried out by CS, should be >> immediately included in the HL panel to ensure minimum CS >> representation. >> >> Marília >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Norbert Bollow > > wrote: >> >> Milton L Mueller > wrote: >> >> > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an expert and >> the CS >> > groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is not so >> clear >> > to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, especially >> > since the London meeting of the group starts in two days. >> Either one >> > could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS demands to be >> > included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a >> substitute for >> > the other. At this stage, I would assume that if there is no >> > appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, that >> there will >> > not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be given. The fact >> that >> > Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway meeting isn't >> > something that inspires confidence, is it? >> >> +1 >> >> Especially given that there was in fact a coordinated civil society >> process through which names have been put forward. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Marília Maciel* >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Tue Dec 10 11:03:10 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:03:10 -0600 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com> References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com> Message-ID: +1 George and Jeannette. Thanks! gp 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 10 December 2013 09:58, George Sadowsky wrote: > I strongly share Jeanette's opinion. > > Representatives of civil society causes (RCSC) (that characterization > typifies many of the people on the list, I think) have both positive > messages and concerns. The positive messages are those that many of us > automatically subscribe to when they are expressed at the highest level, > such as 'freedom of expression. These are positive messages. > > The concerns come because such desired states are often weakened by > others, typically by governments but also by certain trends in other > sectors. Hence the need, often expressed by RCSCs to be 'at the table' > with other sectors, comes from the possibility that these positions will be > eroded, consciously or unconsciously, by other sectors. The desire to be > included is a quite understandable reaction to that possibility. > > But what I don't understand is the intense internal process and disputes > regarding who gets to represent a group that appears homogeneous at the top > level. Is the homogeneity superficial? If so, it would be more useful to > explore and understand the differences within the RCSC. Is the dispute > based upon ideological purity of the process for selection? That seems > counterproductive and generally a waste of time to me. Is the dispute > based upon lack of trust among group members? Are there other reasons. Is > the representation process an end in itself, regardless of its effect upon > pursuing other CS goals. If so, then perhaps this should be reconstituted > as a political science theory group. > > It seems to me that rather than spending so much time discussing and > debating representation issues, it would be more useful to discuss why > representation issues are so important, often IMO to the detriment of > working on real civil society issues. > > I'm with Jeanette. Concentrate upon issues, and that means areas of > agreement and disagreement with other sectors as well as within the RCSC > community. Disputes about representation seem unproductive, unless they > imply unaddressed issues within the community. If so, it surely seems > more productive to address them directly rather than through this proxy > dispute based on representation. > > George > > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > I fully agree with Rafik's concern. In fact, both the IGC and the > > bestbits list seem to have become rather obsessed with filling positions > > on various committtees. > > > > In another message from last week that probably got lost or still awaits > > the moderator's approvement, I noticed a growing madness about committee > > positions and other appointments which is more or less pushing aside > > the debate over issues and opinions. > > > > Besides, I also think that a distinction should be made between > > appointed experts and stakeholder representatives. Generally, I wished > > we paid less attention to the issue of representatives and focused more > > on the message we want to convey. > > > > jeanette > > > > Am 10.12.13 14:49, schrieb Rafik Dammak: > >> Hello,dfasfd > >> > >> I am wondering if we are not giving too much weight to HLM than it > >> should be and doing for it a free promotion! honestly, I was not in > >> favour of the ICANN strategic panels since they are not bottom-up, > >> formed by handpicked members and bypassing the usual process. I found > >> now that we want badly to be in that high level panel and making it > >> relevant and maybe even giving it a big role for Brazil meeting! hope > >> that we wont regret such decision later. > >> > >> we can ask for giving inputs, openness etc but that will be definitely > >> depending to the will ICANN/WEF/Anneberg Foundation and there won't be > >> any guarantee on how they process the inputs or how it will be included > >> in their deliverable. everything is ad-hoc there and any decision will > >> depend to the will of the organisers. why shall we encourage such > process? > >> > >> Back to the previous discussion, Bill was invited as expert and the name > >> of panel is not "an expert group" , I don't see the confusion here. > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> > >> 2013/12/10 Marilia Maciel >> > > >> > >> Milton is right about the (lack of) process. On the one hand, it is > >> positive that we have someone we trust there. On the other hand, it > >> does seem that they are including who they want and how they want, > >> totally disregarding the serious process we have been conducting to > >> appoint names. > >> > >> I think that a letter signed by all organizations that participated > >> in the nomination process should be sent to ICANN and ideally read > >> during the meeting, expressing our frustration and adding some > >> concrete suggestions. I come back to the points I made earlier: > >> - the agenda of the HL panel meetings should be publicized in advance > >> - channels to receive inputs (procedural or substantive) should be > >> created or clarified > >> - their meetings should be open to observers (like the meetings of > >> the CSTD ECWG) > >> - Reports of the meetings should be published. They could follow > >> Chatam House rules > >> And > >> - CS representatives (names), who were appointed following an > >> internal and legitimate process carried out by CS, should be > >> immediately included in the HL panel to ensure minimum CS > >> representation. > >> > >> Marília > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Norbert Bollow >> > wrote: > >> > >> Milton L Mueller > > wrote: > >> > >> > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an expert and > >> the CS > >> > groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is not so > >> clear > >> > to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, > especially > >> > since the London meeting of the group starts in two days. > >> Either one > >> > could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS demands to be > >> > included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a > >> substitute for > >> > the other. At this stage, I would assume that if there is no > >> > appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, that > >> there will > >> > not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be given. The fact > >> that > >> > Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway meeting > isn't > >> > something that inspires confidence, is it? > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> Especially given that there was in fact a coordinated civil > society > >> process through which names have been put forward. > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Norbert > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> *Marília Maciel* > >> Pesquisadora Gestora > >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > >> > >> Researcher and Coordinator > >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > >> > >> DiploFoundation associate > >> www.diplomacy.edu > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >> > >> > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at consensus.pro Tue Dec 10 11:26:23 2013 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:26:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com> References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com> Message-ID: <00000142dd54ae91-d3b7ed24-6c85-4e29-b9ca-85bfc8ec5c2d-000000@email.amazonses.com> FWIW: if you agree on what message the representative should convey is, then who conveys that message becomes very secondary. Yet another argument in favour of George's perspective. On 10 Dec 2013, at 16:58, George Sadowsky wrote: > I'm with Jeanette. Concentrate upon issues, and that means areas of agreement and disagreement with other sectors as well as within the RCSC community. Disputes about representation seem unproductive, unless they imply unaddressed issues within the community. If so, it surely seems more productive to address them directly rather than through this proxy dispute based on representation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 11:32:36 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:32:36 -0200 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com> References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com> Message-ID: I'm sorry, but to me this discussion does not reflect fundamental divergence of views with any of the names - Bill, Milton or Anriette - and it is certainly not about lack of trust. The underpinning reason here is not a disagreement among CS people, it is a disagreement with how the HL panel matter has been conducted. Do we need one HL panel? Many ppl think we dont, yet we have it. Since we have it, do we have space for CS? No, there is an appalling lack of CS representation. "Then give us names", they said. And we engaged in a process to do it, because we want to be constructive and to participate. Just to see that effort being disregarded without any convincing explanation. To my knowledge, we will not have any representative there to convey any substantial message that we wish to convey. Bill is invited as expert. What bothers me is the feeling that CS - and all organizations that participated in the NonCom process - were made fool in a way. If they wanted experts, not CS representatives, why not be clear about it? Sometimes a blunt no is better than a unfulfilled yes. With that I am not saying that I do not agree with Jeanette and George. I think we are missing the point of the most important thing, the substance. Then, let's unbury Andrew's thread about substance, answer the survey (deadline today) and move on with concrete stuff, as soon as we have this compilation/mapping of replies back. But this present thread is about "HL and CS reps". So I think it is understandable that we are talking about process. Process is all we have to talk about without knowing not even what the agenda is, and without having an idea of how to contribute. Anyway, reinforcing previous suggestions to communicate concerns, I rest my case about this. Marília On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:58 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > I strongly share Jeanette's opinion. > > Representatives of civil society causes (RCSC) (that characterization > typifies many of the people on the list, I think) have both positive > messages and concerns. The positive messages are those that many of us > automatically subscribe to when they are expressed at the highest level, > such as 'freedom of expression. These are positive messages. > > The concerns come because such desired states are often weakened by > others, typically by governments but also by certain trends in other > sectors. Hence the need, often expressed by RCSCs to be 'at the table' > with other sectors, comes from the possibility that these positions will be > eroded, consciously or unconsciously, by other sectors. The desire to be > included is a quite understandable reaction to that possibility. > > But what I don't understand is the intense internal process and disputes > regarding who gets to represent a group that appears homogeneous at the top > level. Is the homogeneity superficial? If so, it would be more useful to > explore and understand the differences within the RCSC. Is the dispute > based upon ideological purity of the process for selection? That seems > counterproductive and generally a waste of time to me. Is the dispute > based upon lack of trust among group members? Are there other reasons. Is > the representation process an end in itself, regardless of its effect upon > pursuing other CS goals. If so, then perhaps this should be reconstituted > as a political science theory group. > > It seems to me that rather than spending so much time discussing and > debating representation issues, it would be more useful to discuss why > representation issues are so important, often IMO to the detriment of > working on real civil society issues. > > I'm with Jeanette. Concentrate upon issues, and that means areas of > agreement and disagreement with other sectors as well as within the RCSC > community. Disputes about representation seem unproductive, unless they > imply unaddressed issues within the community. If so, it surely seems > more productive to address them directly rather than through this proxy > dispute based on representation. > > George > > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > I fully agree with Rafik's concern. In fact, both the IGC and the > > bestbits list seem to have become rather obsessed with filling positions > > on various committtees. > > > > In another message from last week that probably got lost or still awaits > > the moderator's approvement, I noticed a growing madness about committee > > positions and other appointments which is more or less pushing aside > > the debate over issues and opinions. > > > > Besides, I also think that a distinction should be made between > > appointed experts and stakeholder representatives. Generally, I wished > > we paid less attention to the issue of representatives and focused more > > on the message we want to convey. > > > > jeanette > > > > Am 10.12.13 14:49, schrieb Rafik Dammak: > >> Hello,dfasfd > >> > >> I am wondering if we are not giving too much weight to HLM than it > >> should be and doing for it a free promotion! honestly, I was not in > >> favour of the ICANN strategic panels since they are not bottom-up, > >> formed by handpicked members and bypassing the usual process. I found > >> now that we want badly to be in that high level panel and making it > >> relevant and maybe even giving it a big role for Brazil meeting! hope > >> that we wont regret such decision later. > >> > >> we can ask for giving inputs, openness etc but that will be definitely > >> depending to the will ICANN/WEF/Anneberg Foundation and there won't be > >> any guarantee on how they process the inputs or how it will be included > >> in their deliverable. everything is ad-hoc there and any decision will > >> depend to the will of the organisers. why shall we encourage such > process? > >> > >> Back to the previous discussion, Bill was invited as expert and the name > >> of panel is not "an expert group" , I don't see the confusion here. > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> > >> 2013/12/10 Marilia Maciel >> > > >> > >> Milton is right about the (lack of) process. On the one hand, it is > >> positive that we have someone we trust there. On the other hand, it > >> does seem that they are including who they want and how they want, > >> totally disregarding the serious process we have been conducting to > >> appoint names. > >> > >> I think that a letter signed by all organizations that participated > >> in the nomination process should be sent to ICANN and ideally read > >> during the meeting, expressing our frustration and adding some > >> concrete suggestions. I come back to the points I made earlier: > >> - the agenda of the HL panel meetings should be publicized in advance > >> - channels to receive inputs (procedural or substantive) should be > >> created or clarified > >> - their meetings should be open to observers (like the meetings of > >> the CSTD ECWG) > >> - Reports of the meetings should be published. They could follow > >> Chatam House rules > >> And > >> - CS representatives (names), who were appointed following an > >> internal and legitimate process carried out by CS, should be > >> immediately included in the HL panel to ensure minimum CS > >> representation. > >> > >> Marília > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Norbert Bollow >> > wrote: > >> > >> Milton L Mueller > > wrote: > >> > >> > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an expert and > >> the CS > >> > groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is not so > >> clear > >> > to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, > especially > >> > since the London meeting of the group starts in two days. > >> Either one > >> > could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS demands to be > >> > included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a > >> substitute for > >> > the other. At this stage, I would assume that if there is no > >> > appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, that > >> there will > >> > not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be given. The fact > >> that > >> > Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway meeting > isn't > >> > something that inspires confidence, is it? > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> Especially given that there was in fact a coordinated civil > society > >> process through which names have been put forward. > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Norbert > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> *Marília Maciel* > >> Pesquisadora Gestora > >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > >> > >> Researcher and Coordinator > >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > >> > >> DiploFoundation associate > >> www.diplomacy.edu > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >> > >> > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Tue Dec 10 11:55:28 2013 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 17:55:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <475F4D97-7760-4EFE-BBF4-9F3DD2AC8619@virtualized.org> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <"855077AC3D7A7147A7570370 CA01ECD257517A"@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <"52A5 B 26C.8090601"@diplomacy.edu> <62E8430B-D672-4186-8CB7-AEFC6C808F4C@theglobaljournal.net> <475F4D97-7760-4EFE-BBF4-9F3DD2AC8619@virtualized.org> Message-ID: Thanks for your email David 1_ After few reports and features on Internet, I did noticed for some time that Jon Postel died in October 1998 weeks before the ICANN was incorporated. For some reason, I believe the two events are very muck linked. But what was your point to mention his death? 2_ I like in your comment the 'trivial' aspect of re-rooting of the master-slaves-new slaves root servers. It shows that we are indeed facing a political issue (something that could come out of, whatever one calls it: consensus, good will, agreement, treaty, convention, charter...), and not a technical issue. That was also my understanding. So happy to have this confirmed. JC __________________________ Jean-Christophe Le 9 déc. 2013 à 23:46, David Conrad a écrit : > Jean-Christophe, > > On Dec 9, 2013, at 3:43 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: >> When Jon Postel re-rooted 7 or 8 of the 12 root servers to another 'master' (away from #13), the heads of these 7/8 servers immediately agreed to do so. What's the difference with today? > > 1. Jon died. > 2. Relationships between the IANA and the root server operators, the US government, and other related parties have become more well understood and/or formalized in the decade+ since the event. Back when that change of distribution master occurred, it was more of a ... collegial environment than a business environment. > >> Does that mean such a move is not that 'difficult' to do on a technical level - not talking about everyone's reaction in the chain. But just technically, would that be 'very' difficult? > > Changing the master distribution server for the root zone is technically trivial (it requires changing one or two IP addresses and a shared secret in a configuration file). > > I suspect the challenging bit will be getting universal agreement among the various actors on who the new master distribution server operator is. This will most likely be a non-technical issue. > > Regards, > -drc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Dec 10 12:05:15 2013 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:05:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] proposal re committee selection In-Reply-To: References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52A749CB.3060809@wzb.eu> There seems to be a flooding of committees at the moment, and we have no way of knowing how important each of them will be. Moreover, we have no way of knowing what specific stances the people we are considered as representatives will take up on the issues addressed. Still it seems we make a lot of a fuss on procedures for nominating them. Here is a practical proposal for simplifying the process and creating more room for substantive discussion: Lets create a balanced pool of people who enjoy respect and trust on the various lists, balanced in terms of gender and region. With such a pool of people in place, we can leave the question of who participates in what venue, or more precisely, who is proposed to join a given committee, to that very pool of people. The price the people have to pay for being among these talented few is going again and again through the torture of selecting the best candidates for each individual job. Each request for cs representation would be forwarded to this pool. The pool would be given a "best before" time stamp of, say, 18 or 24 months. jeanette Am 10.12.13 17:32, schrieb Marilia Maciel: > I'm sorry, but to me this discussion does not reflect fundamental > divergence of views with any of the names - Bill, Milton or Anriette - > and it is certainly not about lack of trust. The underpinning reason > here is not a disagreement among CS people, it is a disagreement with > how the HL panel matter has been conducted. > > Do we need one HL panel? Many ppl think we dont, yet we have it. Since > we have it, do we have space for CS? No, there is an appalling lack of > CS representation. "Then give us names", they said. And we engaged in a > process to do it, because we want to be constructive and to participate. > Just to see that effort being disregarded without any convincing > explanation. To my knowledge, we will not have any representative there > to convey any substantial message that we wish to convey. Bill is > invited as expert. What bothers me is the feeling that CS - and all > organizations that participated in the NonCom process - were made fool > in a way. If they wanted experts, not CS representatives, why not be > clear about it? Sometimes a blunt no is better than a unfulfilled yes. > > With that I am not saying that I do not agree with Jeanette and George. > I think we are missing the point of the most important thing, the > substance. Then, let's unbury Andrew's thread about substance, answer > the survey (deadline today) and move on with concrete stuff, as soon as > we have this compilation/mapping of replies back. But this present > thread is about "HL and CS reps". So I think it is understandable that > we are talking about process. Process is all we have to talk about > without knowing not even what the agenda is, and without having an idea > of how to contribute. > > Anyway, reinforcing previous suggestions to communicate concerns, I rest > my case about this. > > Marília > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:58 PM, George Sadowsky > > wrote: > > I strongly share Jeanette's opinion. > > Representatives of civil society causes (RCSC) (that > characterization typifies many of the people on the list, I think) > have both positive messages and concerns. The positive messages are > those that many of us automatically subscribe to when they are > expressed at the highest level, such as 'freedom of expression. > These are positive messages. > > The concerns come because such desired states are often weakened by > others, typically by governments but also by certain trends in other > sectors. Hence the need, often expressed by RCSCs to be 'at the > table' with other sectors, comes from the possibility that these > positions will be eroded, consciously or unconsciously, by other > sectors. The desire to be included is a quite understandable > reaction to that possibility. > > But what I don't understand is the intense internal process and > disputes regarding who gets to represent a group that appears > homogeneous at the top level. Is the homogeneity superficial? If > so, it would be more useful to explore and understand the > differences within the RCSC. Is the dispute based upon ideological > purity of the process for selection? That seems counterproductive > and generally a waste of time to me. Is the dispute based upon lack > of trust among group members? Are there other reasons. Is the > representation process an end in itself, regardless of its effect > upon pursuing other CS goals. If so, then perhaps this should be > reconstituted as a political science theory group. > > It seems to me that rather than spending so much time discussing and > debating representation issues, it would be more useful to discuss > why representation issues are so important, often IMO to the > detriment of working on real civil society issues. > > I'm with Jeanette. Concentrate upon issues, and that means areas of > agreement and disagreement with other sectors as well as within the > RCSC community. Disputes about representation seem unproductive, > unless they imply unaddressed issues within the community. If so, > it surely seems more productive to address them directly rather than > through this proxy dispute based on representation. > > George > > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > I fully agree with Rafik's concern. In fact, both the IGC and the > > bestbits list seem to have become rather obsessed with filling > positions > > on various committtees. > > > > In another message from last week that probably got lost or still > awaits > > the moderator's approvement, I noticed a growing madness about > committee > > positions and other appointments which is more or less pushing aside > > the debate over issues and opinions. > > > > Besides, I also think that a distinction should be made between > > appointed experts and stakeholder representatives. Generally, I > wished > > we paid less attention to the issue of representatives and > focused more > > on the message we want to convey. > > > > jeanette > > > > Am 10.12.13 14:49, schrieb Rafik Dammak: > >> Hello,dfasfd > >> > >> I am wondering if we are not giving too much weight to HLM than it > >> should be and doing for it a free promotion! honestly, I was > not in > >> favour of the ICANN strategic panels since they are not bottom-up, > >> formed by handpicked members and bypassing the usual process. I > found > >> now that we want badly to be in that high level panel and making it > >> relevant and maybe even giving it a big role for Brazil meeting! > hope > >> that we wont regret such decision later. > >> > >> we can ask for giving inputs, openness etc but that will be > definitely > >> depending to the will ICANN/WEF/Anneberg Foundation and there > won't be > >> any guarantee on how they process the inputs or how it will be > included > >> in their deliverable. everything is ad-hoc there and any > decision will > >> depend to the will of the organisers. why shall we encourage > such process? > >> > >> Back to the previous discussion, Bill was invited as expert and > the name > >> of panel is not "an expert group" , I don't see the confusion here. > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> > >> 2013/12/10 Marilia Maciel > >> >> > >> > >> Milton is right about the (lack of) process. On the one hand, > it is > >> positive that we have someone we trust there. On the other > hand, it > >> does seem that they are including who they want and how they > want, > >> totally disregarding the serious process we have been > conducting to > >> appoint names. > >> > >> I think that a letter signed by all organizations that > participated > >> in the nomination process should be sent to ICANN and ideally > read > >> during the meeting, expressing our frustration and adding some > >> concrete suggestions. I come back to the points I made earlier: > >> - the agenda of the HL panel meetings should be publicized in > advance > >> - channels to receive inputs (procedural or substantive) > should be > >> created or clarified > >> - their meetings should be open to observers (like the > meetings of > >> the CSTD ECWG) > >> - Reports of the meetings should be published. They could follow > >> Chatam House rules > >> And > >> - CS representatives (names), who were appointed following an > >> internal and legitimate process carried out by CS, should be > >> immediately included in the HL panel to ensure minimum CS > >> representation. > >> > >> Marília > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Norbert Bollow > >> >> wrote: > >> > >> Milton L Mueller >> wrote: > >> > >> > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an > expert and > >> the CS > >> > groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is > not so > >> clear > >> > to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, > especially > >> > since the London meeting of the group starts in two days. > >> Either one > >> > could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS > demands to be > >> > included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a > >> substitute for > >> > the other. At this stage, I would assume that if > there is no > >> > appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, that > >> there will > >> > not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be given. > The fact > >> that > >> > Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway > meeting isn't > >> > something that inspires confidence, is it? > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> Especially given that there was in fact a coordinated > civil society > >> process through which names have been put forward. > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Norbert > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > >. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> *Marília Maciel* > >> Pesquisadora Gestora > >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > >> > >> Researcher and Coordinator > >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > >> > >> DiploFoundation associate > >> www.diplomacy.edu > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > >. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >> > >> > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Tue Dec 10 12:13:37 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 12:13:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <"855077AC3D7A7147A7570370 CA01ECD257517A"@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <"52A5 B 26C.8090601"@diplomacy.edu> <62E8430B-D672-4186-8CB7-AEFC6C808F4C@theglobaljournal.net> <475F4D97-7760-4EFE-BBF4-9F3DD2AC8619@virtualized.org> Message-ID: Jean-Christophe, On Dec 10, 2013, at 11:55 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > 1_ > After few reports and features on Internet, I did noticed for some time that Jon Postel died in October 1998 weeks before the ICANN was incorporated. For some reason, I believe the two events are very muck linked. In the sense that the insanity (including lawsuits targeting Jon directly) undoubtedly increased Jon's stress levels and that probably didn't help his heart condition, I might agree. I do not think there is any direct relationship but then again, I've often been called naive. > But what was your point to mention his death? The root server operators (and many other folks) trusted Jon implicitly (for good reason), in many cases far more than Verisign, Ira Magaziner, the Clinton Administration, or the US government as a whole. When Jon passed away, I believe it was in some sense a traumatic event to the traditional 'power structures' of the Internet and resulted in a significant number of changes. Among those changes was an increased understanding (if not formalization) of the responsibilities held by the root server operators. However, this is just my opinion. 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 Tue Dec 10 12:17:40 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 11:17:40 -0600 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: <20131210155159.47914fc0@quill> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20131210102833.6d19a9e8@quill> <20131210155159.47914fc0@quill> Message-ID: <20131210171740.GA10589@hserus.net> I say that as a long term member of isoc and of the academic community, he is a valued part of CS. His membership to the list is neither here nor there. Funnily enough, CS extends far beyond the confines of this caucus. Norbert Bollow [10/12/13 15:51 +0100]: >McTim wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> > In relation to Jean-Christophe's posting quoted below... >> > >> > Those remarks of Alejandro Pisanty (who by the way is not only >> > Chair of ISOC Mexico, but also definitely an influential person in >> > the global technical community, for example he has served three >> > terms as an ICANN board member, and he is currently on ISOC's Board >> > of Trustees) >> >> and a member of this list (at least formerly and perhaps currently as >> a lurker) and therefore part of CS. > >Are you seriously proposing being a current or past subscriber to this >or any other mailing list results in the person being "therefore" part >of civil society??? (There are several reasonable approaches to roughly >defining the "civil society" stakeholder category, and there's room for >reasonable disagreement between proponents of them, but I wouldn't >expect anyone to seriously view being a subscriber to the list as being >indicative in one way or the other!) > >> are at >> > minutes 50:00-57:00 in this video: >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtOfsC2n_lQ >> > >> > Although the agenda that he is promoting is absolutely shocking when >> > looked at from any mainstream civil society perspective >> >> What exactly is shocking? > >a) what he actually said, in particular the statements that >Jean-Christophe has quoted > >b) the agenda which in my view / analysis is behind those statements > >c) these things being well received in the context where they were said > >> > In effect, he's saying that all power should be in the hands of the >> > engineers and by implication in the hands of the companies for which >> > they're working >> >> He didn't say that at all. Listen to it again maybe? > >I started that sentence with "in effect, he's saying". In other words, >the sentence presents my analysis of what he's saying means in effect. > >> > , and he is promoting the use of smoke screen tactics >> > that aim at preventing anyone else from gaining an effective >> > influence. >> > >> > Civil society absolutely needs to find a good way to deal with this >> > kind of tactics. >> > >> > These tactics have been successfully used *within* civil society >> > networks such as the IGC with the aim of preventing IGC from being >> > an effective civil society voice >> >> So voicing a truly held opinion is a "tactic"? > >Not necessarily; it can be part of a tactic though. Choices about where >and how to voice one's opinion, and on which subset of the topics under >discussion, are tactical in nature though. > >> Your inability to accept diversity of opinion is showing (again). > >Thanks for the insult. > >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 b.schombe at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 12:53:31 2013 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:53:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] proposal re committee selection In-Reply-To: <52A749CB.3060809@wzb.eu> References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com> <52A749CB.3060809@wzb.eu> Message-ID: I can even close my eyes and vote for ISOC chapter Kenya. *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECCOORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr 2013/12/10 Jeanette Hofmann > > There seems to be a flooding of committees at the moment, and we have no > way of knowing how important each of them will be. Moreover, we have no way > of knowing what specific stances the people we are considered as > representatives will take up on the issues addressed. Still it seems we > make a lot of a fuss on procedures for nominating them. > > Here is a practical proposal for simplifying the process and creating more > room for substantive discussion: > > Lets create a balanced pool of people who enjoy respect and trust on the > various lists, balanced in terms of gender and region. With such a pool of > people in place, we can leave the question of who participates in what > venue, or more precisely, who is proposed to join a given committee, to > that very pool of people. The price the people have to pay for being among > these talented few is going again and again through the torture of > selecting the best candidates for each individual job. > > Each request for cs representation would be forwarded to this pool. The > pool would be given a "best before" time stamp of, say, 18 or 24 months. > > jeanette > > Am 10.12.13 17:32, schrieb Marilia Maciel: > >> I'm sorry, but to me this discussion does not reflect fundamental >> divergence of views with any of the names - Bill, Milton or Anriette - >> and it is certainly not about lack of trust. The underpinning reason >> here is not a disagreement among CS people, it is a disagreement with >> how the HL panel matter has been conducted. >> >> Do we need one HL panel? Many ppl think we dont, yet we have it. Since >> we have it, do we have space for CS? No, there is an appalling lack of >> CS representation. "Then give us names", they said. And we engaged in a >> process to do it, because we want to be constructive and to participate. >> Just to see that effort being disregarded without any convincing >> explanation. To my knowledge, we will not have any representative there >> to convey any substantial message that we wish to convey. Bill is >> invited as expert. What bothers me is the feeling that CS - and all >> organizations that participated in the NonCom process - were made fool >> in a way. If they wanted experts, not CS representatives, why not be >> clear about it? Sometimes a blunt no is better than a unfulfilled yes. >> >> With that I am not saying that I do not agree with Jeanette and George. >> I think we are missing the point of the most important thing, the >> substance. Then, let's unbury Andrew's thread about substance, answer >> the survey (deadline today) and move on with concrete stuff, as soon as >> we have this compilation/mapping of replies back. But this present >> thread is about "HL and CS reps". So I think it is understandable that >> we are talking about process. Process is all we have to talk about >> without knowing not even what the agenda is, and without having an idea >> of how to contribute. >> >> Anyway, reinforcing previous suggestions to communicate concerns, I rest >> my case about this. >> >> Marília >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:58 PM, George Sadowsky >> > wrote: >> >> I strongly share Jeanette's opinion. >> >> Representatives of civil society causes (RCSC) (that >> characterization typifies many of the people on the list, I think) >> have both positive messages and concerns. The positive messages are >> those that many of us automatically subscribe to when they are >> expressed at the highest level, such as 'freedom of expression. >> These are positive messages. >> >> The concerns come because such desired states are often weakened by >> others, typically by governments but also by certain trends in other >> sectors. Hence the need, often expressed by RCSCs to be 'at the >> table' with other sectors, comes from the possibility that these >> positions will be eroded, consciously or unconsciously, by other >> sectors. The desire to be included is a quite understandable >> reaction to that possibility. >> >> But what I don't understand is the intense internal process and >> disputes regarding who gets to represent a group that appears >> homogeneous at the top level. Is the homogeneity superficial? If >> so, it would be more useful to explore and understand the >> differences within the RCSC. Is the dispute based upon ideological >> purity of the process for selection? That seems counterproductive >> and generally a waste of time to me. Is the dispute based upon lack >> of trust among group members? Are there other reasons. Is the >> representation process an end in itself, regardless of its effect >> upon pursuing other CS goals. If so, then perhaps this should be >> reconstituted as a political science theory group. >> >> It seems to me that rather than spending so much time discussing and >> debating representation issues, it would be more useful to discuss >> why representation issues are so important, often IMO to the >> detriment of working on real civil society issues. >> >> I'm with Jeanette. Concentrate upon issues, and that means areas of >> agreement and disagreement with other sectors as well as within the >> RCSC community. Disputes about representation seem unproductive, >> unless they imply unaddressed issues within the community. If so, >> it surely seems more productive to address them directly rather than >> through this proxy dispute based on representation. >> >> George >> >> >> On Dec 10, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> > I fully agree with Rafik's concern. In fact, both the IGC and the >> > bestbits list seem to have become rather obsessed with filling >> positions >> > on various committtees. >> > >> > In another message from last week that probably got lost or still >> awaits >> > the moderator's approvement, I noticed a growing madness about >> committee >> > positions and other appointments which is more or less pushing >> aside >> > the debate over issues and opinions. >> > >> > Besides, I also think that a distinction should be made between >> > appointed experts and stakeholder representatives. Generally, I >> wished >> > we paid less attention to the issue of representatives and >> focused more >> > on the message we want to convey. >> > >> > jeanette >> > >> > Am 10.12.13 14:49, schrieb Rafik Dammak: >> >> Hello,dfasfd >> >> >> >> I am wondering if we are not giving too much weight to HLM than it >> >> should be and doing for it a free promotion! honestly, I was >> not in >> >> favour of the ICANN strategic panels since they are not bottom-up, >> >> formed by handpicked members and bypassing the usual process. I >> found >> >> now that we want badly to be in that high level panel and making >> it >> >> relevant and maybe even giving it a big role for Brazil meeting! >> hope >> >> that we wont regret such decision later. >> >> >> >> we can ask for giving inputs, openness etc but that will be >> definitely >> >> depending to the will ICANN/WEF/Anneberg Foundation and there >> won't be >> >> any guarantee on how they process the inputs or how it will be >> included >> >> in their deliverable. everything is ad-hoc there and any >> decision will >> >> depend to the will of the organisers. why shall we encourage >> such process? >> >> >> >> Back to the previous discussion, Bill was invited as expert and >> the name >> >> of panel is not "an expert group" , I don't see the confusion >> here. >> >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> >> >> 2013/12/10 Marilia Maciel > >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> Milton is right about the (lack of) process. On the one hand, >> it is >> >> positive that we have someone we trust there. On the other >> hand, it >> >> does seem that they are including who they want and how they >> want, >> >> totally disregarding the serious process we have been >> conducting to >> >> appoint names. >> >> >> >> I think that a letter signed by all organizations that >> participated >> >> in the nomination process should be sent to ICANN and ideally >> read >> >> during the meeting, expressing our frustration and adding some >> >> concrete suggestions. I come back to the points I made earlier: >> >> - the agenda of the HL panel meetings should be publicized in >> advance >> >> - channels to receive inputs (procedural or substantive) >> should be >> >> created or clarified >> >> - their meetings should be open to observers (like the >> meetings of >> >> the CSTD ECWG) >> >> - Reports of the meetings should be published. They could >> follow >> >> Chatam House rules >> >> And >> >> - CS representatives (names), who were appointed following an >> >> internal and legitimate process carried out by CS, should be >> >> immediately included in the HL panel to ensure minimum CS >> >> representation. >> >> >> >> Marília >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Norbert Bollow > >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Milton L Mueller > > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an >> expert and >> >> the CS >> >> > groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is >> not so >> >> clear >> >> > to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, >> especially >> >> > since the London meeting of the group starts in two >> days. >> >> Either one >> >> > could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS >> demands to be >> >> > included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a >> >> substitute for >> >> > the other. At this stage, I would assume that if >> there is no >> >> > appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, >> that >> >> there will >> >> > not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be given. >> The fact >> >> that >> >> > Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway >> meeting isn't >> >> > something that inspires confidence, is it? >> >> >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> Especially given that there was in fact a coordinated >> civil society >> >> process through which names have been put forward. >> >> >> >> Greetings, >> >> Norbert >> >> >> >> ______________________________ >> ______________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> > >. >> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Marília Maciel* >> >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> > >. >> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > igcaucus.org> >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Marília Maciel* >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 13:11:27 2013 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 19:11:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] proposal re committee selection In-Reply-To: References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com> <52A749CB.3060809@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Apologies to everyone. A speed error. I wanted to point out that we will much more in discussions of positioning, representation .. In my humble opinion, it would be therefore that we focus our efforts in constructive discussions with respect to our concerns or the problems that are news. This will allow us to identify resource persons in relation to the matter under discussion. *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECCOORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr 2013/12/10 Baudouin SCHOMBE > I can even close my eyes and vote for ISOC chapter Kenya. > > *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* > *REPRESENTANT OFFICIEL TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE at FRICA/RDC* > > *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECCOORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* > > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 > email : b.schombe at gmail.com > skype : b.schombe > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > > > > > > 2013/12/10 Jeanette Hofmann > >> >> There seems to be a flooding of committees at the moment, and we have no >> way of knowing how important each of them will be. Moreover, we have no way >> of knowing what specific stances the people we are considered as >> representatives will take up on the issues addressed. Still it seems we >> make a lot of a fuss on procedures for nominating them. >> >> Here is a practical proposal for simplifying the process and creating >> more room for substantive discussion: >> >> Lets create a balanced pool of people who enjoy respect and trust on the >> various lists, balanced in terms of gender and region. With such a pool of >> people in place, we can leave the question of who participates in what >> venue, or more precisely, who is proposed to join a given committee, to >> that very pool of people. The price the people have to pay for being among >> these talented few is going again and again through the torture of >> selecting the best candidates for each individual job. >> >> Each request for cs representation would be forwarded to this pool. The >> pool would be given a "best before" time stamp of, say, 18 or 24 months. >> >> jeanette >> >> Am 10.12.13 17:32, schrieb Marilia Maciel: >> >>> I'm sorry, but to me this discussion does not reflect fundamental >>> divergence of views with any of the names - Bill, Milton or Anriette - >>> and it is certainly not about lack of trust. The underpinning reason >>> here is not a disagreement among CS people, it is a disagreement with >>> how the HL panel matter has been conducted. >>> >>> Do we need one HL panel? Many ppl think we dont, yet we have it. Since >>> we have it, do we have space for CS? No, there is an appalling lack of >>> CS representation. "Then give us names", they said. And we engaged in a >>> process to do it, because we want to be constructive and to participate. >>> Just to see that effort being disregarded without any convincing >>> explanation. To my knowledge, we will not have any representative there >>> to convey any substantial message that we wish to convey. Bill is >>> invited as expert. What bothers me is the feeling that CS - and all >>> organizations that participated in the NonCom process - were made fool >>> in a way. If they wanted experts, not CS representatives, why not be >>> clear about it? Sometimes a blunt no is better than a unfulfilled yes. >>> >>> With that I am not saying that I do not agree with Jeanette and George. >>> I think we are missing the point of the most important thing, the >>> substance. Then, let's unbury Andrew's thread about substance, answer >>> the survey (deadline today) and move on with concrete stuff, as soon as >>> we have this compilation/mapping of replies back. But this present >>> thread is about "HL and CS reps". So I think it is understandable that >>> we are talking about process. Process is all we have to talk about >>> without knowing not even what the agenda is, and without having an idea >>> of how to contribute. >>> >>> Anyway, reinforcing previous suggestions to communicate concerns, I rest >>> my case about this. >>> >>> Marília >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:58 PM, George Sadowsky >>> > wrote: >>> >>> I strongly share Jeanette's opinion. >>> >>> Representatives of civil society causes (RCSC) (that >>> characterization typifies many of the people on the list, I think) >>> have both positive messages and concerns. The positive messages are >>> those that many of us automatically subscribe to when they are >>> expressed at the highest level, such as 'freedom of expression. >>> These are positive messages. >>> >>> The concerns come because such desired states are often weakened by >>> others, typically by governments but also by certain trends in other >>> sectors. Hence the need, often expressed by RCSCs to be 'at the >>> table' with other sectors, comes from the possibility that these >>> positions will be eroded, consciously or unconsciously, by other >>> sectors. The desire to be included is a quite understandable >>> reaction to that possibility. >>> >>> But what I don't understand is the intense internal process and >>> disputes regarding who gets to represent a group that appears >>> homogeneous at the top level. Is the homogeneity superficial? If >>> so, it would be more useful to explore and understand the >>> differences within the RCSC. Is the dispute based upon ideological >>> purity of the process for selection? That seems counterproductive >>> and generally a waste of time to me. Is the dispute based upon lack >>> of trust among group members? Are there other reasons. Is the >>> representation process an end in itself, regardless of its effect >>> upon pursuing other CS goals. If so, then perhaps this should be >>> reconstituted as a political science theory group. >>> >>> It seems to me that rather than spending so much time discussing and >>> debating representation issues, it would be more useful to discuss >>> why representation issues are so important, often IMO to the >>> detriment of working on real civil society issues. >>> >>> I'm with Jeanette. Concentrate upon issues, and that means areas of >>> agreement and disagreement with other sectors as well as within the >>> RCSC community. Disputes about representation seem unproductive, >>> unless they imply unaddressed issues within the community. If so, >>> it surely seems more productive to address them directly rather than >>> through this proxy dispute based on representation. >>> >>> George >>> >>> >>> On Dec 10, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> >>> > I fully agree with Rafik's concern. In fact, both the IGC and the >>> > bestbits list seem to have become rather obsessed with filling >>> positions >>> > on various committtees. >>> > >>> > In another message from last week that probably got lost or still >>> awaits >>> > the moderator's approvement, I noticed a growing madness about >>> committee >>> > positions and other appointments which is more or less pushing >>> aside >>> > the debate over issues and opinions. >>> > >>> > Besides, I also think that a distinction should be made between >>> > appointed experts and stakeholder representatives. Generally, I >>> wished >>> > we paid less attention to the issue of representatives and >>> focused more >>> > on the message we want to convey. >>> > >>> > jeanette >>> > >>> > Am 10.12.13 14:49, schrieb Rafik Dammak: >>> >> Hello,dfasfd >>> >> >>> >> I am wondering if we are not giving too much weight to HLM than >>> it >>> >> should be and doing for it a free promotion! honestly, I was >>> not in >>> >> favour of the ICANN strategic panels since they are not >>> bottom-up, >>> >> formed by handpicked members and bypassing the usual process. I >>> found >>> >> now that we want badly to be in that high level panel and making >>> it >>> >> relevant and maybe even giving it a big role for Brazil meeting! >>> hope >>> >> that we wont regret such decision later. >>> >> >>> >> we can ask for giving inputs, openness etc but that will be >>> definitely >>> >> depending to the will ICANN/WEF/Anneberg Foundation and there >>> won't be >>> >> any guarantee on how they process the inputs or how it will be >>> included >>> >> in their deliverable. everything is ad-hoc there and any >>> decision will >>> >> depend to the will of the organisers. why shall we encourage >>> such process? >>> >> >>> >> Back to the previous discussion, Bill was invited as expert and >>> the name >>> >> of panel is not "an expert group" , I don't see the confusion >>> here. >>> >> >>> >> Rafik >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> 2013/12/10 Marilia Maciel >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> Milton is right about the (lack of) process. On the one hand, >>> it is >>> >> positive that we have someone we trust there. On the other >>> hand, it >>> >> does seem that they are including who they want and how they >>> want, >>> >> totally disregarding the serious process we have been >>> conducting to >>> >> appoint names. >>> >> >>> >> I think that a letter signed by all organizations that >>> participated >>> >> in the nomination process should be sent to ICANN and ideally >>> read >>> >> during the meeting, expressing our frustration and adding some >>> >> concrete suggestions. I come back to the points I made >>> earlier: >>> >> - the agenda of the HL panel meetings should be publicized in >>> advance >>> >> - channels to receive inputs (procedural or substantive) >>> should be >>> >> created or clarified >>> >> - their meetings should be open to observers (like the >>> meetings of >>> >> the CSTD ECWG) >>> >> - Reports of the meetings should be published. They could >>> follow >>> >> Chatam House rules >>> >> And >>> >> - CS representatives (names), who were appointed following an >>> >> internal and legitimate process carried out by CS, should be >>> >> immediately included in the HL panel to ensure minimum CS >>> >> representation. >>> >> >>> >> Marília >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Norbert Bollow >> >>> >> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Milton L Mueller >> >> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an >>> expert and >>> >> the CS >>> >> > groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is >>> not so >>> >> clear >>> >> > to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, >>> especially >>> >> > since the London meeting of the group starts in two >>> days. >>> >> Either one >>> >> > could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS >>> demands to be >>> >> > included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a >>> >> substitute for >>> >> > the other. At this stage, I would assume that if >>> there is no >>> >> > appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, >>> that >>> >> there will >>> >> > not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be given. >>> The fact >>> >> that >>> >> > Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway >>> meeting isn't >>> >> > something that inspires confidence, is it? >>> >> >>> >> +1 >>> >> >>> >> Especially given that there was in fact a coordinated >>> civil society >>> >> process through which names have been put forward. >>> >> >>> >> Greetings, >>> >> Norbert >>> >> >>> >> ______________________________ >>> ______________________________ >>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> >> >. >>> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> *Marília Maciel* >>> >> Pesquisadora Gestora >>> >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>> >> >>> >> Researcher and Coordinator >>> >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >>> >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>> >> >>> >> DiploFoundation associate >>> >> www.diplomacy.edu >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> >> >. >>> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> igcaucus.org> >>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> > >>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> > >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Marília Maciel* >>> Pesquisadora Gestora >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>> >>> Researcher and Coordinator >>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>> >>> DiploFoundation associate >>> www.diplomacy.edu >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Dec 10 13:18:23 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 13:18:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: <20131210171740.GA10589@hserus.net> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20131210102833.6d19a9e8@quill> <20131210155159.47914fc0@quill> <20131210171740.GA10589@hserus.net> Message-ID: <84F53CF4-FED9-4ED7-A091-2C1CDDB64219@gmail.com> All, I believe that Alejandro Pisanty is a person who has, among other things, significant concerns that map into some of the causes that are being promoted on this list. I think that we have a significant problem with terminology here, and the argument regarding the classification of Alejandro, is a clear manifestation of it. I would like to repeat what I said in a previous post and then try to improve on the terminology issue: > Fourth, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being siloed. > > An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in the world and remove government involvement, the private sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences. To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals. > > Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder group. We have interactions with government and may work for it. Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector organization. Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet. Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in the civil society stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do. This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the underlying reality, I think that the individuals who participate on this list are more appropriately described as self-selected representatives of civil society causes. I don't mean this pejoratively. There is nothing right or wrong with being a member of a self-selected group; it's just another form of organization. Similarly, as I noted in a previous post, there's nothing wrong with supporting, arguing for, or otherwise espousing a cause. But let's not confuse all of us, all the billions of us who are civil society, with a modest group of individuals who support causes that are generally very important to us. Speaking personally, While you do not represent me as an individual within civil society, I agree with a good part of what is said on this list. When I discover ideas with which I disagree, I intervene. and when the list seems to go into tailspins and obsessions with things that I believe are basically irrelevant, I intervene as i am doing now, hoping that what I do will help to reorient the direction o the conversation. Let's also not forget that many of us who have our primary affiliation in other sectors, such as the Internet technology sector, agree with much of what is said in a civil society context. Trying to classify Alejandro, as was done earlier, s either in or out of 'civil society' (whatever the writer meant) is essentially trying to take a rich and complex personality and reduce him to a single dimension. IMO that is totally counter productive. It's yet another reason why imposing a rigid stakeholder framework on a complex part of society is not only unproductive but harmful. As I said in an earlier diatribe on this list, and as Jeanette said, let's focus on issues, within and across stakeholder lines. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Dec 10, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I say that as a long term member of isoc and of the academic community, he > is a valued part of CS. > > His membership to the list is neither here nor there. Funnily enough, CS > extends far beyond the confines of this caucus. > > Norbert Bollow [10/12/13 15:51 +0100]: >> McTim wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> > In relation to Jean-Christophe's posting quoted below... >>> > >>> > Those remarks of Alejandro Pisanty (who by the way is not only >>> > Chair of ISOC Mexico, but also definitely an influential person in >>> > the global technical community, for example he has served three >>> > terms as an ICANN board member, and he is currently on ISOC's Board >>> > of Trustees) >>> >>> and a member of this list (at least formerly and perhaps currently as >>> a lurker) and therefore part of CS. >> >> Are you seriously proposing being a current or past subscriber to this >> or any other mailing list results in the person being "therefore" part >> of civil society??? (There are several reasonable approaches to roughly >> defining the "civil society" stakeholder category, and there's room for >> reasonable disagreement between proponents of them, but I wouldn't >> expect anyone to seriously view being a subscriber to the list as being >> indicative in one way or the other!) >> >>> are at >>> > minutes 50:00-57:00 in this video: >>> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtOfsC2n_lQ >>> > >>> > Although the agenda that he is promoting is absolutely shocking when >>> > looked at from any mainstream civil society perspective >>> >>> What exactly is shocking? >> >> a) what he actually said, in particular the statements that >> Jean-Christophe has quoted >> >> b) the agenda which in my view / analysis is behind those statements >> >> c) these things being well received in the context where they were said >> >>> > In effect, he's saying that all power should be in the hands of the >>> > engineers and by implication in the hands of the companies for which >>> > they're working >>> >>> He didn't say that at all. Listen to it again maybe? >> >> I started that sentence with "in effect, he's saying". In other words, >> the sentence presents my analysis of what he's saying means in effect. >> >>> > , and he is promoting the use of smoke screen tactics >>> > that aim at preventing anyone else from gaining an effective >>> > influence. >>> > >>> > Civil society absolutely needs to find a good way to deal with this >>> > kind of tactics. >>> > >>> > These tactics have been successfully used *within* civil society >>> > networks such as the IGC with the aim of preventing IGC from being >>> > an effective civil society voice >>> >>> So voicing a truly held opinion is a "tactic"? >> >> Not necessarily; it can be part of a tactic though. Choices about where >> and how to voice one's opinion, and on which subset of the topics under >> discussion, are tactical in nature though. >> >>> Your inability to accept diversity of opinion is showing (again). >> >> Thanks for the insult. >> >> 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 pimienta at funredes.org Tue Dec 10 13:33:33 2013 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:33:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] A stand for democracy in the digital age In-Reply-To: <20131210171740.GA10589@hserus.net> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20131210102833.6d19a9e8@quill> <20131210155159.47914fc0@quill> <20131210171740.GA10589@hserus.net> Message-ID: On International Human Rights Day, 562 authors, including 5 Nobel Prize laureates, from over 80 countries have joined together to launch an appeal in defense of civil liberties against surveillance by corporations and governments. 5 Nobel Prize Winners have signed: Orhan Pamuk, J.M. Coetzee, Elfriede Jelinek, Günter Grass and Tomas Tranströmer. Also among the signatories are Umberto Eco, Margaret Atwood, Don DeLillo, Daniel Kehlmann, Nawal El Saadawi, Arundhati Roy, Henning Mankell, Richard Ford, Javier Marias, Björk, David Grossman, Arnon Grünberg, Angeles Mastretta, Juan Goytisolo, Nuruddin Farah, João Ribeiro, Victor Erofeyev, Liao Yiwu and David Malouf. http://www.change.org/petitions/a-stand-for-democracy-in-the-digital-age-3 -- 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 jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Tue Dec 10 13:26:46 2013 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 19:26:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <"855077AC3D7A7147A7570370 CA01ECD257517A"@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <"52A5 B 26C.8090601"@diplomacy.edu> <62E8430B-D672-4186-8CB7-AEFC6C808F4C@theglobaljournal.net> <475F4D97-7760-4EFE-BBF4-9F3DD2AC8619@virtualized.org> Message-ID: David, Thanks for your answer. JC Post-scriptum: I'm still investigating that 1998 year, this first major 'wrong turn' in Internet History, when the founders of the Internet were ultimately replaced by a US gov/corp substitute straw man that is still of concern today (ICANN_1.0, ICANN_2.0, or ICANN+). I think in the present context, people should look back a bit. The way Postel was sided, reminds me a lot of what's happening today with the IGF. In the same ICANN48 video, we have other incredible statements about the death of the IGF, the way to keep the lead over IG... Today, things are coming with much more magnitude at a globalized level. Who cared about Postel trying to save the way Internet was first organized back then? Today a gigantesque battle of communication (see for more details the same video and the 5 challenges of the 'I stars' such as the 1Net initiative) is organized to divide, to rewrite, to dilute, to allude, to confuse people. Alejandro's incredible advises are true stigmate of what is happening. But contrary to what one could think, as Postel times tend to be more distant, the more we learn about them. I am confident that this 'coup' will be more and more of a concern to historians and the public. It might take time, but I am confident that it will be the case. They are still some true founders of the Internet that could speak prior joining Postel. It is difficult to imagine that Magaziner was able to succeed in this US establishment takeover without serious Internet insiders. (How to develop the right narrative, how to explain the necessity of a change, how to deliver results out of a multistakeholder approach...). In a thriller, the insider is the one who is betraying. Unfortunately, I am not a great reader of thriller, nor a plot craze. But when so much money was at stake, it is hard to avoid asking questions. Still a lot of $$$ are at stake today. I think Coppola's Godfather gives us a clew : "the one coming to you to offer a deal/peace will betray you". We will learn more the truth even though, few critical documents are already missing. If anyone can help me, I would like to read Magaziner's statement at Postel memorial. All of that would make a terrific movie. A sad and tragic one as well, even in the context of all these exhilarating stories by garage-start-ups and their techno dream of $$$. Not all of them turned to be successful by the way. That old story might sound a bit irrelevant today, except that the present difficulties and challenges are rooted at the same spring: preserving a new and lively public space and making sure it will not fall under the dominance of a few. We are already far behind but it is probably worth trying to catch back. __________________________ Le 10 déc. 2013 à 18:13, David Conrad a écrit : > Jean-Christophe, > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 11:55 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: >> 1_ >> After few reports and features on Internet, I did noticed for some time that Jon Postel died in October 1998 weeks before the ICANN was incorporated. For some reason, I believe the two events are very muck linked. > > In the sense that the insanity (including lawsuits targeting Jon directly) undoubtedly increased Jon's stress levels and that probably didn't help his heart condition, I might agree. I do not think there is any direct relationship but then again, I've often been called naive. > >> But what was your point to mention his death? > > The root server operators (and many other folks) trusted Jon implicitly (for good reason), in many cases far more than Verisign, Ira Magaziner, the Clinton Administration, or the US government as a whole. When Jon passed away, I believe it was in some sense a traumatic event to the traditional 'power structures' of the Internet and resulted in a significant number of changes. Among those changes was an increased understanding (if not formalization) of the responsibilities held by the root server operators. > > However, this is just my opinion. > > Regards, > -drc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 13:46:02 2013 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 19:46:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: <84F53CF4-FED9-4ED7-A091-2C1CDDB64219@gmail.com> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20131210102833.6d19a9e8@quill> <20131210155159.47914fc0@quill> <20131210171740.GA10589@hserus.net> <84F53CF4-FED9-4ED7-A091-2C1CDDB64219@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Georges, I do not think anyone has a problem with the Alejandro classification, nor himself. With his resume, his grade, his whatever. Nothing of these. The issue is about his statements during ICANN48. So let's talk about that. What does these statements mean to the CS, to the IG debate, its potential objectives and tangible results of a 2014-discussion. Even though someone like Alejandro has put all these big words (orders/advises) in his mouth, it is difficult to imagine that he did it from his own initiative. All what he said is shocking to any honest participant to the IG debate. I hope this helps us to stay finely tuned and with wide open eyes. Let's "call a cat a cat" as we say here. JC Le 10 déc. 2013 à 19:18, George Sadowsky a écrit : > All, > > I believe that Alejandro Pisanty is a person who has, among other things, significant concerns that map into some of the causes that are being promoted on this list. > > I think that we have a significant problem with terminology here, and the argument regarding the classification of Alejandro, is a clear manifestation of it. I would like to repeat what I said in a previous post and then try to improve on the terminology issue: > >> Fourth, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being siloed. >> >> An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in the world and remove government involvement, the private sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences. To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals. >> >> Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder group. We have interactions with government and may work for it. Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector organization. Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet. Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in the civil society stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do. This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the underlying reality, > > I think that the individuals who participate on this list are more appropriately described as self-selected representatives of civil society causes. I don't mean this pejoratively. There is nothing right or wrong with being a member of a self-selected group; it's just another form of organization. Similarly, as I noted in a previous post, there's nothing wrong with supporting, arguing for, or otherwise espousing a cause. > > But let's not confuse all of us, all the billions of us who are civil society, with a modest group of individuals who support causes that are generally very important to us. > > Speaking personally, While you do not represent me as an individual within civil society, I agree with a good part of what is said on this list. When I discover ideas with which I disagree, I intervene. and when the list seems to go into tailspins and obsessions with things that I believe are basically irrelevant, I intervene as i am doing now, hoping that what I do will help to reorient the direction o the conversation. > > Let's also not forget that many of us who have our primary affiliation in other sectors, such as the Internet technology sector, agree with much of what is said in a civil society context. Trying to classify Alejandro, as was done earlier, s either in or out of 'civil society' (whatever the writer meant) is essentially trying to take a rich and complex personality and reduce him to a single dimension. IMO that is totally counter productive. It's yet another reason why imposing a rigid stakeholder framework on a complex part of society is not only unproductive but harmful. > > As I said in an earlier diatribe on this list, and as Jeanette said, let's focus on issues, within and across stakeholder lines. > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > On Dec 10, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> I say that as a long term member of isoc and of the academic community, he >> is a valued part of CS. >> >> His membership to the list is neither here nor there. Funnily enough, CS >> extends far beyond the confines of this caucus. >> >> Norbert Bollow [10/12/13 15:51 +0100]: >>> McTim wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>> In relation to Jean-Christophe's posting quoted below... >>>>> >>>>> Those remarks of Alejandro Pisanty (who by the way is not only >>>>> Chair of ISOC Mexico, but also definitely an influential person in >>>>> the global technical community, for example he has served three >>>>> terms as an ICANN board member, and he is currently on ISOC's Board >>>>> of Trustees) >>>> >>>> and a member of this list (at least formerly and perhaps currently as >>>> a lurker) and therefore part of CS. >>> >>> Are you seriously proposing being a current or past subscriber to this >>> or any other mailing list results in the person being "therefore" part >>> of civil society??? (There are several reasonable approaches to roughly >>> defining the "civil society" stakeholder category, and there's room for >>> reasonable disagreement between proponents of them, but I wouldn't >>> expect anyone to seriously view being a subscriber to the list as being >>> indicative in one way or the other!) >>> >>>> are at >>>>> minutes 50:00-57:00 in this video: >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtOfsC2n_lQ >>>>> >>>>> Although the agenda that he is promoting is absolutely shocking when >>>>> looked at from any mainstream civil society perspective >>>> >>>> What exactly is shocking? >>> >>> a) what he actually said, in particular the statements that >>> Jean-Christophe has quoted >>> >>> b) the agenda which in my view / analysis is behind those statements >>> >>> c) these things being well received in the context where they were said >>> >>>>> In effect, he's saying that all power should be in the hands of the >>>>> engineers and by implication in the hands of the companies for which >>>>> they're working >>>> >>>> He didn't say that at all. Listen to it again maybe? >>> >>> I started that sentence with "in effect, he's saying". In other words, >>> the sentence presents my analysis of what he's saying means in effect. >>> >>>>> , and he is promoting the use of smoke screen tactics >>>>> that aim at preventing anyone else from gaining an effective >>>>> influence. >>>>> >>>>> Civil society absolutely needs to find a good way to deal with this >>>>> kind of tactics. >>>>> >>>>> These tactics have been successfully used *within* civil society >>>>> networks such as the IGC with the aim of preventing IGC from being >>>>> an effective civil society voice >>>> >>>> So voicing a truly held opinion is a "tactic"? >>> >>> Not necessarily; it can be part of a tactic though. Choices about where >>> and how to voice one's opinion, and on which subset of the topics under >>> discussion, are tactical in nature though. >>> >>>> Your inability to accept diversity of opinion is showing (again). >>> >>> Thanks for the insult. >>> >>> 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 george.sadowsky at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 14:08:33 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:08:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20131210102833.6d19a9e8@quill> <20131210155159.47914fc0@quill> <20131210171740.GA10589@hserus.net> <84F53CF4-FED9-4ED7-A091-2C1CDDB64219@gmail.com> Message-ID: <10B5C398-356B-4810-9E48-A3A84340E21B@gmail.com> Full disclosure: I am on the ICANN but I post my own opinions. I was there, but did not hear him. Do you have a link to the transcript file? Also, any comments on the larger question of terminology? George On Dec 10, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: > Hi Georges, > > I do not think anyone has a problem with the Alejandro classification, nor himself. With his resume, his grade, his whatever. Nothing of these. > > The issue is about his statements during ICANN48. So let's talk about that. What does these statements mean to the CS, to the IG debate, its potential objectives and tangible results of a 2014-discussion. Even though someone like Alejandro has put all these big words (orders/advises) in his mouth, it is difficult to imagine that he did it from his own initiative. All what he said is shocking to any honest participant to the IG debate. > > I hope this helps us to stay finely tuned and with wide open eyes. > > Let's "call a cat a cat" as we say here. > > JC > > > Le 10 déc. 2013 à 19:18, George Sadowsky a écrit : > >> All, >> >> I believe that Alejandro Pisanty is a person who has, among other things, significant concerns that map into some of the causes that are being promoted on this list. >> >> I think that we have a significant problem with terminology here, and the argument regarding the classification of Alejandro, is a clear manifestation of it. I would like to repeat what I said in a previous post and then try to improve on the terminology issue: >> >>> Fourth, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being siloed. >>> >>> An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in the world and remove government involvement, the private sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences. To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals. >>> >>> Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder group. We have interactions with government and may work for it. Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector organization. Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet. Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in the civil society stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do. This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the underlying reality, >> >> I think that the individuals who participate on this list are more appropriately described as self-selected representatives of civil society causes. I don't mean this pejoratively. There is nothing right or wrong with being a member of a self-selected group; it's just another form of organization. Similarly, as I noted in a previous post, there's nothing wrong with supporting, arguing for, or otherwise espousing a cause. >> >> But let's not confuse all of us, all the billions of us who are civil society, with a modest group of individuals who support causes that are generally very important to us. >> >> Speaking personally, While you do not represent me as an individual within civil society, I agree with a good part of what is said on this list. When I discover ideas with which I disagree, I intervene. and when the list seems to go into tailspins and obsessions with things that I believe are basically irrelevant, I intervene as i am doing now, hoping that what I do will help to reorient the direction o the conversation. >> >> Let's also not forget that many of us who have our primary affiliation in other sectors, such as the Internet technology sector, agree with much of what is said in a civil society context. Trying to classify Alejandro, as was done earlier, s either in or out of 'civil society' (whatever the writer meant) is essentially trying to take a rich and complex personality and reduce him to a single dimension. IMO that is totally counter productive. It's yet another reason why imposing a rigid stakeholder framework on a complex part of society is not only unproductive but harmful. >> >> As I said in an earlier diatribe on this list, and as Jeanette said, let's focus on issues, within and across stakeholder lines. >> >> George >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> On Dec 10, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> I say that as a long term member of isoc and of the academic community, he >>> is a valued part of CS. >>> >>> His membership to the list is neither here nor there. Funnily enough, CS >>> extends far beyond the confines of this caucus. >>> >>> Norbert Bollow [10/12/13 15:51 +0100]: >>>> McTim wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>>> In relation to Jean-Christophe's posting quoted below... >>>>>> >>>>>> Those remarks of Alejandro Pisanty (who by the way is not only >>>>>> Chair of ISOC Mexico, but also definitely an influential person in >>>>>> the global technical community, for example he has served three >>>>>> terms as an ICANN board member, and he is currently on ISOC's Board >>>>>> of Trustees) >>>>> >>>>> and a member of this list (at least formerly and perhaps currently as >>>>> a lurker) and therefore part of CS. >>>> >>>> Are you seriously proposing being a current or past subscriber to this >>>> or any other mailing list results in the person being "therefore" part >>>> of civil society??? (There are several reasonable approaches to roughly >>>> defining the "civil society" stakeholder category, and there's room for >>>> reasonable disagreement between proponents of them, but I wouldn't >>>> expect anyone to seriously view being a subscriber to the list as being >>>> indicative in one way or the other!) >>>> >>>>> are at >>>>>> minutes 50:00-57:00 in this video: >>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtOfsC2n_lQ >>>>>> >>>>>> Although the agenda that he is promoting is absolutely shocking when >>>>>> looked at from any mainstream civil society perspective >>>>> >>>>> What exactly is shocking? >>>> >>>> a) what he actually said, in particular the statements that >>>> Jean-Christophe has quoted >>>> >>>> b) the agenda which in my view / analysis is behind those statements >>>> >>>> c) these things being well received in the context where they were said >>>> >>>>>> In effect, he's saying that all power should be in the hands of the >>>>>> engineers and by implication in the hands of the companies for which >>>>>> they're working >>>>> >>>>> He didn't say that at all. Listen to it again maybe? >>>> >>>> I started that sentence with "in effect, he's saying". In other words, >>>> the sentence presents my analysis of what he's saying means in effect. >>>> >>>>>> , and he is promoting the use of smoke screen tactics >>>>>> that aim at preventing anyone else from gaining an effective >>>>>> influence. >>>>>> >>>>>> Civil society absolutely needs to find a good way to deal with this >>>>>> kind of tactics. >>>>>> >>>>>> These tactics have been successfully used *within* civil society >>>>>> networks such as the IGC with the aim of preventing IGC from being >>>>>> an effective civil society voice >>>>> >>>>> So voicing a truly held opinion is a "tactic"? >>>> >>>> Not necessarily; it can be part of a tactic though. Choices about where >>>> and how to voice one's opinion, and on which subset of the topics under >>>> discussion, are tactical in nature though. >>>> >>>>> Your inability to accept diversity of opinion is showing (again). >>>> >>>> Thanks for the insult. >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Guru at ITforChange.net Tue Dec 10 15:17:30 2013 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:17:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] India to push for freeing Internet from U.S. control Message-ID: <52A776DA.2010701@ITforChange.net> source - http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/india-to-push-for-freeing-internet-from-us-control/article5434095.ece?homepage=true In view of its growing cyber security concerns, India has decided to challenge the U.S. government’s control over the Internet and ensure that the trio of the U.S., Russia and China does not ignore India’s concerns while developing an international regime for Internet governance. India will also push for storing all Internet data within the country, besides ensuring control and management of servers. “The control of Internet was in the hands of the U.S. government and the key levers relating to its management was dominated by its security agencies…Mere location of root servers in India would not serve any purpose unless we were also allowed a role in their control and management. We should insist that data of all domain names originating from India…should be stored in India. Similarly, all traffic originating/landing in India should be stored in India,” says an internal note prepared after the meeting of Sub-Committee on International Cooperation on Cyber Security under the National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS). Notably, the key function of domain name system (DNS) management today is in the hands of the U.S. National Telecommunication and Information Administration and the Department of Commerce. Though after persistently putting pressure on companies, India managed to get root servers installed in the country, it wants a say in management of these servers. India is also seeking a key role in policy making on Internet governance at the international level, said a senior government official engaged in India’s cyber security preparedness. “It was important that management and control of the DNS should be supervised by a ‘Board’ consisting of technical experts nominated by governments and India should be represented on this Board. We should seek a larger determinate role for the GAC [Government Advisory Committee] in ICANN [Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Number] a U.S.-based non-profit organisation that coordinates global Internet systems, which we should be effectively represented,” the note adds. Significantly, under the ‘Affirmation of Commitments’ between the ICANN and the U.S. Department of Commerce, the ICANN committed that it would not shift outside of the U.S. without the concurrence of the U.S. government and the process of Internet management would be led by private sector. At the meeting, held last month and headed by Deputy National Security Advisor and NSCS Secretary Nehchal Sandhu, it was decided that the Ministry of External Affairs along with the Department of Electronic and Information Technology (DEITy) and the NSCS, will develop a position paper, highlighting India’s concerns regarding representation and management control in the Internet governance domain. India is also concerned about the proximity of the U.S., Russia and China while deciding on issue of Internet governance. “There was a possibility that the U.S., Russia and China may work out an arrangement that met their concerns and this arrangement was thereafter forced upon other countries. We need to guard against this possibility and ensure that India’s concerns were also accommodated in whatever international regime for Internet governance that ultimately emerged,” the note adds. Notably, today India has third largest Internet users in the world at over 15 crore, only after China (56 crore) and the U.S. (25 crore). Similarly, India has also decided to favour a pre-dominantly multilateral approach on issues related to Internet governance rather than multi-stakeholder approach which is mainly being advocated by the West. “India feels that the very term multi-stakeholder was something of a ‘misnomer’. A small unrepresentative group of certain individuals, supported by vested interests, appear to have arrogated themselves the right to present certain views in discussions relating to Internet governance. It was not clear as to who they represent and whether who they claimed to represent had in fact nominated them. These persons undermine the positions of the government and were really spokespersons of certain Western interests,” the note says. -- Gurumurthy Kasinathan Director, IT for Change /In Special Consultative Status with the United Nations ECOSOC/ www.ITforChange.Net | Cell:91 9845437730 | Tel:91 80 26654134, 26536890 http://karnatakaeducation.org.in/KOER/en/index.php/Subject_Teacher_Forum -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: graphics1 Type: image/png Size: 6531 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 15:18:29 2013 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 21:18:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: <10B5C398-356B-4810-9E48-A3A84340E21B@gmail.com> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20131210102833.6d19a9e8@quill> <20131210155159.47914fc0@quill> <20131210171740.GA10589@hserus.net> <84F53CF4-FED9-4ED7-A091-2C1CDDB64219@gmail.com> <10B5C398-356B-4810-9E48-A3A84340E21B@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks for informing those who didn't know about your ICANN relationship/link/... We might see in a near future, more clarity about who's who in the different circles. Internet Governance is not about going to Disneyland, giving smiles around at each other while gently spending money -for those who have some- and thinking that we live in a "ouin-ouin" world. Do you mean you were attending ICANN48, but did not participate to that session? Which then makes sense ("I did not hear him"). What Alejandro said was probably one of the greatest moment of the meeting. Unavoidable. But again, if we understand Alejandro, please no single definition, no single issue... What's about terminology? This is not really what is at stake here. What will be the next governance? That is the main concern and this is what needs to be urgently addressed and forwarded to the Brazilian meeting. And governance means some sort of political will, clarity, and "program". JC Le 10 déc. 2013 à 20:08, George Sadowsky a écrit : > Full disclosure: I am on the ICANN but I post my own opinions. > > I was there, but did not hear him. Do you have a link to the transcript file? Also, any comments on the larger question of terminology? > > George > > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: > >> Hi Georges, >> >> I do not think anyone has a problem with the Alejandro classification, nor himself. With his resume, his grade, his whatever. Nothing of these. >> >> The issue is about his statements during ICANN48. So let's talk about that. What does these statements mean to the CS, to the IG debate, its potential objectives and tangible results of a 2014-discussion. Even though someone like Alejandro has put all these big words (orders/advises) in his mouth, it is difficult to imagine that he did it from his own initiative. All what he said is shocking to any honest participant to the IG debate. >> >> I hope this helps us to stay finely tuned and with wide open eyes. >> >> Let's "call a cat a cat" as we say here. >> >> JC >> >> >> Le 10 déc. 2013 à 19:18, George Sadowsky a écrit : >> >>> All, >>> >>> I believe that Alejandro Pisanty is a person who has, among other things, significant concerns that map into some of the causes that are being promoted on this list. >>> >>> I think that we have a significant problem with terminology here, and the argument regarding the classification of Alejandro, is a clear manifestation of it. I would like to repeat what I said in a previous post and then try to improve on the terminology issue: >>> >>>> Fourth, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being siloed. >>>> >>>> An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in the world and remove government involvement, the private sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences. To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals. >>>> >>>> Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder group. We have interactions with government and may work for it. Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector organization. Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet. Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in the civil society stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do. This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the underlying reality, >>> >>> I think that the individuals who participate on this list are more appropriately described as self-selected representatives of civil society causes. I don't mean this pejoratively. There is nothing right or wrong with being a member of a self-selected group; it's just another form of organization. Similarly, as I noted in a previous post, there's nothing wrong with supporting, arguing for, or otherwise espousing a cause. >>> >>> But let's not confuse all of us, all the billions of us who are civil society, with a modest group of individuals who support causes that are generally very important to us. >>> >>> Speaking personally, While you do not represent me as an individual within civil society, I agree with a good part of what is said on this list. When I discover ideas with which I disagree, I intervene. and when the list seems to go into tailspins and obsessions with things that I believe are basically irrelevant, I intervene as i am doing now, hoping that what I do will help to reorient the direction o the conversation. >>> >>> Let's also not forget that many of us who have our primary affiliation in other sectors, such as the Internet technology sector, agree with much of what is said in a civil society context. Trying to classify Alejandro, as was done earlier, s either in or out of 'civil society' (whatever the writer meant) is essentially trying to take a rich and complex personality and reduce him to a single dimension. IMO that is totally counter productive. It's yet another reason why imposing a rigid stakeholder framework on a complex part of society is not only unproductive but harmful. >>> >>> As I said in an earlier diatribe on this list, and as Jeanette said, let's focus on issues, within and across stakeholder lines. >>> >>> George >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> On Dec 10, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> I say that as a long term member of isoc and of the academic community, he >>>> is a valued part of CS. >>>> >>>> His membership to the list is neither here nor there. Funnily enough, CS >>>> extends far beyond the confines of this caucus. >>>> >>>> Norbert Bollow [10/12/13 15:51 +0100]: >>>>> McTim wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>>>> In relation to Jean-Christophe's posting quoted below... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Those remarks of Alejandro Pisanty (who by the way is not only >>>>>>> Chair of ISOC Mexico, but also definitely an influential person in >>>>>>> the global technical community, for example he has served three >>>>>>> terms as an ICANN board member, and he is currently on ISOC's Board >>>>>>> of Trustees) >>>>>> >>>>>> and a member of this list (at least formerly and perhaps currently as >>>>>> a lurker) and therefore part of CS. >>>>> >>>>> Are you seriously proposing being a current or past subscriber to this >>>>> or any other mailing list results in the person being "therefore" part >>>>> of civil society??? (There are several reasonable approaches to roughly >>>>> defining the "civil society" stakeholder category, and there's room for >>>>> reasonable disagreement between proponents of them, but I wouldn't >>>>> expect anyone to seriously view being a subscriber to the list as being >>>>> indicative in one way or the other!) >>>>> >>>>>> are at >>>>>>> minutes 50:00-57:00 in this video: >>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtOfsC2n_lQ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Although the agenda that he is promoting is absolutely shocking when >>>>>>> looked at from any mainstream civil society perspective >>>>>> >>>>>> What exactly is shocking? >>>>> >>>>> a) what he actually said, in particular the statements that >>>>> Jean-Christophe has quoted >>>>> >>>>> b) the agenda which in my view / analysis is behind those statements >>>>> >>>>> c) these things being well received in the context where they were said >>>>> >>>>>>> In effect, he's saying that all power should be in the hands of the >>>>>>> engineers and by implication in the hands of the companies for which >>>>>>> they're working >>>>>> >>>>>> He didn't say that at all. Listen to it again maybe? >>>>> >>>>> I started that sentence with "in effect, he's saying". In other words, >>>>> the sentence presents my analysis of what he's saying means in effect. >>>>> >>>>>>> , and he is promoting the use of smoke screen tactics >>>>>>> that aim at preventing anyone else from gaining an effective >>>>>>> influence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Civil society absolutely needs to find a good way to deal with this >>>>>>> kind of tactics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> These tactics have been successfully used *within* civil society >>>>>>> networks such as the IGC with the aim of preventing IGC from being >>>>>>> an effective civil society voice >>>>>> >>>>>> So voicing a truly held opinion is a "tactic"? >>>>> >>>>> Not necessarily; it can be part of a tactic though. Choices about where >>>>> and how to voice one's opinion, and on which subset of the topics under >>>>> discussion, are tactical in nature though. >>>>> >>>>>> Your inability to accept diversity of opinion is showing (again). >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the insult. >>>>> >>>>> 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 Tue Dec 10 16:33:18 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:33:18 -0500 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20131210102833.6d19a9e8@quill> <20131210155159.47914fc0@quill> <20131210171740.GA10589@hserus.net> <84F53CF4-FED9-4ED7-A091-2C1CDDB64219@gmail.com> <10B5C398-356B-4810-9E48-A3A84340E21B@gmail.com> Message-ID: <42B2C0E3-C9DE-4005-B2F2-0C2BA7FB7D3C@gmail.com> I typed too quickly. I meant to type "I am on the ICANN Board." I thought that it was rather well known. But whatever I post on these lists is my own personal opinion. I think that's well understood also. I have also been on this list for the last 10 years, and at that time I was running Internet policy projects in transition countries, mostly in the former Soviet Union. See http://www.georgesadowsky.org/. I clearly was at ICANN 48 but don't remember Alejandro's intervention. If it was at the Open Forum, I was involved in a couple of urgent side conversations, and I did leave the room at some point. Maybe it's just my faulty memory. If it occurred elsewhere, I was not in that session. Then again, I had had a long talk with Alejandro during the week, and perhaps I just wasn't listening well. I don't understand your Disneyland comment, but I want to comment on your "circle" allusion. I don't stand in one circle. I consult (small business), sometimes I consult for government (government), I am a technologist (technical) and I've been involved in a variety of economic and social development initiatives (civil society). Parts of me are in all circles, and to be identified with only one circle deforms who I am -- just like the stakeholder framework encourages us to be in silos. I wrote a post several weeks ago on this subject that you may not have seen; I'll send you a copy off list. So I'm waiting to receive the text that you are referring to. Perhaps if it's not too long you could just post it to the list so that everyone could make their own judgment? George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Dec 10, 2013, at 3:18 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: > Thanks for informing those who didn't know about your ICANN relationship/link/... We might see in a near future, more clarity about who's who in the different circles. Internet Governance is not about going to Disneyland, giving smiles around at each other while gently spending money -for those who have some- and thinking that we live in a "ouin-ouin" world. > > Do you mean you were attending ICANN48, but did not participate to that session? Which then makes sense ("I did not hear him"). What Alejandro said was probably one of the greatest moment of the meeting. Unavoidable. > > But again, if we understand Alejandro, please no single definition, no single issue... What's about terminology? This is not really what is at stake here. What will be the next governance? That is the main concern and this is what needs to be urgently addressed and forwarded to the Brazilian meeting. And governance means some sort of political will, clarity, and "program". > > JC > > > Le 10 déc. 2013 à 20:08, George Sadowsky a écrit : > >> Full disclosure: I am on the ICANN but I post my own opinions. >> >> I was there, but did not hear him. Do you have a link to the transcript file? Also, any comments on the larger question of terminology? >> >> George >> >> >> On Dec 10, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: >> >>> Hi Georges, >>> >>> I do not think anyone has a problem with the Alejandro classification, nor himself. With his resume, his grade, his whatever. Nothing of these. >>> >>> The issue is about his statements during ICANN48. So let's talk about that. What does these statements mean to the CS, to the IG debate, its potential objectives and tangible results of a 2014-discussion. Even though someone like Alejandro has put all these big words (orders/advises) in his mouth, it is difficult to imagine that he did it from his own initiative. All what he said is shocking to any honest participant to the IG debate. >>> >>> I hope this helps us to stay finely tuned and with wide open eyes. >>> >>> Let's "call a cat a cat" as we say here. >>> >>> JC >>> >>> >>> Le 10 déc. 2013 à 19:18, George Sadowsky a écrit : >>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> I believe that Alejandro Pisanty is a person who has, among other things, significant concerns that map into some of the causes that are being promoted on this list. >>>> >>>> I think that we have a significant problem with terminology here, and the argument regarding the classification of Alejandro, is a clear manifestation of it. I would like to repeat what I said in a previous post and then try to improve on the terminology issue: >>>> >>>>> Fourth, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being siloed. >>>>> >>>>> An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in the world and remove government involvement, the private sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences. To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals. >>>>> >>>>> Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder group. We have interactions with government and may work for it. Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector organization. Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet. Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in the civil society stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do. This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the underlying reality, >>>> >>>> I think that the individuals who participate on this list are more appropriately described as self-selected representatives of civil society causes. I don't mean this pejoratively. There is nothing right or wrong with being a member of a self-selected group; it's just another form of organization. Similarly, as I noted in a previous post, there's nothing wrong with supporting, arguing for, or otherwise espousing a cause. >>>> >>>> But let's not confuse all of us, all the billions of us who are civil society, with a modest group of individuals who support causes that are generally very important to us. >>>> >>>> Speaking personally, While you do not represent me as an individual within civil society, I agree with a good part of what is said on this list. When I discover ideas with which I disagree, I intervene. and when the list seems to go into tailspins and obsessions with things that I believe are basically irrelevant, I intervene as i am doing now, hoping that what I do will help to reorient the direction o the conversation. >>>> >>>> Let's also not forget that many of us who have our primary affiliation in other sectors, such as the Internet technology sector, agree with much of what is said in a civil society context. Trying to classify Alejandro, as was done earlier, s either in or out of 'civil society' (whatever the writer meant) is essentially trying to take a rich and complex personality and reduce him to a single dimension. IMO that is totally counter productive. It's yet another reason why imposing a rigid stakeholder framework on a complex part of society is not only unproductive but harmful. >>>> >>>> As I said in an earlier diatribe on this list, and as Jeanette said, let's focus on issues, within and across stakeholder lines. >>>> >>>> George >>>> >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>> On Dec 10, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>> I say that as a long term member of isoc and of the academic community, he >>>>> is a valued part of CS. >>>>> >>>>> His membership to the list is neither here nor there. Funnily enough, CS >>>>> extends far beyond the confines of this caucus. >>>>> >>>>> Norbert Bollow [10/12/13 15:51 +0100]: >>>>>> McTim wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>>>>> In relation to Jean-Christophe's posting quoted below... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Those remarks of Alejandro Pisanty (who by the way is not only >>>>>>>> Chair of ISOC Mexico, but also definitely an influential person in >>>>>>>> the global technical community, for example he has served three >>>>>>>> terms as an ICANN board member, and he is currently on ISOC's Board >>>>>>>> of Trustees) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and a member of this list (at least formerly and perhaps currently as >>>>>>> a lurker) and therefore part of CS. >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you seriously proposing being a current or past subscriber to this >>>>>> or any other mailing list results in the person being "therefore" part >>>>>> of civil society??? (There are several reasonable approaches to roughly >>>>>> defining the "civil society" stakeholder category, and there's room for >>>>>> reasonable disagreement between proponents of them, but I wouldn't >>>>>> expect anyone to seriously view being a subscriber to the list as being >>>>>> indicative in one way or the other!) >>>>>> >>>>>>> are at >>>>>>>> minutes 50:00-57:00 in this video: >>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtOfsC2n_lQ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Although the agenda that he is promoting is absolutely shocking when >>>>>>>> looked at from any mainstream civil society perspective >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What exactly is shocking? >>>>>> >>>>>> a) what he actually said, in particular the statements that >>>>>> Jean-Christophe has quoted >>>>>> >>>>>> b) the agenda which in my view / analysis is behind those statements >>>>>> >>>>>> c) these things being well received in the context where they were said >>>>>> >>>>>>>> In effect, he's saying that all power should be in the hands of the >>>>>>>> engineers and by implication in the hands of the companies for which >>>>>>>> they're working >>>>>>> >>>>>>> He didn't say that at all. Listen to it again maybe? >>>>>> >>>>>> I started that sentence with "in effect, he's saying". In other words, >>>>>> the sentence presents my analysis of what he's saying means in effect. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> , and he is promoting the use of smoke screen tactics >>>>>>>> that aim at preventing anyone else from gaining an effective >>>>>>>> influence. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Civil society absolutely needs to find a good way to deal with this >>>>>>>> kind of tactics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> These tactics have been successfully used *within* civil society >>>>>>>> networks such as the IGC with the aim of preventing IGC from being >>>>>>>> an effective civil society voice >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So voicing a truly held opinion is a "tactic"? >>>>>> >>>>>> Not necessarily; it can be part of a tactic though. Choices about where >>>>>> and how to voice one's opinion, and on which subset of the topics under >>>>>> discussion, are tactical in nature though. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Your inability to accept diversity of opinion is showing (again). >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the insult. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 16:55:14 2013 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:55:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: <42B2C0E3-C9DE-4005-B2F2-0C2BA7FB7D3C@gmail.com> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20131210102833.6d19a9e8@quill> <20131210155159.47914fc0@quill> <20131210171740.GA10589@hserus.net> <84F53CF4-FED9-4ED7-A091-2C1CDDB64219@gmail.com> <10B5C398-356B-4810-9E48-A3A84340E21B@gmail.com> <42B2C0E3-C9DE-4005-B2F2-0C2BA7FB7D3C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5736A3D6-FB0A-4698-839C-9300E26A1087@gmail.com> George, I am putting a final hand to my next hufpost and will provide the link once it is online. It will also include a link to the full transcript - was a bit of work for a Continental European like me to get through Alejandro's speedy Mexican English. No offense, just a bit of a hard time to be as precise as possible. JC Le 10 déc. 2013 à 22:33, George Sadowsky a écrit : > I typed too quickly. I meant to type "I am on the ICANN Board." I thought that it was rather well known. But whatever I post on these lists is my own personal opinion. I think that's well understood also. > > I have also been on this list for the last 10 years, and at that time I was running Internet policy projects in transition countries, mostly in the former Soviet Union. See http://www.georgesadowsky.org/. > > I clearly was at ICANN 48 but don't remember Alejandro's intervention. If it was at the Open Forum, I was involved in a couple of urgent side conversations, and I did leave the room at some point. Maybe it's just my faulty memory. If it occurred elsewhere, I was not in that session. Then again, I had had a long talk with Alejandro during the week, and perhaps I just wasn't listening well. > > I don't understand your Disneyland comment, but I want to comment on your "circle" allusion. I don't stand in one circle. I consult (small business), sometimes I consult for government (government), I am a technologist (technical) and I've been involved in a variety of economic and social development initiatives (civil society). Parts of me are in all circles, and to be identified with only one circle deforms who I am -- just like the stakeholder framework encourages us to be in silos. I wrote a post several weeks ago on this subject that you may not have seen; I'll send you a copy off list. > > So I'm waiting to receive the text that you are referring to. Perhaps if it's not too long you could just post it to the list so that everyone could make their own judgment? > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 3:18 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: > >> Thanks for informing those who didn't know about your ICANN relationship/link/... We might see in a near future, more clarity about who's who in the different circles. Internet Governance is not about going to Disneyland, giving smiles around at each other while gently spending money -for those who have some- and thinking that we live in a "ouin-ouin" world. >> >> Do you mean you were attending ICANN48, but did not participate to that session? Which then makes sense ("I did not hear him"). What Alejandro said was probably one of the greatest moment of the meeting. Unavoidable. >> >> But again, if we understand Alejandro, please no single definition, no single issue... What's about terminology? This is not really what is at stake here. What will be the next governance? That is the main concern and this is what needs to be urgently addressed and forwarded to the Brazilian meeting. And governance means some sort of political will, clarity, and "program". >> >> JC >> >> >> Le 10 déc. 2013 à 20:08, George Sadowsky a écrit : >> >>> Full disclosure: I am on the ICANN but I post my own opinions. >>> >>> I was there, but did not hear him. Do you have a link to the transcript file? Also, any comments on the larger question of terminology? >>> >>> George >>> >>> >>> On Dec 10, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Georges, >>>> >>>> I do not think anyone has a problem with the Alejandro classification, nor himself. With his resume, his grade, his whatever. Nothing of these. >>>> >>>> The issue is about his statements during ICANN48. So let's talk about that. What does these statements mean to the CS, to the IG debate, its potential objectives and tangible results of a 2014-discussion. Even though someone like Alejandro has put all these big words (orders/advises) in his mouth, it is difficult to imagine that he did it from his own initiative. All what he said is shocking to any honest participant to the IG debate. >>>> >>>> I hope this helps us to stay finely tuned and with wide open eyes. >>>> >>>> Let's "call a cat a cat" as we say here. >>>> >>>> JC >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 10 déc. 2013 à 19:18, George Sadowsky a écrit : >>>> >>>>> All, >>>>> >>>>> I believe that Alejandro Pisanty is a person who has, among other things, significant concerns that map into some of the causes that are being promoted on this list. >>>>> >>>>> I think that we have a significant problem with terminology here, and the argument regarding the classification of Alejandro, is a clear manifestation of it. I would like to repeat what I said in a previous post and then try to improve on the terminology issue: >>>>> >>>>>> Fourth, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being siloed. >>>>>> >>>>>> An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in the world and remove government involvement, the private sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences. To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals. >>>>>> >>>>>> Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder group. We have interactions with government and may work for it. Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector organization. Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet. Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in the civil society stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do. This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the underlying reality, >>>>> >>>>> I think that the individuals who participate on this list are more appropriately described as self-selected representatives of civil society causes. I don't mean this pejoratively. There is nothing right or wrong with being a member of a self-selected group; it's just another form of organization. Similarly, as I noted in a previous post, there's nothing wrong with supporting, arguing for, or otherwise espousing a cause. >>>>> >>>>> But let's not confuse all of us, all the billions of us who are civil society, with a modest group of individuals who support causes that are generally very important to us. >>>>> >>>>> Speaking personally, While you do not represent me as an individual within civil society, I agree with a good part of what is said on this list. When I discover ideas with which I disagree, I intervene. and when the list seems to go into tailspins and obsessions with things that I believe are basically irrelevant, I intervene as i am doing now, hoping that what I do will help to reorient the direction o the conversation. >>>>> >>>>> Let's also not forget that many of us who have our primary affiliation in other sectors, such as the Internet technology sector, agree with much of what is said in a civil society context. Trying to classify Alejandro, as was done earlier, s either in or out of 'civil society' (whatever the writer meant) is essentially trying to take a rich and complex personality and reduce him to a single dimension. IMO that is totally counter productive. It's yet another reason why imposing a rigid stakeholder framework on a complex part of society is not only unproductive but harmful. >>>>> >>>>> As I said in an earlier diatribe on this list, and as Jeanette said, let's focus on issues, within and across stakeholder lines. >>>>> >>>>> George >>>>> >>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>> On Dec 10, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>>> I say that as a long term member of isoc and of the academic community, he >>>>>> is a valued part of CS. >>>>>> >>>>>> His membership to the list is neither here nor there. Funnily enough, CS >>>>>> extends far beyond the confines of this caucus. >>>>>> >>>>>> Norbert Bollow [10/12/13 15:51 +0100]: >>>>>>> McTim wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>>>>>> In relation to Jean-Christophe's posting quoted below... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Those remarks of Alejandro Pisanty (who by the way is not only >>>>>>>>> Chair of ISOC Mexico, but also definitely an influential person in >>>>>>>>> the global technical community, for example he has served three >>>>>>>>> terms as an ICANN board member, and he is currently on ISOC's Board >>>>>>>>> of Trustees) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and a member of this list (at least formerly and perhaps currently as >>>>>>>> a lurker) and therefore part of CS. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are you seriously proposing being a current or past subscriber to this >>>>>>> or any other mailing list results in the person being "therefore" part >>>>>>> of civil society??? (There are several reasonable approaches to roughly >>>>>>> defining the "civil society" stakeholder category, and there's room for >>>>>>> reasonable disagreement between proponents of them, but I wouldn't >>>>>>> expect anyone to seriously view being a subscriber to the list as being >>>>>>> indicative in one way or the other!) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> are at >>>>>>>>> minutes 50:00-57:00 in this video: >>>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtOfsC2n_lQ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Although the agenda that he is promoting is absolutely shocking when >>>>>>>>> looked at from any mainstream civil society perspective >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What exactly is shocking? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> a) what he actually said, in particular the statements that >>>>>>> Jean-Christophe has quoted >>>>>>> >>>>>>> b) the agenda which in my view / analysis is behind those statements >>>>>>> >>>>>>> c) these things being well received in the context where they were said >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In effect, he's saying that all power should be in the hands of the >>>>>>>>> engineers and by implication in the hands of the companies for which >>>>>>>>> they're working >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> He didn't say that at all. Listen to it again maybe? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I started that sentence with "in effect, he's saying". In other words, >>>>>>> the sentence presents my analysis of what he's saying means in effect. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> , and he is promoting the use of smoke screen tactics >>>>>>>>> that aim at preventing anyone else from gaining an effective >>>>>>>>> influence. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Civil society absolutely needs to find a good way to deal with this >>>>>>>>> kind of tactics. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> These tactics have been successfully used *within* civil society >>>>>>>>> networks such as the IGC with the aim of preventing IGC from being >>>>>>>>> an effective civil society voice >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So voicing a truly held opinion is a "tactic"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not necessarily; it can be part of a tactic though. Choices about where >>>>>>> and how to voice one's opinion, and on which subset of the topics under >>>>>>> discussion, are tactical in nature though. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your inability to accept diversity of opinion is showing (again). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for the insult. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 17:36:40 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 11:36:40 +1300 Subject: [governance] A stand for democracy in the digital age In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20131210102833.6d19a9e8@quill> <20131210155159.47914fc0@quill> <20131210171740.GA10589@hserus.net> Message-ID: <67A5BD21-9E95-48E6-ABB7-AEE1CA62F259@gmail.com> Thanks Daniel, this is fantastic! Sent from my iPad > On Dec 11, 2013, at 7:33 AM, Daniel Pimienta wrote: > > On International Human Rights Day, 562 authors, including 5 Nobel Prize laureates, from over 80 countries have joined together to launch an appeal in defense of civil liberties against surveillance by corporations and governments. 5 Nobel Prize Winners have signed: Orhan Pamuk, J.M. Coetzee, Elfriede Jelinek, Günter Grass and Tomas Tranströmer. Also among the signatories are Umberto Eco, Margaret Atwood, Don DeLillo, Daniel Kehlmann, Nawal El Saadawi, Arundhati Roy, Henning Mankell, Richard Ford, Javier Marias, Björk, David Grossman, Arnon Grünberg, Angeles Mastretta, Juan Goytisolo, Nuruddin Farah, João Ribeiro, Victor Erofeyev, Liao Yiwu and David Malouf. > http://www.change.org/petitions/a-stand-for-democracy-in-the-digital-age-3 > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 17:48:32 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 11:48:32 +1300 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: <5736A3D6-FB0A-4698-839C-9300E26A1087@gmail.com> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20131210102833.6d19a9e8@quill> <20131210155159.47914fc0@quill> <20131210171740.GA10589@hserus.net> <84F53CF4-FED9-4ED7-A091-2C1CDDB64219@gmail.com> <10B5C398-356B-4810-9E48-A3A84340E21B@gmail.com> <42B2C0E3-C9DE-4005-B2F2-0C2BA7FB7D3C@gmail.com> <5736A3D6-FB0A-4698-839C-9300E26A1087@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8DF7D39B-C055-4331-BD06-FA04D646E309@gmail.com> Hi All, George does not need to defend himself nor any of his roles as he is as legitimately a part of us. Why George will always have my respect is because he is one of the most down to earth, human beings that participate in Internet. governance policy shaping in diverse foras and has been doing so for many years now. I can still clearly recall when the matter of the new gTLDs were put to the vote, George was the only one with the foresight, long range vision stemming from wisdom and years of experience who was able to say, the time is not ready as things need to be ironed out first and vocalised issues important to civil society proponents. Today, in retrospect, whilst he was the minority on the Board, he was able to bring a diversity of view that needed to be accounted for in the final consideration. He is like a Lord Denning in the Internet circles, and offers real time pragmatic perspectives whilst engaging in debates. This is not to say that the rest of the. board, were wrong as they each bring their own unique strength and approach. One of the hardest things to do in leadership roles, is to have the strength of character to speak to the issues without it getting caught up in the political insinuations, camps or loyalties. Voices like George is very important in the diverse policy shaping foras. As proponents of global public interest, we need to be able to dissect the issues and see how it impacts our communities in a way that does not compromise values. Best Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad > On Dec 11, 2013, at 10:55 AM, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: > > George, > > I am putting a final hand to my next hufpost and will provide the link once it is online. It will also include a link to the full transcript - was a bit of work for a Continental European like me to get through Alejandro's speedy Mexican English. No offense, just a bit of a hard time to be as precise as possible. > > > JC > >> Le 10 déc. 2013 à 22:33, George Sadowsky a écrit : >> >> I typed too quickly. I meant to type "I am on the ICANN Board." I thought that it was rather well known. But whatever I post on these lists is my own personal opinion. I think that's well understood also. >> >> I have also been on this list for the last 10 years, and at that time I was running Internet policy projects in transition countries, mostly in the former Soviet Union. See http://www.georgesadowsky.org/. >> >> I clearly was at ICANN 48 but don't remember Alejandro's intervention. If it was at the Open Forum, I was involved in a couple of urgent side conversations, and I did leave the room at some point. Maybe it's just my faulty memory. If it occurred elsewhere, I was not in that session. Then again, I had had a long talk with Alejandro during the week, and perhaps I just wasn't listening well. >> >> I don't understand your Disneyland comment, but I want to comment on your "circle" allusion. I don't stand in one circle. I consult (small business), sometimes I consult for government (government), I am a technologist (technical) and I've been involved in a variety of economic and social development initiatives (civil society). Parts of me are in all circles, and to be identified with only one circle deforms who I am -- just like the stakeholder framework encourages us to be in silos. I wrote a post several weeks ago on this subject that you may not have seen; I'll send you a copy off list. >> >> So I'm waiting to receive the text that you are referring to. Perhaps if it's not too long you could just post it to the list so that everyone could make their own judgment? >> >> George >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> >>> On Dec 10, 2013, at 3:18 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for informing those who didn't know about your ICANN relationship/link/... We might see in a near future, more clarity about who's who in the different circles. Internet Governance is not about going to Disneyland, giving smiles around at each other while gently spending money -for those who have some- and thinking that we live in a "ouin-ouin" world. >>> >>> Do you mean you were attending ICANN48, but did not participate to that session? Which then makes sense ("I did not hear him"). What Alejandro said was probably one of the greatest moment of the meeting. Unavoidable. >>> >>> But again, if we understand Alejandro, please no single definition, no single issue... What's about terminology? This is not really what is at stake here. What will be the next governance? That is the main concern and this is what needs to be urgently addressed and forwarded to the Brazilian meeting. And governance means some sort of political will, clarity, and "program". >>> >>> JC >>> >>> >>>> Le 10 déc. 2013 à 20:08, George Sadowsky a écrit : >>>> >>>> Full disclosure: I am on the ICANN but I post my own opinions. >>>> >>>> I was there, but did not hear him. Do you have a link to the transcript file? Also, any comments on the larger question of terminology? >>>> >>>> George >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Dec 10, 2013, at 1:46 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Georges, >>>>> >>>>> I do not think anyone has a problem with the Alejandro classification, nor himself. With his resume, his grade, his whatever. Nothing of these. >>>>> >>>>> The issue is about his statements during ICANN48. So let's talk about that. What does these statements mean to the CS, to the IG debate, its potential objectives and tangible results of a 2014-discussion. Even though someone like Alejandro has put all these big words (orders/advises) in his mouth, it is difficult to imagine that he did it from his own initiative. All what he said is shocking to any honest participant to the IG debate. >>>>> >>>>> I hope this helps us to stay finely tuned and with wide open eyes. >>>>> >>>>> Let's "call a cat a cat" as we say here. >>>>> >>>>> JC >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Le 10 déc. 2013 à 19:18, George Sadowsky a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> All, >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe that Alejandro Pisanty is a person who has, among other things, significant concerns that map into some of the causes that are being promoted on this list. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that we have a significant problem with terminology here, and the argument regarding the classification of Alejandro, is a clear manifestation of it. I would like to repeat what I said in a previous post and then try to improve on the terminology issue: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Fourth, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being siloed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in the world and remove government involvement, the private sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences. To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder group. We have interactions with government and may work for it. Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector organization. Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet. Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in the civil society stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do. This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the underlying reality, >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that the individuals who participate on this list are more appropriately described as self-selected representatives of civil society causes. I don't mean this pejoratively. There is nothing right or wrong with being a member of a self-selected group; it's just another form of organization. Similarly, as I noted in a previous post, there's nothing wrong with supporting, arguing for, or otherwise espousing a cause. >>>>>> >>>>>> But let's not confuse all of us, all the billions of us who are civil society, with a modest group of individuals who support causes that are generally very important to us. >>>>>> >>>>>> Speaking personally, While you do not represent me as an individual within civil society, I agree with a good part of what is said on this list. When I discover ideas with which I disagree, I intervene. and when the list seems to go into tailspins and obsessions with things that I believe are basically irrelevant, I intervene as i am doing now, hoping that what I do will help to reorient the direction o the conversation. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let's also not forget that many of us who have our primary affiliation in other sectors, such as the Internet technology sector, agree with much of what is said in a civil society context. Trying to classify Alejandro, as was done earlier, s either in or out of 'civil society' (whatever the writer meant) is essentially trying to take a rich and complex personality and reduce him to a single dimension. IMO that is totally counter productive. It's yet another reason why imposing a rigid stakeholder framework on a complex part of society is not only unproductive but harmful. >>>>>> >>>>>> As I said in an earlier diatribe on this list, and as Jeanette said, let's focus on issues, within and across stakeholder lines. >>>>>> >>>>>> George >>>>>> >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>>>> On Dec 10, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>>>> I say that as a long term member of isoc and of the academic community, he >>>>>>> is a valued part of CS. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> His membership to the list is neither here nor there. Funnily enough, CS >>>>>>> extends far beyond the confines of this caucus. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Norbert Bollow [10/12/13 15:51 +0100]: >>>>>>>> McTim wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In relation to Jean-Christophe's posting quoted below... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Those remarks of Alejandro Pisanty (who by the way is not only >>>>>>>>>> Chair of ISOC Mexico, but also definitely an influential person in >>>>>>>>>> the global technical community, for example he has served three >>>>>>>>>> terms as an ICANN board member, and he is currently on ISOC's Board >>>>>>>>>> of Trustees) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and a member of this list (at least formerly and perhaps currently as >>>>>>>>> a lurker) and therefore part of CS. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Are you seriously proposing being a current or past subscriber to this >>>>>>>> or any other mailing list results in the person being "therefore" part >>>>>>>> of civil society??? (There are several reasonable approaches to roughly >>>>>>>> defining the "civil society" stakeholder category, and there's room for >>>>>>>> reasonable disagreement between proponents of them, but I wouldn't >>>>>>>> expect anyone to seriously view being a subscriber to the list as being >>>>>>>> indicative in one way or the other!) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> are at >>>>>>>>>> minutes 50:00-57:00 in this video: >>>>>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtOfsC2n_lQ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Although the agenda that he is promoting is absolutely shocking when >>>>>>>>>> looked at from any mainstream civil society perspective >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What exactly is shocking? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> a) what he actually said, in particular the statements that >>>>>>>> Jean-Christophe has quoted >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> b) the agenda which in my view / analysis is behind those statements >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> c) these things being well received in the context where they were said >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In effect, he's saying that all power should be in the hands of the >>>>>>>>>> engineers and by implication in the hands of the companies for which >>>>>>>>>> they're working >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> He didn't say that at all. Listen to it again maybe? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I started that sentence with "in effect, he's saying". In other words, >>>>>>>> the sentence presents my analysis of what he's saying means in effect. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> , and he is promoting the use of smoke screen tactics >>>>>>>>>> that aim at preventing anyone else from gaining an effective >>>>>>>>>> influence. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Civil society absolutely needs to find a good way to deal with this >>>>>>>>>> kind of tactics. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> These tactics have been successfully used *within* civil society >>>>>>>>>> networks such as the IGC with the aim of preventing IGC from being >>>>>>>>>> an effective civil society voice >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So voicing a truly held opinion is a "tactic"? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not necessarily; it can be part of a tactic though. Choices about where >>>>>>>> and how to voice one's opinion, and on which subset of the topics under >>>>>>>> discussion, are tactical in nature though. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Your inability to accept diversity of opinion is showing (again). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for the insult. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 17:50:31 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 17:50:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20131210102833.6d19a9e8@quill> <20131210155159.47914fc0@quill> <20131210171740.GA10589@hserus.net> <84F53CF4-FED9-4ED7-A091-2C1CDDB64219@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: > Hi Georges, > > I do not think anyone has a problem with the Alejandro classification, nor himself. With his resume, his grade, his whatever. Nothing of these. > > The issue is about his statements during ICANN48. So let's talk about that. What does these statements mean to the CS They are just one input that we can embrace or reject. I think they are quite reasonable (separating ICANN issues from surveillance, rejecting a single definition of IG, pushing forward on evolution of the unilateral role of the US). , to the IG debate, its potential objectives and tangible results of a 2014-discussion. If anything it pushes us forward to tangible results. Even though someone like Alejandro has put all these big words (orders/advises) in his mouth, it is difficult to imagine that he did it from his own initiative. Now that is outrageous. Why would you make such an uninformed accusation? You have zero basis for such a claim! All what he said is shocking to any honest participant to the IG debate. There was nothing shocking there. Are there any of us that accept the WGIG definition as the ONLY definition of IG? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Dec 10 18:45:26 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 21:45:26 -0200 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: <20131210102833.6d19a9e8@quill> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20131210102833.6d19a9e8@quill> Message-ID: <52A7A796.8010206@cafonso.ca> One interesting (if we can say so) aspect of the comments mentioned by JC and Norbert in the ISOC meeting video is at the beginning around 50:00, in which he says that the relation of the surveillance disclosures with the Internet sits at "layer 11" ("snooping governance"). Totally out of the mark. One of the main sources of data captured by the surveillance agencies is through tapping directly into the main cables (as the findings regarding Level 3, AT&T and Verizon, to quote a few of the large backbone providers involved, show), as well as routers and switches at key exchanges -- so at the lower layers of the Internet stack. Thanks to the revelations we discovered that large providers interconnect their datacenters without data encryption of any sort. This if far from being a "layer 11" problem. The technical organizations of the Net are justly concerned and getting organized to seek alternatives to countervail this extensive vulnerability at these levels which enables most of this massive violation of rights. And civil society is of course also absolutely worried by these vulnerabilities. It is an obvious issue of Internet governance. I do hope, however, that this issue does not determine the focus of the IG debate in April -- the proposal is to focus on building consensus around a set of international IG principles. fraternal regards --c.a. On 12/10/2013 07:28 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > In relation to Jean-Christophe's posting quoted below... > > Those remarks of Alejandro Pisanty (who by the way is not only Chair of > ISOC Mexico, but also definitely an influential person in the global > technical community, for example he has served three terms as an ICANN > board member, and he is currently on ISOC's Board of Trustees) are at > minutes 50:00-57:00 in this video: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtOfsC2n_lQ > > Although the agenda that he is promoting is absolutely shocking when > looked at from any mainstream civil society perspective (in the sense > of what is mainstream among civil society movements in general, if we > look beyond the community of those who specialize on Internet > governance), what he is saying is unfortunately an influential view > among many technical people. > > In effect, he's saying that all power should be in the hands of the > engineers and by implication in the hands of the companies for which > they're working, and he is promoting the use of smoke screen tactics > that aim at preventing anyone else from gaining an effective influence. > > Civil society absolutely needs to find a good way to deal with this > kind of tactics. > > These tactics have been successfully used *within* civil society > networks such as the IGC with the aim of preventing IGC from being an > effective civil society voice (again in the sense of what is mainstream > among civil society movements in general, looking beyond the community > of those who specialize on Internet governance). > > If IGC in its current incarnation is not capable of dealing with this > challenge effectively, we need to create an IGC v2 that has that > capability. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: > >> All of this is very impressive! Does the lists feel comfortable with >> that type of situation? >> >> It seems that, in this IG world, many things have no stable >> definition at all. >> >> What's about the definition of 'trust', or 'respect'? Too complex? >> >> I think what we observe here is not the right path to heal the >> 'governance gap'* , nor to come to a 'single definition of Internet >> Governance'**, nor to address 'orphan issues'*** and certainly not a >> good way to look at a 'single list of governance issues'****. And >> obviously not help to define a 'single set of principles'*****. We >> should not worry about that. Why? see below. >> >> >> These 'expressions' are forbidden since ICANN48, as per Alejandro >> Pisanty, chair of ISOC Mexico, stated that these expressions have to >> be banned from the I stars (I*, 1Net, ISOC...) narrative. >> Surprisingly everyone in the room seemed to enjoy that rather odd >> collection of 'NO'! I need t to find a couple of speeches by >> notorious totalitarians using such a restrictive vision of a >> democratic debate. >> >> Here what ISOC Mexico Chair suggested to all ISOCs around the planet: >> >> * >> "We should not accept the term 'governance gap'. That’s an invention >> that has been a very popular invention (inaudible) but we should not >> use it in our vocabulary." >> >> ** >> "We should have 'no single definition of Internet governance'. We >> should push against the idea that the Brazil meeting, or anything >> else, will produce a definition of Internet Governance which would be >> good for everybody, every time and for many years. We have different >> definitions of Internet Governance depending of countries, regions, >> interests, religions and so forth and we should thrive for them to >> stay diverse." >> >> *** >> "We should not use in our vocabulary ‘orphan issues’. It might be >> argued that there are organ, sorry orphan issues in IG but most of >> the time if something is an issue, there is already someone, some >> organization, couple of engineers trying to work on it. They may be >> not of enough scale or expertise to grow globally or to split up >> multi regionally. There are very few real orphan issues in IG. Many >> of the things that appear as orphan issues are not IG issue but legal >> issues. Your judges are not well trained to identify cybercrime as a >> form of crime, or you do not have that law but it’s a national law >> not a global law." >> >> **** >> "We should not have a 'single list of issues for governance'. There >> are people who got it one way, people who got it another way. There >> are people who put spam and pfishing together. Other pfishing and >> cybersecurity together. Let that happen. Let these thousand flowers >> of definition blossom." >> >> ***** >> "We should avoid to establish a 'single set of principles' which is >> among other things, one declared an objective of the Brazilian >> meeting. During the eight years of IGF, there are already been two >> dozens or so of IG definition. They are not all compatible." >> >> etc, etc, etc... >> >> Former president of South Africa, back in the 50's once explained to >> the media and their audiences, the meaning of 'APARTHEID'. "This >> Afrikaner word meant 'GOOD NEIGHBORING'. An expression of progress". >> A beautiful way to twist reality. Manipulating and alluding people, >> erasing definitions, avoiding debates... All of these drive toward >> what the worst regimes can offer to its subordinates. >> >> "We are the revolutionaries. They are the counter revolutionaries." >> >> Comfortable? >> >> JC > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pranesh at cis-india.org Tue Dec 10 18:48:45 2013 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:48:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] India to push for freeing Internet from U.S. control In-Reply-To: <52A776DA.2010701@ITforChange.net> References: <52A776DA.2010701@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <52A7A85D.4080208@cis-india.org> The quote from the internal note that the report refers to shows that the folks who have written it do not understand what the Internet's root servers actually do, what "data of all domain names originating in India" means, nor what locally storing all "traffic originating/landing" in India implies, and points to a number of other misunderstandings. They want to change things, but show clearly that they don't understand how things are currently run. For instance, if all "traffic landing in India" should be "stored in India", that would mean that all content requested by people in India should be physically serve from Indian servers, i.e., an entire copy of the Internet must be made in India. Also, some of those quotes clearly show that the attempt is not a move away from US control, but an attempt to gain greater say for governments in ICANN's functioning. -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash -------------------- Access to Knowledge Fellow Information Society Project, Yale Law School T: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 10 19:26:35 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:26:35 -0600 Subject: [governance] India to push for freeing Internet from U.S. control In-Reply-To: <52A7A85D.4080208@cis-india.org> References: <52A776DA.2010701@ITforChange.net> <52A7A85D.4080208@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <20131211002635.GC29255@hserus.net> Yes. From "the usual suspects" too - MHA / the security agencies. Which don't generally have representation in ICANN's GAC, or the ITU - but elsewhere. It will be interesting to see where and how this plays out. Especially if there's a government change in a few months from now .. Pranesh Prakash [10/12/13 18:48 -0500]: >The quote from the internal note that the report refers to shows that >the folks who have written it do not understand what the Internet's root >servers actually do, what "data of all domain names originating in >India" means, nor what locally storing all "traffic originating/landing" >in India implies, and points to a number of other misunderstandings. >They want to change things, but show clearly that they don't understand >how things are currently run. > >For instance, if all "traffic landing in India" should be "stored in >India", that would mean that all content requested by people in India >should be physically serve from Indian servers, i.e., an entire copy of >the Internet must be made in India. > >Also, some of those quotes clearly show that the attempt is not a move >away from US control, but an attempt to gain greater say for governments >in ICANN's functioning. > >-- >Pranesh Prakash >Policy Director >Centre for Internet and Society >T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org >PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash >-------------------- >Access to Knowledge Fellow >Information Society Project, Yale Law School >T: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 10 19:28:46 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:28:46 -0600 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: <84F53CF4-FED9-4ED7-A091-2C1CDDB64219@gmail.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20131210102833.6d19a9e8@quill> <20131210155159.47914fc0@quill> <20131210171740.GA10589@hserus.net> <84F53CF4-FED9-4ED7-A091-2C1CDDB64219@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20131211002846.GD29255@hserus.net> George Sadowsky [10/12/13 13:18 -0500]: >All, > >I believe that Alejandro Pisanty is a person who has, among other things, significant concerns that map into some of the causes that are being promoted on this list. +1 to this and to all that George says below -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 10 19:40:44 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 18:40:44 -0600 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20131210102833.6d19a9e8@quill> <20131210155159.47914fc0@quill> <20131210171740.GA10589@hserus.net> <84F53CF4-FED9-4ED7-A091-2C1CDDB64219@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20131211004044.GE29255@hserus.net> McTim [10/12/13 17:50 -0500]: >>(orders/advises) in his mouth, it is difficult to imagine that he did >>it from his own initiative. > >Now that is outrageous. Why would you make such an uninformed >accusation? You have zero basis for such a claim! +1 >> All what he said is shocking to any honest participant to the IG debate. Meaning of course that Alejandro is dishonest, Jean Pierre? That is a disgusting thing to say, and besides, it is completely wrong. I say this to civil society on this list. You have among you people that work entirely at cross purposes with your broader interests. Who side with governments in blatantly un multistakeholder proposals Who are focused more on committee seats and political maneuvring than actual engagement or constructive work. [why, power for power's sake, a steak holding as opposed to legitimate stakeholderism that is exepcted to contribute constructively and engage with other stakeholders?] Who frequently claim on this list and at conferences to speak for civil society as a whole, or "for the global south", or for a particular country as a whole. [Which is striking from the text in that Indian government official's note about ICANN .. who elected those individuals to speak for civil society?) [and more] If you allow your agenda here to be driven by them, or if you elect them to actually represent you at key events, the caucus will remain mired in politics and argument, and there is no hope of doing any constructive work, of constructively engaging with any other stakeholder. Repudiate them, and dissociate yourself from them, or they will be your collective undoing. 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Dec 10 20:23:45 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 23:23:45 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: proposal re committee selection In-Reply-To: <52A749CB.3060809@wzb.eu> References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com> <52A749CB.3060809@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Thanks for this, Jeanette. That sounds like a very interesting idea. It increases the predictability of the process and diminishes recurrent tensions in the moment of choosing CS representatives. It also helps in the process of achieving regional and gender balance. My only suggestion would be that, instead of leaving people who are part of the pool "insulated" to make this choice, a NomCom could be appointed to select from the poll, based of thematic affinity, experience, gender and regional diversity, etc. And the person who is being considered could say if he or she would accept that particular position or not, although the idea of "best before" that you mentioned already indicates the members of the pool are willing to serve. I liked the work of this diverse NomCom that was just put in place, with IGC, BB, APC, etc, working together. Maybe a NomCom with a broader scope could be created. It is possible this particular proposal would not work for ongoing discussions of representatives, but it is an idea to discuss, refine and consider for the next selection processes in my opinion. Marília On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > There seems to be a flooding of committees at the moment, and we have no > way of knowing how important each of them will be. Moreover, we have no way > of knowing what specific stances the people we are considered as > representatives will take up on the issues addressed. Still it seems we > make a lot of a fuss on procedures for nominating them. > > Here is a practical proposal for simplifying the process and creating more > room for substantive discussion: > > Lets create a balanced pool of people who enjoy respect and trust on the > various lists, balanced in terms of gender and region. With such a pool of > people in place, we can leave the question of who participates in what > venue, or more precisely, who is proposed to join a given committee, to > that very pool of people. The price the people have to pay for being among > these talented few is going again and again through the torture of > selecting the best candidates for each individual job. > > Each request for cs representation would be forwarded to this pool. The > pool would be given a "best before" time stamp of, say, 18 or 24 months. > > jeanette > > Am 10.12.13 17:32, schrieb Marilia Maciel: > >> I'm sorry, but to me this discussion does not reflect fundamental >> divergence of views with any of the names - Bill, Milton or Anriette - >> and it is certainly not about lack of trust. The underpinning reason >> here is not a disagreement among CS people, it is a disagreement with >> how the HL panel matter has been conducted. >> >> Do we need one HL panel? Many ppl think we dont, yet we have it. Since >> we have it, do we have space for CS? No, there is an appalling lack of >> CS representation. "Then give us names", they said. And we engaged in a >> process to do it, because we want to be constructive and to participate. >> Just to see that effort being disregarded without any convincing >> explanation. To my knowledge, we will not have any representative there >> to convey any substantial message that we wish to convey. Bill is >> invited as expert. What bothers me is the feeling that CS - and all >> organizations that participated in the NonCom process - were made fool >> in a way. If they wanted experts, not CS representatives, why not be >> clear about it? Sometimes a blunt no is better than a unfulfilled yes. >> >> With that I am not saying that I do not agree with Jeanette and George. >> I think we are missing the point of the most important thing, the >> substance. Then, let's unbury Andrew's thread about substance, answer >> the survey (deadline today) and move on with concrete stuff, as soon as >> we have this compilation/mapping of replies back. But this present >> thread is about "HL and CS reps". So I think it is understandable that >> we are talking about process. Process is all we have to talk about >> without knowing not even what the agenda is, and without having an idea >> of how to contribute. >> >> Anyway, reinforcing previous suggestions to communicate concerns, I rest >> my case about this. >> >> Marília >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:58 PM, George Sadowsky >> > wrote: >> >> I strongly share Jeanette's opinion. >> >> Representatives of civil society causes (RCSC) (that >> characterization typifies many of the people on the list, I think) >> have both positive messages and concerns. The positive messages are >> those that many of us automatically subscribe to when they are >> expressed at the highest level, such as 'freedom of expression. >> These are positive messages. >> >> The concerns come because such desired states are often weakened by >> others, typically by governments but also by certain trends in other >> sectors. Hence the need, often expressed by RCSCs to be 'at the >> table' with other sectors, comes from the possibility that these >> positions will be eroded, consciously or unconsciously, by other >> sectors. The desire to be included is a quite understandable >> reaction to that possibility. >> >> But what I don't understand is the intense internal process and >> disputes regarding who gets to represent a group that appears >> homogeneous at the top level. Is the homogeneity superficial? If >> so, it would be more useful to explore and understand the >> differences within the RCSC. Is the dispute based upon ideological >> purity of the process for selection? That seems counterproductive >> and generally a waste of time to me. Is the dispute based upon lack >> of trust among group members? Are there other reasons. Is the >> representation process an end in itself, regardless of its effect >> upon pursuing other CS goals. If so, then perhaps this should be >> reconstituted as a political science theory group. >> >> It seems to me that rather than spending so much time discussing and >> debating representation issues, it would be more useful to discuss >> why representation issues are so important, often IMO to the >> detriment of working on real civil society issues. >> >> I'm with Jeanette. Concentrate upon issues, and that means areas of >> agreement and disagreement with other sectors as well as within the >> RCSC community. Disputes about representation seem unproductive, >> unless they imply unaddressed issues within the community. If so, >> it surely seems more productive to address them directly rather than >> through this proxy dispute based on representation. >> >> George >> >> >> On Dec 10, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> > I fully agree with Rafik's concern. In fact, both the IGC and the >> > bestbits list seem to have become rather obsessed with filling >> positions >> > on various committtees. >> > >> > In another message from last week that probably got lost or still >> awaits >> > the moderator's approvement, I noticed a growing madness about >> committee >> > positions and other appointments which is more or less pushing >> aside >> > the debate over issues and opinions. >> > >> > Besides, I also think that a distinction should be made between >> > appointed experts and stakeholder representatives. Generally, I >> wished >> > we paid less attention to the issue of representatives and >> focused more >> > on the message we want to convey. >> > >> > jeanette >> > >> > Am 10.12.13 14:49, schrieb Rafik Dammak: >> >> Hello,dfasfd >> >> >> >> I am wondering if we are not giving too much weight to HLM than it >> >> should be and doing for it a free promotion! honestly, I was >> not in >> >> favour of the ICANN strategic panels since they are not bottom-up, >> >> formed by handpicked members and bypassing the usual process. I >> found >> >> now that we want badly to be in that high level panel and making >> it >> >> relevant and maybe even giving it a big role for Brazil meeting! >> hope >> >> that we wont regret such decision later. >> >> >> >> we can ask for giving inputs, openness etc but that will be >> definitely >> >> depending to the will ICANN/WEF/Anneberg Foundation and there >> won't be >> >> any guarantee on how they process the inputs or how it will be >> included >> >> in their deliverable. everything is ad-hoc there and any >> decision will >> >> depend to the will of the organisers. why shall we encourage >> such process? >> >> >> >> Back to the previous discussion, Bill was invited as expert and >> the name >> >> of panel is not "an expert group" , I don't see the confusion >> here. >> >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> >> >> 2013/12/10 Marilia Maciel > >> >> > >>> >> >> >> >> Milton is right about the (lack of) process. On the one hand, >> it is >> >> positive that we have someone we trust there. On the other >> hand, it >> >> does seem that they are including who they want and how they >> want, >> >> totally disregarding the serious process we have been >> conducting to >> >> appoint names. >> >> >> >> I think that a letter signed by all organizations that >> participated >> >> in the nomination process should be sent to ICANN and ideally >> read >> >> during the meeting, expressing our frustration and adding some >> >> concrete suggestions. I come back to the points I made earlier: >> >> - the agenda of the HL panel meetings should be publicized in >> advance >> >> - channels to receive inputs (procedural or substantive) >> should be >> >> created or clarified >> >> - their meetings should be open to observers (like the >> meetings of >> >> the CSTD ECWG) >> >> - Reports of the meetings should be published. They could >> follow >> >> Chatam House rules >> >> And >> >> - CS representatives (names), who were appointed following an >> >> internal and legitimate process carried out by CS, should be >> >> immediately included in the HL panel to ensure minimum CS >> >> representation. >> >> >> >> Marília >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Norbert Bollow > >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Milton L Mueller > > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an >> expert and >> >> the CS >> >> > groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is >> not so >> >> clear >> >> > to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, >> especially >> >> > since the London meeting of the group starts in two >> days. >> >> Either one >> >> > could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS >> demands to be >> >> > included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a >> >> substitute for >> >> > the other. At this stage, I would assume that if >> there is no >> >> > appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, >> that >> >> there will >> >> > not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be given. >> The fact >> >> that >> >> > Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway >> meeting isn't >> >> > something that inspires confidence, is it? >> >> >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> Especially given that there was in fact a coordinated >> civil society >> >> process through which names have been put forward. >> >> >> >> Greetings, >> >> Norbert >> >> >> >> ______________________________ >> ______________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> > >. >> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Marília Maciel* >> >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> > >. >> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > igcaucus.org> >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Marília Maciel* >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 10 23:40:18 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:10:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] Minister Sibal on igov during the DSCI keynote in New Delhi Message-ID: <54141846-29AB-41F5-9AD5-AC303FBCCB16@hserus.net> Talks of multistakeholder representation, the stake of governments in an "equinet" where all stakeholders have an equitable stake. Governments have and should claim a legitimate stake in the Internet and should not exclude from participation but should engage with all stakeholders The strategic imperatives of critical infra connected to the Internet The risks of Balkanization Complex issue that the global community has yet to grasp, everybody interested in their own space and turf so these are likely to go the way of climate change talks, we need to consolidate and optimize this space, integrate with the global community .. Without that global espionage, cybercrime etc will increase. No nation can fight cybercrime on its own, need global cooperation and exchange of data. There is still yet a lack of cooperation between certs (???) The need to build capacity on the Internet in India and build a pool of trained technologists India now an authorizing member of common criteria recognition .. Will set up labs of intl standard to test IT gear in India .. This is not protectionism, want to drive investment, manufacturing and testing labs in India. http://24framesdigital.com/dsci/webcast/aiss2013/ live webcast --srs (iPad) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 10 23:49:24 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:19:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Minister Sibal on igov during the DSCI keynote in New Delhi In-Reply-To: <54141846-29AB-41F5-9AD5-AC303FBCCB16@hserus.net> References: <54141846-29AB-41F5-9AD5-AC303FBCCB16@hserus.net> Message-ID: <54A9086B-ECFA-47E5-A82E-2E815B93CB93@hserus.net> "We cannot function on the Internet under a cloak of secrecy. Important to handle privacy and data protection, but must strike a balance when fighting cybercrime." Need a global set of rules and accord, need a system of cyber justice and accountability at all levels. We know for a fact that nations actively engaged on cyberwar and use non state actors, out of country resources Freedom and lawlessness are two sides of the same coin, sense of responsibility in freedom makes it its own enemy in the absence of accountability Voices of the voiceless to be heard. The world / Internet should not ultimately self destruct, for is to decide how to take the world forward and ensure we don't destroy ourselves. If we lose the opportunity the world will be a much worse place. Brilliant speech, this. --srs (iPad) > On 11-Dec-2013, at 10:10, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Talks of multistakeholder representation, the stake of governments in an "equinet" where all stakeholders have an equitable stake. Governments have and should claim a legitimate stake in the Internet and should not exclude from participation but should engage with all stakeholders > > The strategic imperatives of critical infra connected to the Internet > > The risks of Balkanization > > Complex issue that the global community has yet to grasp, everybody interested in their own space and turf so these are likely to go the way of climate change talks, we need to consolidate and optimize this space, integrate with the global community .. Without that global espionage, cybercrime etc will increase. > > No nation can fight cybercrime on its own, need global cooperation and exchange of data. There is still yet a lack of cooperation between certs (???) > > The need to build capacity on the Internet in India and build a pool of trained technologists > > India now an authorizing member of common criteria recognition .. Will set up labs of intl standard to test IT gear in India .. This is not protectionism, want to drive investment, manufacturing and testing labs in India. > > http://24framesdigital.com/dsci/webcast/aiss2013/ live webcast > > --srs (iPad) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 10 23:52:04 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:22:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] Minister Sibal on igov during the DSCI keynote in New Delhi In-Reply-To: <54A9086B-ECFA-47E5-A82E-2E815B93CB93@hserus.net> References: <54141846-29AB-41F5-9AD5-AC303FBCCB16@hserus.net> <54A9086B-ECFA-47E5-A82E-2E815B93CB93@hserus.net> Message-ID: <4FC0E8F0-5A31-41C4-A517-B16B9E943755@hserus.net> This speech does seem to go completely contrary to the MHA / security note pushing multilateralism, and does seem to ignore the long dead CIRP, may its zombie never rise again --srs (iPad) > On 11-Dec-2013, at 10:19, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > "We cannot function on the Internet under a cloak of secrecy. Important to handle privacy and data protection, but must strike a balance when fighting cybercrime." > > Need a global set of rules and accord, need a system of cyber justice and accountability at all levels. > > We know for a fact that nations actively engaged on cyberwar and use non state actors, out of country resources > > Freedom and lawlessness are two sides of the same coin, sense of responsibility in freedom makes it its own enemy in the absence of accountability > > Voices of the voiceless to be heard. The world / Internet should not ultimately self destruct, for is to decide how to take the world forward and ensure we don't destroy ourselves. If we lose the opportunity the world will be a much worse place. > > Brilliant speech, this. > > --srs (iPad) > >> On 11-Dec-2013, at 10:10, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> Talks of multistakeholder representation, the stake of governments in an "equinet" where all stakeholders have an equitable stake. Governments have and should claim a legitimate stake in the Internet and should not exclude from participation but should engage with all stakeholders >> >> The strategic imperatives of critical infra connected to the Internet >> >> The risks of Balkanization >> >> Complex issue that the global community has yet to grasp, everybody interested in their own space and turf so these are likely to go the way of climate change talks, we need to consolidate and optimize this space, integrate with the global community .. Without that global espionage, cybercrime etc will increase. >> >> No nation can fight cybercrime on its own, need global cooperation and exchange of data. There is still yet a lack of cooperation between certs (???) >> >> The need to build capacity on the Internet in India and build a pool of trained technologists >> >> India now an authorizing member of common criteria recognition .. Will set up labs of intl standard to test IT gear in India .. This is not protectionism, want to drive investment, manufacturing and testing labs in India. >> >> http://24framesdigital.com/dsci/webcast/aiss2013/ live webcast >> >> --srs (iPad) >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Dec 11 00:02:55 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:32:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Minister Sibal on igov during the DSCI keynote in New Delhi In-Reply-To: <4FC0E8F0-5A31-41C4-A517-B16B9E943755@hserus.net> References: <54141846-29AB-41F5-9AD5-AC303FBCCB16@hserus.net> <54A9086B-ECFA-47E5-A82E-2E815B93CB93@hserus.net> <4FC0E8F0-5A31-41C4-A517-B16B9E943755@hserus.net> Message-ID: <0E107623-3912-4DCF-882D-48F8FDFC3BDC@hserus.net> Later in the day, parminder and an ICANN vp on a panel together, --srs (iPad) > On 11-Dec-2013, at 10:22, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > This speech does seem to go completely contrary to the MHA / security note pushing multilateralism, and does seem to ignore the long dead CIRP, may its zombie never rise again > > --srs (iPad) > >> On 11-Dec-2013, at 10:19, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> "We cannot function on the Internet under a cloak of secrecy. Important to handle privacy and data protection, but must strike a balance when fighting cybercrime." >> >> Need a global set of rules and accord, need a system of cyber justice and accountability at all levels. >> >> We know for a fact that nations actively engaged on cyberwar and use non state actors, out of country resources >> >> Freedom and lawlessness are two sides of the same coin, sense of responsibility in freedom makes it its own enemy in the absence of accountability >> >> Voices of the voiceless to be heard. The world / Internet should not ultimately self destruct, for is to decide how to take the world forward and ensure we don't destroy ourselves. If we lose the opportunity the world will be a much worse place. >> >> Brilliant speech, this. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >>> On 11-Dec-2013, at 10:10, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> >>> Talks of multistakeholder representation, the stake of governments in an "equinet" where all stakeholders have an equitable stake. Governments have and should claim a legitimate stake in the Internet and should not exclude from participation but should engage with all stakeholders >>> >>> The strategic imperatives of critical infra connected to the Internet >>> >>> The risks of Balkanization >>> >>> Complex issue that the global community has yet to grasp, everybody interested in their own space and turf so these are likely to go the way of climate change talks, we need to consolidate and optimize this space, integrate with the global community .. Without that global espionage, cybercrime etc will increase. >>> >>> No nation can fight cybercrime on its own, need global cooperation and exchange of data. There is still yet a lack of cooperation between certs (???) >>> >>> The need to build capacity on the Internet in India and build a pool of trained technologists >>> >>> India now an authorizing member of common criteria recognition .. Will set up labs of intl standard to test IT gear in India .. This is not protectionism, want to drive investment, manufacturing and testing labs in India. >>> >>> http://24framesdigital.com/dsci/webcast/aiss2013/ live webcast >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Dec 11 02:43:42 2013 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 08:43:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: proposal re committee selection In-Reply-To: References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com> <52A749CB.3060809@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <52A817AE.3090707@wzb.eu> Hi Marília, One could add a nomcom I suppose. Although it would probabl double the amount of people to be involved in the selection of candidates. In any case, my point would be to take these conversations off the list and to make the trust for our representatives last a bit longer. jeanette Am 11.12.13 02:23, schrieb Marilia Maciel: > Thanks for this, Jeanette. That sounds like a very interesting idea. It > increases the predictability of the process and diminishes recurrent > tensions in the moment of choosing CS representatives. It also helps in > the process of achieving regional and gender balance. > > My only suggestion would be that, instead of leaving people who are part > of the pool "insulated" to make this choice, a NomCom could be appointed > to select from the poll, based of thematic affinity, experience, gender > and regional diversity, etc. And the person who is being considered > could say if he or she would accept that particular position or not, > although the idea of "best before" that you mentioned already indicates > the members of the pool are willing to serve. I liked the work of this > diverse NomCom that was just put in place, with IGC, BB, APC, etc, > working together. Maybe a NomCom with a broader scope could be created. > > It is possible this particular proposal would not work for ongoing > discussions of representatives, but it is an idea to discuss, refine and > consider for the next selection processes in my opinion. > > Marília > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Jeanette Hofmann > wrote: > > > There seems to be a flooding of committees at the moment, and we > have no way of knowing how important each of them will be. Moreover, > we have no way of knowing what specific stances the people we are > considered as representatives will take up on the issues addressed. > Still it seems we make a lot of a fuss on procedures for nominating > them. > > Here is a practical proposal for simplifying the process and > creating more room for substantive discussion: > > Lets create a balanced pool of people who enjoy respect and trust on > the various lists, balanced in terms of gender and region. With such > a pool of people in place, we can leave the question of who > participates in what venue, or more precisely, who is proposed to > join a given committee, to that very pool of people. The price the > people have to pay for being among these talented few is going again > and again through the torture of selecting the best candidates for > each individual job. > > Each request for cs representation would be forwarded to this pool. > The pool would be given a "best before" time stamp of, say, 18 or 24 > months. > > jeanette > > Am 10.12.13 17:32, schrieb Marilia Maciel: > > I'm sorry, but to me this discussion does not reflect fundamental > divergence of views with any of the names - Bill, Milton or > Anriette - > and it is certainly not about lack of trust. The underpinning reason > here is not a disagreement among CS people, it is a disagreement > with > how the HL panel matter has been conducted. > > Do we need one HL panel? Many ppl think we dont, yet we have it. > Since > we have it, do we have space for CS? No, there is an appalling > lack of > CS representation. "Then give us names", they said. And we > engaged in a > process to do it, because we want to be constructive and to > participate. > Just to see that effort being disregarded without any convincing > explanation. To my knowledge, we will not have any > representative there > to convey any substantial message that we wish to convey. Bill is > invited as expert. What bothers me is the feeling that CS - and all > organizations that participated in the NonCom process - were > made fool > in a way. If they wanted experts, not CS representatives, why not be > clear about it? Sometimes a blunt no is better than a > unfulfilled yes. > > With that I am not saying that I do not agree with Jeanette and > George. > I think we are missing the point of the most important thing, the > substance. Then, let's unbury Andrew's thread about substance, > answer > the survey (deadline today) and move on with concrete stuff, as > soon as > we have this compilation/mapping of replies back. But this present > thread is about "HL and CS reps". So I think it is > understandable that > we are talking about process. Process is all we have to talk about > without knowing not even what the agenda is, and without having > an idea > of how to contribute. > > Anyway, reinforcing previous suggestions to communicate > concerns, I rest > my case about this. > > Marília > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:58 PM, George Sadowsky > > >> wrote: > > I strongly share Jeanette's opinion. > > Representatives of civil society causes (RCSC) (that > characterization typifies many of the people on the list, I > think) > have both positive messages and concerns. The positive > messages are > those that many of us automatically subscribe to when they are > expressed at the highest level, such as 'freedom of expression. > These are positive messages. > > The concerns come because such desired states are often > weakened by > others, typically by governments but also by certain trends > in other > sectors. Hence the need, often expressed by RCSCs to be > 'at the > table' with other sectors, comes from the possibility that > these > positions will be eroded, consciously or unconsciously, by > other > sectors. The desire to be included is a quite understandable > reaction to that possibility. > > But what I don't understand is the intense internal process and > disputes regarding who gets to represent a group that appears > homogeneous at the top level. Is the homogeneity > superficial? If > so, it would be more useful to explore and understand the > differences within the RCSC. Is the dispute based upon > ideological > purity of the process for selection? That seems > counterproductive > and generally a waste of time to me. Is the dispute based > upon lack > of trust among group members? Are there other reasons. Is the > representation process an end in itself, regardless of its > effect > upon pursuing other CS goals. If so, then perhaps this > should be > reconstituted as a political science theory group. > > It seems to me that rather than spending so much time > discussing and > debating representation issues, it would be more useful to > discuss > why representation issues are so important, often IMO to the > detriment of working on real civil society issues. > > I'm with Jeanette. Concentrate upon issues, and that means > areas of > agreement and disagreement with other sectors as well as > within the > RCSC community. Disputes about representation seem > unproductive, > unless they imply unaddressed issues within the community. > If so, > it surely seems more productive to address them directly > rather than > through this proxy dispute based on representation. > > George > > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > I fully agree with Rafik's concern. In fact, both the > IGC and the > > bestbits list seem to have become rather obsessed with > filling > positions > > on various committtees. > > > > In another message from last week that probably got lost > or still > awaits > > the moderator's approvement, I noticed a growing madness > about > committee > > positions and other appointments which is more or less > pushing aside > > the debate over issues and opinions. > > > > Besides, I also think that a distinction should be made > between > > appointed experts and stakeholder representatives. > Generally, I > wished > > we paid less attention to the issue of representatives and > focused more > > on the message we want to convey. > > > > jeanette > > > > Am 10.12.13 14:49, schrieb Rafik Dammak: > >> Hello,dfasfd > >> > >> I am wondering if we are not giving too much weight to > HLM than it > >> should be and doing for it a free promotion! > honestly, I was > not in > >> favour of the ICANN strategic panels since they are not > bottom-up, > >> formed by handpicked members and bypassing the usual > process. I > found > >> now that we want badly to be in that high level panel > and making it > >> relevant and maybe even giving it a big role for Brazil > meeting! > hope > >> that we wont regret such decision later. > >> > >> we can ask for giving inputs, openness etc but that will be > definitely > >> depending to the will ICANN/WEF/Anneberg Foundation and > there > won't be > >> any guarantee on how they process the inputs or how it > will be > included > >> in their deliverable. everything is ad-hoc there and any > decision will > >> depend to the will of the organisers. why shall we > encourage > such process? > >> > >> Back to the previous discussion, Bill was invited as > expert and > the name > >> of panel is not "an expert group" , I don't see the > confusion here. > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> > >> 2013/12/10 Marilia Maciel > > > >> > >>> > >> > >> Milton is right about the (lack of) process. On the > one hand, > it is > >> positive that we have someone we trust there. On the > other > hand, it > >> does seem that they are including who they want and > how they > want, > >> totally disregarding the serious process we have been > conducting to > >> appoint names. > >> > >> I think that a letter signed by all organizations that > participated > >> in the nomination process should be sent to ICANN > and ideally > read > >> during the meeting, expressing our frustration and > adding some > >> concrete suggestions. I come back to the points I > made earlier: > >> - the agenda of the HL panel meetings should be > publicized in > advance > >> - channels to receive inputs (procedural or substantive) > should be > >> created or clarified > >> - their meetings should be open to observers (like the > meetings of > >> the CSTD ECWG) > >> - Reports of the meetings should be published. They > could follow > >> Chatam House rules > >> And > >> - CS representatives (names), who were appointed > following an > >> internal and legitimate process carried out by CS, > should be > >> immediately included in the HL panel to ensure > minimum CS > >> representation. > >> > >> Marília > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Norbert Bollow > > > > >> > >>> wrote: > >> > >> Milton L Mueller > > > > >>> wrote: > >> > >> > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an > expert and > >> the CS > >> > groups' nomination of people to be on the > committee is > not so > >> clear > >> > to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear > to Fadi, > especially > >> > since the London meeting of the group starts > in two days. > >> Either one > >> > could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS > demands to be > >> > included in the HLLM, and he may consider one > to be a > >> substitute for > >> > the other. At this stage, I would assume that if > there is no > >> > appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel > by now, that > >> there will > >> > not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be > given. > The fact > >> that > >> > Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway > meeting isn't > >> > something that inspires confidence, is it? > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> Especially given that there was in fact a > coordinated > civil society > >> process through which names have been put forward. > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Norbert > >> > >> > ______________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the > list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > > > > >>. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/__info/bestbits > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> *Marília Maciel* > >> Pesquisadora Gestora > >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > >> > >> Researcher and Coordinator > >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > >> > >> DiploFoundation associate > >> www.diplomacy.edu > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ______________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > > > > >>. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/__info/bestbits > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/__unsubscribing > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/__info/governance > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/__translate_t > > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/__unsubscribing > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/__info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/__translate_t > > > > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nnenna75 at gmail.com Wed Dec 11 07:50:23 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 12:50:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: proposal re committee selection In-Reply-To: <52A817AE.3090707@wzb.eu> References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com> <52A749CB.3060809@wzb.eu> <52A817AE.3090707@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Thanks Jeanette and really happy to have you back and hear you! Actually, that was the thinking behind the current "Coordinating group on nominations". It is true this did not take long to process. What I know is that there is a kind of cross-networked representation on this group for nominations. It is made up of: 1. Jeremy of Best Bits (bestbits.net) 2. Ginger of Diplo (diplointernetgovernance.org) 3. Robin of the ICANN NCSG (community.icann.org) 4. Anriette of APC (apc.org) 5. Sala of IGC - (igcaucus.org) 6. Ian Peter as Independent Chair The thinking behind this is that each network rep will circulate any representation need information to their respective networks, then these networks can forward nominations in accordance with the task at hand. All for now Nnenna On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Marília, > > > One could add a nomcom I suppose. Although it would probabl double the > amount of people to be involved in the selection of candidates. > In any case, my point would be to take these conversations off the list > and to make the trust for our representatives last a bit longer. > > jeanette > > Am 11.12.13 02:23, schrieb Marilia Maciel: > >> Thanks for this, Jeanette. That sounds like a very interesting idea. It >> increases the predictability of the process and diminishes recurrent >> tensions in the moment of choosing CS representatives. It also helps in >> the process of achieving regional and gender balance. >> >> My only suggestion would be that, instead of leaving people who are part >> of the pool "insulated" to make this choice, a NomCom could be appointed >> to select from the poll, based of thematic affinity, experience, gender >> and regional diversity, etc. And the person who is being considered >> could say if he or she would accept that particular position or not, >> although the idea of "best before" that you mentioned already indicates >> the members of the pool are willing to serve. I liked the work of this >> diverse NomCom that was just put in place, with IGC, BB, APC, etc, >> working together. Maybe a NomCom with a broader scope could be created. >> >> It is possible this particular proposal would not work for ongoing >> discussions of representatives, but it is an idea to discuss, refine and >> consider for the next selection processes in my opinion. >> >> Marília >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Jeanette Hofmann > > wrote: >> >> >> There seems to be a flooding of committees at the moment, and we >> have no way of knowing how important each of them will be. Moreover, >> we have no way of knowing what specific stances the people we are >> considered as representatives will take up on the issues addressed. >> Still it seems we make a lot of a fuss on procedures for nominating >> them. >> >> Here is a practical proposal for simplifying the process and >> creating more room for substantive discussion: >> >> Lets create a balanced pool of people who enjoy respect and trust on >> the various lists, balanced in terms of gender and region. With such >> a pool of people in place, we can leave the question of who >> participates in what venue, or more precisely, who is proposed to >> join a given committee, to that very pool of people. The price the >> people have to pay for being among these talented few is going again >> and again through the torture of selecting the best candidates for >> each individual job. >> >> Each request for cs representation would be forwarded to this pool. >> The pool would be given a "best before" time stamp of, say, 18 or 24 >> months. >> >> jeanette >> >> Am 10.12.13 17:32, schrieb Marilia Maciel: >> >> I'm sorry, but to me this discussion does not reflect fundamental >> divergence of views with any of the names - Bill, Milton or >> Anriette - >> and it is certainly not about lack of trust. The underpinning >> reason >> here is not a disagreement among CS people, it is a disagreement >> with >> how the HL panel matter has been conducted. >> >> Do we need one HL panel? Many ppl think we dont, yet we have it. >> Since >> we have it, do we have space for CS? No, there is an appalling >> lack of >> CS representation. "Then give us names", they said. And we >> engaged in a >> process to do it, because we want to be constructive and to >> participate. >> Just to see that effort being disregarded without any convincing >> explanation. To my knowledge, we will not have any >> representative there >> to convey any substantial message that we wish to convey. Bill is >> invited as expert. What bothers me is the feeling that CS - and >> all >> organizations that participated in the NonCom process - were >> made fool >> in a way. If they wanted experts, not CS representatives, why not >> be >> clear about it? Sometimes a blunt no is better than a >> unfulfilled yes. >> >> With that I am not saying that I do not agree with Jeanette and >> George. >> I think we are missing the point of the most important thing, the >> substance. Then, let's unbury Andrew's thread about substance, >> answer >> the survey (deadline today) and move on with concrete stuff, as >> soon as >> we have this compilation/mapping of replies back. But this present >> thread is about "HL and CS reps". So I think it is >> understandable that >> we are talking about process. Process is all we have to talk about >> without knowing not even what the agenda is, and without having >> an idea >> of how to contribute. >> >> Anyway, reinforcing previous suggestions to communicate >> concerns, I rest >> my case about this. >> >> Marília >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:58 PM, George Sadowsky >> >> > >> >> wrote: >> >> I strongly share Jeanette's opinion. >> >> Representatives of civil society causes (RCSC) (that >> characterization typifies many of the people on the list, I >> think) >> have both positive messages and concerns. The positive >> messages are >> those that many of us automatically subscribe to when they >> are >> expressed at the highest level, such as 'freedom of >> expression. >> These are positive messages. >> >> The concerns come because such desired states are often >> weakened by >> others, typically by governments but also by certain trends >> in other >> sectors. Hence the need, often expressed by RCSCs to be >> 'at the >> table' with other sectors, comes from the possibility that >> these >> positions will be eroded, consciously or unconsciously, by >> other >> sectors. The desire to be included is a quite understandable >> reaction to that possibility. >> >> But what I don't understand is the intense internal process >> and >> disputes regarding who gets to represent a group that appears >> homogeneous at the top level. Is the homogeneity >> superficial? If >> so, it would be more useful to explore and understand the >> differences within the RCSC. Is the dispute based upon >> ideological >> purity of the process for selection? That seems >> counterproductive >> and generally a waste of time to me. Is the dispute based >> upon lack >> of trust among group members? Are there other reasons. Is >> the >> representation process an end in itself, regardless of its >> effect >> upon pursuing other CS goals. If so, then perhaps this >> should be >> reconstituted as a political science theory group. >> >> It seems to me that rather than spending so much time >> discussing and >> debating representation issues, it would be more useful to >> discuss >> why representation issues are so important, often IMO to the >> detriment of working on real civil society issues. >> >> I'm with Jeanette. Concentrate upon issues, and that means >> areas of >> agreement and disagreement with other sectors as well as >> within the >> RCSC community. Disputes about representation seem >> unproductive, >> unless they imply unaddressed issues within the community. >> If so, >> it surely seems more productive to address them directly >> rather than >> through this proxy dispute based on representation. >> >> George >> >> >> On Dec 10, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> > I fully agree with Rafik's concern. In fact, both the >> IGC and the >> > bestbits list seem to have become rather obsessed with >> filling >> positions >> > on various committtees. >> > >> > In another message from last week that probably got lost >> or still >> awaits >> > the moderator's approvement, I noticed a growing madness >> about >> committee >> > positions and other appointments which is more or less >> pushing aside >> > the debate over issues and opinions. >> > >> > Besides, I also think that a distinction should be made >> between >> > appointed experts and stakeholder representatives. >> Generally, I >> wished >> > we paid less attention to the issue of representatives and >> focused more >> > on the message we want to convey. >> > >> > jeanette >> > >> > Am 10.12.13 14:49, schrieb Rafik Dammak: >> >> Hello,dfasfd >> >> >> >> I am wondering if we are not giving too much weight to >> HLM than it >> >> should be and doing for it a free promotion! >> honestly, I was >> not in >> >> favour of the ICANN strategic panels since they are not >> bottom-up, >> >> formed by handpicked members and bypassing the usual >> process. I >> found >> >> now that we want badly to be in that high level panel >> and making it >> >> relevant and maybe even giving it a big role for Brazil >> meeting! >> hope >> >> that we wont regret such decision later. >> >> >> >> we can ask for giving inputs, openness etc but that will >> be >> definitely >> >> depending to the will ICANN/WEF/Anneberg Foundation and >> there >> won't be >> >> any guarantee on how they process the inputs or how it >> will be >> included >> >> in their deliverable. everything is ad-hoc there and any >> decision will >> >> depend to the will of the organisers. why shall we >> encourage >> such process? >> >> >> >> Back to the previous discussion, Bill was invited as >> expert and >> the name >> >> of panel is not "an expert group" , I don't see the >> confusion here. >> >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> >> >> 2013/12/10 Marilia Maciel > >> > > >> >> > >> > >> >>> >> >> >> >> Milton is right about the (lack of) process. On the >> one hand, >> it is >> >> positive that we have someone we trust there. On the >> other >> hand, it >> >> does seem that they are including who they want and >> how they >> want, >> >> totally disregarding the serious process we have been >> conducting to >> >> appoint names. >> >> >> >> I think that a letter signed by all organizations that >> participated >> >> in the nomination process should be sent to ICANN >> and ideally >> read >> >> during the meeting, expressing our frustration and >> adding some >> >> concrete suggestions. I come back to the points I >> made earlier: >> >> - the agenda of the HL panel meetings should be >> publicized in >> advance >> >> - channels to receive inputs (procedural or >> substantive) >> should be >> >> created or clarified >> >> - their meetings should be open to observers (like the >> meetings of >> >> the CSTD ECWG) >> >> - Reports of the meetings should be published. They >> could follow >> >> Chatam House rules >> >> And >> >> - CS representatives (names), who were appointed >> following an >> >> internal and legitimate process carried out by CS, >> should be >> >> immediately included in the HL panel to ensure >> minimum CS >> >> representation. >> >> >> >> Marília >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Norbert Bollow >> >> > >> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >> >> Milton L Mueller > >> > >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >> >> > The distinction between Bill's appointment as >> an >> expert and >> >> the CS >> >> > groups' nomination of people to be on the >> committee is >> not so >> >> clear >> >> > to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear >> to Fadi, >> especially >> >> > since the London meeting of the group starts >> in two days. >> >> Either one >> >> > could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS >> demands to be >> >> > included in the HLLM, and he may consider one >> to be a >> >> substitute for >> >> > the other. At this stage, I would assume that >> if >> there is no >> >> > appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel >> by now, that >> >> there will >> >> > not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be >> given. >> The fact >> >> that >> >> > Bill's appointment came from a random F2F >> hallway >> meeting isn't >> >> > something that inspires confidence, is it? >> >> >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> Especially given that there was in fact a >> coordinated >> civil society >> >> process through which names have been put forward. >> >> >> >> Greetings, >> >> Norbert >> >> >> >> >> ______________________________________________________________ >> >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the >> list: >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >> > > >> > >> > >> >>. >> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/__info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Marília Maciel* >> >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ______________________________________________________________ >> >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >> > > >> > >> > >> >>. >> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/__info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ______________________________________________________________ >> >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> > >> > >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/__unsubscribing >> >> >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/__info/governance >> >> >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: >> http://translate.google.com/__translate_t >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> __ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> > >> > >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/__unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/__info/governance >> >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: >> http://translate.google.com/__translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Marília Maciel* >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Marília Maciel* >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea00 at gmail.com Wed Dec 11 11:08:20 2013 From: andrea00 at gmail.com (andrea) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:08:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: FW: Save the Date - ICANN Brussels Briefing, 18 Dec 2013 at Renaissance hotel Message-ID: Sorry for cross-posting, do share it around and please come if you are in Brussels! Best, Andrea From: Petya Minkova Date: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 11:20 AM To: Nigel Hickson , Andrea Beccalli < andrea.beccalli at icann.org> Subject: Save the Date - ICANN Brussels Briefing, 18 Dec 2013 at Renaissance hotel Dear Stakeholder, BRUSSELS BRIEFING; 18TH DECEMBER 2013 As 2013 comes to an end we would like you to save the date for the second (and last of year) ICANN Brussels briefing, on December 18 at 09.30hrs at the Renaissance Hotel, the event will finish with a buffet lunch. It will be an occasion to meet and update you on the ICANN developments including the new gTLD program, outcomes from the ICANN 48 Buenos Aires and larger IG topics such as the preparation of the San Paulo meeting on the Future of the Internet Governance, the 1NET movement and the WSIS+10 review process. We will also to take stock from the first public session on the ICANN Engagement Strategy for Europe (IESE) held at ICANN 48, and design toghether the roadmap to build a solid regional strategy. 2014 is set to be a key year in the global IG ecosystem, would be very good too see you and exchange greetings before we start the Christmas break and a very intense year ahead. Please "spread the news" and let us know if you can come (Register sending your details to petya.minkova at icann.org) Best regards, Nigel Hickson nigel.hickson at icann.org Andrea Beccalli andrea.beccalli at icann.org *Petya Minkova* Administrative Assistant ICANN Rond Point Schuman 6, 1st floor B-1040 Brussels Belgium Mobile: +32 4 79 47 28 63 Skype: petya.minkova.icann Email: petya.minkova at icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: BRUSSELS BRIEFING 18TH .pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 47638 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 jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com Wed Dec 11 12:15:43 2013 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 18:15:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20131210102833.6d19a9e8@quill> <20131210155159.47914fc0@quill> <20131210171740.GA10589@hserus.net> <84F53CF4-FED9-4ED7-A091-2C1CDDB64219@gmail.com> Message-ID: <341E7F20-D20F-4E81-94C0-1A64EE0645E1@gmail.com> Hi Tim, Big words again. 'Outrageous'... héhé I leave it to anyone listening to the full session to appreciate the value of what was said. I think I brought to the list interesting (if not shocking) few facts, and thoughts that show the way someone with a few responsibilities in the IG fora is thinking, addressing issues, and recommending to stop the 'counter-revolutionaries' he sees coming against the good 'revolutionaries'. Bas les masques! Any debate, specially when it comes to governance, should have in mind the idea of 'convergence', at least to find consensus, and ability to work together. The 'not-a-single-thing-of-everything' theory seems to me pretty crypto ideologic, and that is a personal opinion (am I allowed to have one?). When George is speaking about a terminology issue - good point to look at-, do we imagine that we can solve this terminology issue by getting more definitions for each single concept, wording, expression ("let blossom the flowers of a thousand definition" says AP)? Is that the way you think a democratic venue should try to move forward, by maintaining a high level of confusion? That in my view is outrageous. Would Postel, which signature is respectfully and constantly backing your signature, rejoice in a multi-definitions systematic approach for a single word/concept so to keep a never ending debate. Postel was against the waste of time, the waste of bytes, the waste of , and presumably against smoke and fog. The major challenge out of the RFC was to bring clarity for a common culture and common values to emerge. All of what AP says is entirely in opposition to that. I think the IG debate deserves clarity, not walls of blabla to be construct and deconstruct every two seconds. JC NB > it is difficult to imagine that he did > it from his own initiative Yes indeed, it is difficult to imagine. Any problem with that? Was this an uninformed accusation? Well, I will not debate your definition of what is an uninformed accusation but I still believe it is difficult to imagine... Le 10 déc. 2013 à 23:50, McTim a écrit : > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias > wrote: >> Hi Georges, >> >> I do not think anyone has a problem with the Alejandro classification, nor himself. With his resume, his grade, his whatever. Nothing of these. >> >> The issue is about his statements during ICANN48. So let's talk about that. What does these statements mean to the CS > > They are just one input that we can embrace or reject. I think they > are quite reasonable (separating ICANN issues from surveillance, > rejecting a single definition of IG, pushing forward on evolution of > the unilateral role of the US). > > > > , to the IG debate, its potential objectives and tangible results of a > 2014-discussion. > > If anything it pushes us forward to tangible results. > > Even though someone like Alejandro has put all these big words > (orders/advises) in his mouth, it is difficult to imagine that he did > it from his own initiative. > > Now that is outrageous. Why would you make such an uninformed > accusation? You have zero basis for such a claim! > > > All what he said is shocking to any honest participant to the IG debate. > > > There was nothing shocking there. Are there any of us that accept the > WGIG definition as the ONLY definition of IG? > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Wed Dec 11 13:37:58 2013 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 02:37:58 +0800 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: <84F53CF4-FED9-4ED7-A091-2C1CDDB64219@gmail.com> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20131210102833.6d19a9e8@quill> <20131210155159.47914fc0@quill> <20131210171740.GA10589@hserus.net> <84F53CF4-FED9-4ED7-A091-2C1CDDB64219@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9A2EC7F8-9801-432D-9877-A85DC8571C27@difference.com.au> I agree with George. I agree with some of what Alejandro says, and disagree strongly with other parts, but the idea that we should classify individuals active in the IG space as within or without civil society, and judge their motivations accordingly, is deeply problematic. Regarding ISOC (as Alejandro is active in ISOC-Mexico, and the remarks under discussion where made at an ISOC Chapters and Members meeting), it is also worth noting that in any context outside the narrow world of multi-stakeholder Internet governance institutions that have formalised stakeholder groups, such as ICANN and the IGF (which is the space we largely operate within, but it is easy to forget that it is a small and rather artificial microcosm), ISOC and its chapters would be considered part of civil society. It is a non-profit organisation with an educational, charitable and development mandate, and it spends much of its time doing the sort of thing typical civil society organisations do, such as policy work and advocacy. Cheers David On 11 Dec 2013, at 2:18 am, George Sadowsky wrote: > All, > > I believe that Alejandro Pisanty is a person who has, among other things, significant concerns that map into some of the causes that are being promoted on this list. > > I think that we have a significant problem with terminology here, and the argument regarding the classification of Alejandro, is a clear manifestation of it. I would like to repeat what I said in a previous post and then try to improve on the terminology issue: > >> Fourth, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being siloed. >> >> An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in the world and remove government involvement, the private sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences. To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals. >> >> Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder group. We have interactions with government and may work for it. Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector organization. Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet. Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in the civil society stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do. This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the underlying reality, > > I think that the individuals who participate on this list are more appropriately described as self-selected representatives of civil society causes. I don't mean this pejoratively. There is nothing right or wrong with being a member of a self-selected group; it's just another form of organization. Similarly, as I noted in a previous post, there's nothing wrong with supporting, arguing for, or otherwise espousing a cause. > > But let's not confuse all of us, all the billions of us who are civil society, with a modest group of individuals who support causes that are generally very important to us. > > Speaking personally, While you do not represent me as an individual within civil society, I agree with a good part of what is said on this list. When I discover ideas with which I disagree, I intervene. and when the list seems to go into tailspins and obsessions with things that I believe are basically irrelevant, I intervene as i am doing now, hoping that what I do will help to reorient the direction o the conversation. > > Let's also not forget that many of us who have our primary affiliation in other sectors, such as the Internet technology sector, agree with much of what is said in a civil society context. Trying to classify Alejandro, as was done earlier, s either in or out of 'civil society' (whatever the writer meant) is essentially trying to take a rich and complex personality and reduce him to a single dimension. IMO that is totally counter productive. It's yet another reason why imposing a rigid stakeholder framework on a complex part of society is not only unproductive but harmful. > > As I said in an earlier diatribe on this list, and as Jeanette said, let's focus on issues, within and across stakeholder lines. > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > On Dec 10, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> I say that as a long term member of isoc and of the academic community, he >> is a valued part of CS. >> >> His membership to the list is neither here nor there. Funnily enough, CS >> extends far beyond the confines of this caucus. >> >> Norbert Bollow [10/12/13 15:51 +0100]: >>> McTim wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>> In relation to Jean-Christophe's posting quoted below... >>>>> >>>>> Those remarks of Alejandro Pisanty (who by the way is not only >>>>> Chair of ISOC Mexico, but also definitely an influential person in >>>>> the global technical community, for example he has served three >>>>> terms as an ICANN board member, and he is currently on ISOC's Board >>>>> of Trustees) >>>> >>>> and a member of this list (at least formerly and perhaps currently as >>>> a lurker) and therefore part of CS. >>> >>> Are you seriously proposing being a current or past subscriber to this >>> or any other mailing list results in the person being "therefore" part >>> of civil society??? (There are several reasonable approaches to roughly >>> defining the "civil society" stakeholder category, and there's room for >>> reasonable disagreement between proponents of them, but I wouldn't >>> expect anyone to seriously view being a subscriber to the list as being >>> indicative in one way or the other!) >>> >>>> are at >>>>> minutes 50:00-57:00 in this video: >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtOfsC2n_lQ >>>>> >>>>> Although the agenda that he is promoting is absolutely shocking when >>>>> looked at from any mainstream civil society perspective >>>> >>>> What exactly is shocking? >>> >>> a) what he actually said, in particular the statements that >>> Jean-Christophe has quoted >>> >>> b) the agenda which in my view / analysis is behind those statements >>> >>> c) these things being well received in the context where they were said >>> >>>>> In effect, he's saying that all power should be in the hands of the >>>>> engineers and by implication in the hands of the companies for which >>>>> they're working >>>> >>>> He didn't say that at all. Listen to it again maybe? >>> >>> I started that sentence with "in effect, he's saying". In other words, >>> the sentence presents my analysis of what he's saying means in effect. >>> >>>>> , and he is promoting the use of smoke screen tactics >>>>> that aim at preventing anyone else from gaining an effective >>>>> influence. >>>>> >>>>> Civil society absolutely needs to find a good way to deal with this >>>>> kind of tactics. >>>>> >>>>> These tactics have been successfully used *within* civil society >>>>> networks such as the IGC with the aim of preventing IGC from being >>>>> an effective civil society voice >>>> >>>> So voicing a truly held opinion is a "tactic"? >>> >>> Not necessarily; it can be part of a tactic though. Choices about where >>> and how to voice one's opinion, and on which subset of the topics under >>> discussion, are tactical in nature though. >>> >>>> Your inability to accept diversity of opinion is showing (again). >>> >>> Thanks for the insult. >>> >>> 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 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 kichango at gmail.com Wed Dec 11 13:55:27 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 18:55:27 +0000 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com> Message-ID: + 1 Bill is an _invited_ expert to that panel. Which means CS has no representation on it, just like several other stakeholders as Bill mentioned. So if we want to complain about that, we should be making such complain to ICANN & Co., and particularly to Fadi (if that's really the case that he asked for 2 names, based on what I remember was posted here about the communication Robin had with him... hoping my memory is correct.) So on the one hand, he reportedly told one of us to provide him with 2 names, and on the other hand he later wrote "we were never in a position to grow the panel any further" (despite the fact that the PR Newswire piece reporting the appointment of the panel ended with the following: "Additional members to be confirmed.) Which is it? Admittedly, the written, which also happens to be the latest, instance of advice would be more authoritative. In any case, that's where the problem lies, if any, IMHO. And on that specific point I agree with Marillia. We may have well-accepted, predictable process for nomination and still run into this problem. Now, this is not the first time we were asked in some process to put names forward and yet, eventually, people completely outside of the list we came up with were appointed. If that bothers anyone, as it should, then we need to start trying to understand why that is so. Are these CS networks being seen as irrelevant? Is there anything we could do to correct this? Or are there some other reasons that might justify that state of affairs? In a nutshell, this one at least is not just an intra-CS problem as much as it is about how CS in this space is being dealt with. However, we may have some responsibility for improving this situation. In the meantime one possible way to handle these invitations to nominate is to clarify with the "inviters": i) Is this an invitation that means "I have these slots to fill and I need you to help me in identifying some good CS members I can pick from to do the job, keeping in mind that I've made the same request formally or informally to other people/places"? ii) Or is it an invitation that means "I have this group appointment to take care of which requires CS representatives, and I need you guys to provide me with a list of your representatives from which the CS portion of the group _will_ be selected (possibly: keeping in mind that other CS groupings including X, Y, Z... have been asked to do the same)"? In the latter case, we would expect all the CS appointees to have been slated by at least one or any number of the CS groupings invited to nominate; while in the former the "inviters" may come up with any name(s) they eventually are happy with whether we proposed those names or not, and that would be fine. At least that way we would know whether the case is worth putting our energy to run a full nomination process (or even to discuss it collectively) or not. N.B. Nothing from the above goes against the notion that it would be great for us to agree on some way to smooth our nomination processes so that we can make more space and give our all to substantive issues. Mawaki On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > I'm sorry, but to me this discussion does not reflect fundamental > divergence of views with any of the names - Bill, Milton or Anriette - and > it is certainly not about lack of trust. The underpinning reason here is > not a disagreement among CS people, it is a disagreement with how the HL > panel matter has been conducted. > > Do we need one HL panel? Many ppl think we dont, yet we have it. Since we > have it, do we have space for CS? No, there is an appalling lack of CS > representation. "Then give us names", they said. And we engaged in a > process to do it, because we want to be constructive and to participate. > Just to see that effort being disregarded without any convincing > explanation. To my knowledge, we will not have any representative there to > convey any substantial message that we wish to convey. Bill is invited as > expert. What bothers me is the feeling that CS - and all organizations that > participated in the NonCom process - were made fool in a way. If they > wanted experts, not CS representatives, why not be clear about it? > Sometimes a blunt no is better than a unfulfilled yes. > > With that I am not saying that I do not agree with Jeanette and George. I > think we are missing the point of the most important thing, the substance. > Then, let's unbury Andrew's thread about substance, answer the survey > (deadline today) and move on with concrete stuff, as soon as we have this > compilation/mapping of replies back. But this present thread is about "HL > and CS reps". So I think it is understandable that we are talking about > process. Process is all we have to talk about without knowing not even what > the agenda is, and without having an idea of how to contribute. > > Anyway, reinforcing previous suggestions to communicate concerns, I rest > my case about this. > > Marília > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:58 PM, George Sadowsky < > george.sadowsky at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I strongly share Jeanette's opinion. >> >> Representatives of civil society causes (RCSC) (that characterization >> typifies many of the people on the list, I think) have both positive >> messages and concerns. The positive messages are those that many of us >> automatically subscribe to when they are expressed at the highest level, >> such as 'freedom of expression. These are positive messages. >> >> The concerns come because such desired states are often weakened by >> others, typically by governments but also by certain trends in other >> sectors. Hence the need, often expressed by RCSCs to be 'at the table' >> with other sectors, comes from the possibility that these positions will be >> eroded, consciously or unconsciously, by other sectors. The desire to be >> included is a quite understandable reaction to that possibility. >> >> But what I don't understand is the intense internal process and disputes >> regarding who gets to represent a group that appears homogeneous at the top >> level. Is the homogeneity superficial? If so, it would be more useful to >> explore and understand the differences within the RCSC. Is the dispute >> based upon ideological purity of the process for selection? That seems >> counterproductive and generally a waste of time to me. Is the dispute >> based upon lack of trust among group members? Are there other reasons. Is >> the representation process an end in itself, regardless of its effect upon >> pursuing other CS goals. If so, then perhaps this should be reconstituted >> as a political science theory group. >> >> It seems to me that rather than spending so much time discussing and >> debating representation issues, it would be more useful to discuss why >> representation issues are so important, often IMO to the detriment of >> working on real civil society issues. >> >> I'm with Jeanette. Concentrate upon issues, and that means areas of >> agreement and disagreement with other sectors as well as within the RCSC >> community. Disputes about representation seem unproductive, unless they >> imply unaddressed issues within the community. If so, it surely seems >> more productive to address them directly rather than through this proxy >> dispute based on representation. >> >> George >> >> >> On Dec 10, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> > I fully agree with Rafik's concern. In fact, both the IGC and the >> > bestbits list seem to have become rather obsessed with filling positions >> > on various committtees. >> > >> > In another message from last week that probably got lost or still awaits >> > the moderator's approvement, I noticed a growing madness about committee >> > positions and other appointments which is more or less pushing aside >> > the debate over issues and opinions. >> > >> > Besides, I also think that a distinction should be made between >> > appointed experts and stakeholder representatives. Generally, I wished >> > we paid less attention to the issue of representatives and focused more >> > on the message we want to convey. >> > >> > jeanette >> > >> > Am 10.12.13 14:49, schrieb Rafik Dammak: >> >> Hello,dfasfd >> >> >> >> I am wondering if we are not giving too much weight to HLM than it >> >> should be and doing for it a free promotion! honestly, I was not in >> >> favour of the ICANN strategic panels since they are not bottom-up, >> >> formed by handpicked members and bypassing the usual process. I found >> >> now that we want badly to be in that high level panel and making it >> >> relevant and maybe even giving it a big role for Brazil meeting! hope >> >> that we wont regret such decision later. >> >> >> >> we can ask for giving inputs, openness etc but that will be definitely >> >> depending to the will ICANN/WEF/Anneberg Foundation and there won't be >> >> any guarantee on how they process the inputs or how it will be included >> >> in their deliverable. everything is ad-hoc there and any decision will >> >> depend to the will of the organisers. why shall we encourage such >> process? >> >> >> >> Back to the previous discussion, Bill was invited as expert and the >> name >> >> of panel is not "an expert group" , I don't see the confusion here. >> >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> >> >> 2013/12/10 Marilia Maciel > >> > >> >> >> >> Milton is right about the (lack of) process. On the one hand, it is >> >> positive that we have someone we trust there. On the other hand, it >> >> does seem that they are including who they want and how they want, >> >> totally disregarding the serious process we have been conducting to >> >> appoint names. >> >> >> >> I think that a letter signed by all organizations that participated >> >> in the nomination process should be sent to ICANN and ideally read >> >> during the meeting, expressing our frustration and adding some >> >> concrete suggestions. I come back to the points I made earlier: >> >> - the agenda of the HL panel meetings should be publicized in >> advance >> >> - channels to receive inputs (procedural or substantive) should be >> >> created or clarified >> >> - their meetings should be open to observers (like the meetings of >> >> the CSTD ECWG) >> >> - Reports of the meetings should be published. They could follow >> >> Chatam House rules >> >> And >> >> - CS representatives (names), who were appointed following an >> >> internal and legitimate process carried out by CS, should be >> >> immediately included in the HL panel to ensure minimum CS >> >> representation. >> >> >> >> Marília >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Norbert Bollow > >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Milton L Mueller > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an expert and >> >> the CS >> >> > groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is not so >> >> clear >> >> > to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, >> especially >> >> > since the London meeting of the group starts in two days. >> >> Either one >> >> > could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS demands to be >> >> > included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a >> >> substitute for >> >> > the other. At this stage, I would assume that if there is no >> >> > appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, that >> >> there will >> >> > not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be given. The fact >> >> that >> >> > Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway meeting >> isn't >> >> > something that inspires confidence, is it? >> >> >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> Especially given that there was in fact a coordinated civil >> society >> >> process through which names have been put forward. >> >> >> >> Greetings, >> >> Norbert >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > >. >> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Marília Maciel* >> >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Dec 11 13:58:58 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 13:58:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: <341E7F20-D20F-4E81-94C0-1A64EE0645E1@gmail.com> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20131210102833.6d19a9e8@quill> <20131210155159.47914fc0@quill> <20131210171740.GA10589@hserus.net> <84F53CF4-FED9-4ED7-A091-2C1CDDB64219@gmail.com> <341E7F20-D20F-4E81-94C0-1A64EE0645E1@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: > fog. The major challenge out of the RFC was to bring clarity for a common > culture and common values to emerge. All of what AP says is entirely in > opposition to that. Not at all AP is a centrist in the common culture and common values of what is now called the Technical Community" but is really part of CS. I think the IG debate deserves clarity, not walls of > blabla to be construct and deconstruct every two seconds. If we accept the single WGIG definition, then EVERYTHING under the sun is part of IG. Some of us reject that definition as far too broad. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Dec 11 14:05:41 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 06:05:41 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: proposal re committee selection In-Reply-To: References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com> <52A749CB.3060809@wzb.eu> <52A817AE.3090707@wzb.eu> Message-ID: Hi Nnenna, I should provide an update on your list below to reflect a couple of events in the last few days. Chat Garcia Ramilo is now the APC representative (it was inappropriate for Anriette to continue on a group which would be considering her name among other nominees) As of 12 hours ago Sala has withdrawn from the group. (not sure why). We have asked her to name a replacement from IGC, but perhaps seeing there are no other co ordinators of IGC currently that might have to wait for IGC elections (due now) and new co coordinators. In the meantime if IGC can come up with a way to name a replacement that would be gratefully accepted – but with 3 ex-coordinators of IGC on the group I think there is a strong interest to make sure IGC’s interests are heard and considered. Ian Peter PS we should be announcing the 1net steering committee nominations shortly. From: Nnenna Nwakanma Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 11:50 PM To: Governance ; Jeanette Hofmann Subject: Re: [governance] Re: proposal re committee selection Thanks Jeanette and really happy to have you back and hear you! Actually, that was the thinking behind the current "Coordinating group on nominations". It is true this did not take long to process. What I know is that there is a kind of cross-networked representation on this group for nominations. It is made up of: 1.. Jeremy of Best Bits (bestbits.net) 2.. Ginger of Diplo (diplointernetgovernance.org) 3.. Robin of the ICANN NCSG (community.icann.org) 4.. Anriette of APC (apc.org) 5.. Sala of IGC - (igcaucus.org) 6.. Ian Peter as Independent Chair The thinking behind this is that each network rep will circulate any representation need information to their respective networks, then these networks can forward nominations in accordance with the task at hand. All for now Nnenna On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: Hi Marília, One could add a nomcom I suppose. Although it would probabl double the amount of people to be involved in the selection of candidates. In any case, my point would be to take these conversations off the list and to make the trust for our representatives last a bit longer. jeanette Am 11.12.13 02:23, schrieb Marilia Maciel: Thanks for this, Jeanette. That sounds like a very interesting idea. It increases the predictability of the process and diminishes recurrent tensions in the moment of choosing CS representatives. It also helps in the process of achieving regional and gender balance. My only suggestion would be that, instead of leaving people who are part of the pool "insulated" to make this choice, a NomCom could be appointed to select from the poll, based of thematic affinity, experience, gender and regional diversity, etc. And the person who is being considered could say if he or she would accept that particular position or not, although the idea of "best before" that you mentioned already indicates the members of the pool are willing to serve. I liked the work of this diverse NomCom that was just put in place, with IGC, BB, APC, etc, working together. Maybe a NomCom with a broader scope could be created. It is possible this particular proposal would not work for ongoing discussions of representatives, but it is an idea to discuss, refine and consider for the next selection processes in my opinion. Marília On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Jeanette Hofmann > wrote: There seems to be a flooding of committees at the moment, and we have no way of knowing how important each of them will be. Moreover, we have no way of knowing what specific stances the people we are considered as representatives will take up on the issues addressed. Still it seems we make a lot of a fuss on procedures for nominating them. Here is a practical proposal for simplifying the process and creating more room for substantive discussion: Lets create a balanced pool of people who enjoy respect and trust on the various lists, balanced in terms of gender and region. With such a pool of people in place, we can leave the question of who participates in what venue, or more precisely, who is proposed to join a given committee, to that very pool of people. The price the people have to pay for being among these talented few is going again and again through the torture of selecting the best candidates for each individual job. Each request for cs representation would be forwarded to this pool. The pool would be given a "best before" time stamp of, say, 18 or 24 months. jeanette Am 10.12.13 17:32, schrieb Marilia Maciel: I'm sorry, but to me this discussion does not reflect fundamental divergence of views with any of the names - Bill, Milton or Anriette - and it is certainly not about lack of trust. The underpinning reason here is not a disagreement among CS people, it is a disagreement with how the HL panel matter has been conducted. Do we need one HL panel? Many ppl think we dont, yet we have it. Since we have it, do we have space for CS? No, there is an appalling lack of CS representation. "Then give us names", they said. And we engaged in a process to do it, because we want to be constructive and to participate. Just to see that effort being disregarded without any convincing explanation. To my knowledge, we will not have any representative there to convey any substantial message that we wish to convey. Bill is invited as expert. What bothers me is the feeling that CS - and all organizations that participated in the NonCom process - were made fool in a way. If they wanted experts, not CS representatives, why not be clear about it? Sometimes a blunt no is better than a unfulfilled yes. With that I am not saying that I do not agree with Jeanette and George. I think we are missing the point of the most important thing, the substance. Then, let's unbury Andrew's thread about substance, answer the survey (deadline today) and move on with concrete stuff, as soon as we have this compilation/mapping of replies back. But this present thread is about "HL and CS reps". So I think it is understandable that we are talking about process. Process is all we have to talk about without knowing not even what the agenda is, and without having an idea of how to contribute. Anyway, reinforcing previous suggestions to communicate concerns, I rest my case about this. Marília On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:58 PM, George Sadowsky >> wrote: I strongly share Jeanette's opinion. Representatives of civil society causes (RCSC) (that characterization typifies many of the people on the list, I think) have both positive messages and concerns. The positive messages are those that many of us automatically subscribe to when they are expressed at the highest level, such as 'freedom of expression. These are positive messages. The concerns come because such desired states are often weakened by others, typically by governments but also by certain trends in other sectors. Hence the need, often expressed by RCSCs to be 'at the table' with other sectors, comes from the possibility that these positions will be eroded, consciously or unconsciously, by other sectors. The desire to be included is a quite understandable reaction to that possibility. But what I don't understand is the intense internal process and disputes regarding who gets to represent a group that appears homogeneous at the top level. Is the homogeneity superficial? If so, it would be more useful to explore and understand the differences within the RCSC. Is the dispute based upon ideological purity of the process for selection? That seems counterproductive and generally a waste of time to me. Is the dispute based upon lack of trust among group members? Are there other reasons. Is the representation process an end in itself, regardless of its effect upon pursuing other CS goals. If so, then perhaps this should be reconstituted as a political science theory group. It seems to me that rather than spending so much time discussing and debating representation issues, it would be more useful to discuss why representation issues are so important, often IMO to the detriment of working on real civil society issues. I'm with Jeanette. Concentrate upon issues, and that means areas of agreement and disagreement with other sectors as well as within the RCSC community. Disputes about representation seem unproductive, unless they imply unaddressed issues within the community. If so, it surely seems more productive to address them directly rather than through this proxy dispute based on representation. George On Dec 10, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > I fully agree with Rafik's concern. In fact, both the IGC and the > bestbits list seem to have become rather obsessed with filling positions > on various committtees. > > In another message from last week that probably got lost or still awaits > the moderator's approvement, I noticed a growing madness about committee > positions and other appointments which is more or less pushing aside > the debate over issues and opinions. > > Besides, I also think that a distinction should be made between > appointed experts and stakeholder representatives. Generally, I wished > we paid less attention to the issue of representatives and focused more > on the message we want to convey. > > jeanette > > Am 10.12.13 14:49, schrieb Rafik Dammak: >> Hello,dfasfd >> >> I am wondering if we are not giving too much weight to HLM than it >> should be and doing for it a free promotion! honestly, I was not in >> favour of the ICANN strategic panels since they are not bottom-up, >> formed by handpicked members and bypassing the usual process. I found >> now that we want badly to be in that high level panel and making it >> relevant and maybe even giving it a big role for Brazil meeting! hope >> that we wont regret such decision later. >> >> we can ask for giving inputs, openness etc but that will be definitely >> depending to the will ICANN/WEF/Anneberg Foundation and there won't be >> any guarantee on how they process the inputs or how it will be included >> in their deliverable. everything is ad-hoc there and any decision will >> depend to the will of the organisers. why shall we encourage such process? >> >> Back to the previous discussion, Bill was invited as expert and the name >> of panel is not "an expert group" , I don't see the confusion here. >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2013/12/10 Marilia Maciel > >> >>> >> >> Milton is right about the (lack of) process. On the one hand, it is >> positive that we have someone we trust there. On the other hand, it >> does seem that they are including who they want and how they want, >> totally disregarding the serious process we have been conducting to >> appoint names. >> >> I think that a letter signed by all organizations that participated >> in the nomination process should be sent to ICANN and ideally read >> during the meeting, expressing our frustration and adding some >> concrete suggestions. I come back to the points I made earlier: >> - the agenda of the HL panel meetings should be publicized in advance >> - channels to receive inputs (procedural or substantive) should be >> created or clarified >> - their meetings should be open to observers (like the meetings of >> the CSTD ECWG) >> - Reports of the meetings should be published. They could follow >> Chatam House rules >> And >> - CS representatives (names), who were appointed following an >> internal and legitimate process carried out by CS, should be >> immediately included in the HL panel to ensure minimum CS >> representation. >> >> Marília >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Norbert Bollow > >> >>> wrote: >> >> Milton L Mueller > >>> wrote: >> >> > The distinction between Bill's appointment as an expert and >> the CS >> > groups' nomination of people to be on the committee is not so >> clear >> > to me, and we cannot assume that it is clear to Fadi, especially >> > since the London meeting of the group starts in two days. >> Either one >> > could be seen as Fadi making a concession to CS demands to be >> > included in the HLLM, and he may consider one to be a >> substitute for >> > the other. At this stage, I would assume that if there is no >> > appointment of another CS rep to the HL Panel by now, that >> there will >> > not be one at all, and Bill is all we will be given. The fact >> that >> > Bill's appointment came from a random F2F hallway meeting isn't >> > something that inspires confidence, is it? >> >> +1 >> >> Especially given that there was in fact a coordinated civil society >> process through which names have been put forward. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> ______________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > >>. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/__info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Marília Maciel* >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> >> ______________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > >>. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/__info/bestbits >> >> > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/__unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/__info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/__translate_t ______________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/__unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/__info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/__translate_t -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate www.diplomacy.edu ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Dec 11 14:11:14 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 14:11:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: <9A2EC7F8-9801-432D-9877-A85DC8571C27@difference.com.au> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20131210102833.6d19a9e8@quill> <20131210155159.47914fc0@quill> <20131210171740.GA10589@hserus.net> <84F53CF4-FED9-4ED7-A091-2C1CDDB64219@gmail.com> <9A2EC7F8-9801-432D-9877-A85DC8571C27@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <6BAD6C26-2B94-43DA-AAC9-45CE358BBFA0@gmail.com> David makes good points. I agree with David that ISOC does things that a typical civil society organization would do, and it could be classified as such. At the same time, it funds the premier standards setting organizations for the Internet, and so also has a technical role. Also, within the UN and IGF stakeholder environment -- which I agree is a narrow role -- it coordinates the nominations process for representatives to various stakeholder groups. This confluence and co-existence of roles should make it clear that the technical community and the community of representatives of civil society causes have at least as much in common as they have apart. Representatives of civil society causes who do not want to have their views 'mediated by the technical community' should be asking themselves whether in fact their views might actually be amplified by joining with the technical community in dialogues to improve Internet governance. George On Dec 11, 2013, at 1:37 PM, David Cake wrote: > I agree with George. I agree with some of what Alejandro says, and disagree strongly with other parts, but the idea that we should classify individuals active in the IG space as within or without civil society, and judge their motivations accordingly, is deeply problematic. > > Regarding ISOC (as Alejandro is active in ISOC-Mexico, and the remarks under discussion where made at an ISOC Chapters and Members meeting), it is also worth noting that in any context outside the narrow world of multi-stakeholder Internet governance institutions that have formalised stakeholder groups, such as ICANN and the IGF (which is the space we largely operate within, but it is easy to forget that it is a small and rather artificial microcosm), ISOC and its chapters would be considered part of civil society. It is a non-profit organisation with an educational, charitable and development mandate, and it spends much of its time doing the sort of thing typical civil society organisations do, such as policy work and advocacy. > > Cheers > > David > > On 11 Dec 2013, at 2:18 am, George Sadowsky wrote: > >> All, >> >> I believe that Alejandro Pisanty is a person who has, among other things, significant concerns that map into some of the causes that are being promoted on this list. >> >> I think that we have a significant problem with terminology here, and the argument regarding the classification of Alejandro, is a clear manifestation of it. I would like to repeat what I said in a previous post and then try to improve on the terminology issue: >> >>> Fourth, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being siloed. >>> >>> An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in the world and remove government involvement, the private sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences. To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals. >>> >>> Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder group. We have interactions with government and may work for it. Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector organization. Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet. Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in the civil society stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do. This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the underlying reality, >> >> I think that the individuals who participate on this list are more appropriately described as self-selected representatives of civil society causes. I don't mean this pejoratively. There is nothing right or wrong with being a member of a self-selected group; it's just another form of organization. Similarly, as I noted in a previous post, there's nothing wrong with supporting, arguing for, or otherwise espousing a cause. >> >> But let's not confuse all of us, all the billions of us who are civil society, with a modest group of individuals who support causes that are generally very important to us. >> >> Speaking personally, While you do not represent me as an individual within civil society, I agree with a good part of what is said on this list. When I discover ideas with which I disagree, I intervene. and when the list seems to go into tailspins and obsessions with things that I believe are basically irrelevant, I intervene as i am doing now, hoping that what I do will help to reorient the direction o the conversation. >> >> Let's also not forget that many of us who have our primary affiliation in other sectors, such as the Internet technology sector, agree with much of what is said in a civil society context. Trying to classify Alejandro, as was done earlier, s either in or out of 'civil society' (whatever the writer meant) is essentially trying to take a rich and complex personality and reduce him to a single dimension. IMO that is totally counter productive. It's yet another reason why imposing a rigid stakeholder framework on a complex part of society is not only unproductive but harmful. >> >> As I said in an earlier diatribe on this list, and as Jeanette said, let's focus on issues, within and across stakeholder lines. >> >> George >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> On Dec 10, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> I say that as a long term member of isoc and of the academic community, he >>> is a valued part of CS. >>> >>> His membership to the list is neither here nor there. Funnily enough, CS >>> extends far beyond the confines of this caucus. >>> >>> Norbert Bollow [10/12/13 15:51 +0100]: >>>> McTim wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>>> In relation to Jean-Christophe's posting quoted below... >>>>>> >>>>>> Those remarks of Alejandro Pisanty (who by the way is not only >>>>>> Chair of ISOC Mexico, but also definitely an influential person in >>>>>> the global technical community, for example he has served three >>>>>> terms as an ICANN board member, and he is currently on ISOC's Board >>>>>> of Trustees) >>>>> >>>>> and a member of this list (at least formerly and perhaps currently as >>>>> a lurker) and therefore part of CS. >>>> >>>> Are you seriously proposing being a current or past subscriber to this >>>> or any other mailing list results in the person being "therefore" part >>>> of civil society??? (There are several reasonable approaches to roughly >>>> defining the "civil society" stakeholder category, and there's room for >>>> reasonable disagreement between proponents of them, but I wouldn't >>>> expect anyone to seriously view being a subscriber to the list as being >>>> indicative in one way or the other!) >>>> >>>>> are at >>>>>> minutes 50:00-57:00 in this video: >>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtOfsC2n_lQ >>>>>> >>>>>> Although the agenda that he is promoting is absolutely shocking when >>>>>> looked at from any mainstream civil society perspective >>>>> >>>>> What exactly is shocking? >>>> >>>> a) what he actually said, in particular the statements that >>>> Jean-Christophe has quoted >>>> >>>> b) the agenda which in my view / analysis is behind those statements >>>> >>>> c) these things being well received in the context where they were said >>>> >>>>>> In effect, he's saying that all power should be in the hands of the >>>>>> engineers and by implication in the hands of the companies for which >>>>>> they're working >>>>> >>>>> He didn't say that at all. Listen to it again maybe? >>>> >>>> I started that sentence with "in effect, he's saying". In other words, >>>> the sentence presents my analysis of what he's saying means in effect. >>>> >>>>>> , and he is promoting the use of smoke screen tactics >>>>>> that aim at preventing anyone else from gaining an effective >>>>>> influence. >>>>>> >>>>>> Civil society absolutely needs to find a good way to deal with this >>>>>> kind of tactics. >>>>>> >>>>>> These tactics have been successfully used *within* civil society >>>>>> networks such as the IGC with the aim of preventing IGC from being >>>>>> an effective civil society voice >>>>> >>>>> So voicing a truly held opinion is a "tactic"? >>>> >>>> Not necessarily; it can be part of a tactic though. Choices about where >>>> and how to voice one's opinion, and on which subset of the topics under >>>> discussion, are tactical in nature though. >>>> >>>>> Your inability to accept diversity of opinion is showing (again). >>>> >>>> Thanks for the insult. >>>> >>>> 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 mueller at syr.edu Wed Dec 11 15:53:06 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 20:53:06 +0000 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com>, Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257BFB5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Thank you. Marilia's position as stated below reflects exactly my own. The point is not, as Jeanette mistakenly argues, that there is a "madness" about filling committee positions to the exclusion of substantive debate. No one can fairly accuse me, of all people, of failing to actively formulate positions on the substantive issues. That's what I spend most of my time doing. The problem is that we were told to provide names, we did a lot of work to do so, and then those names were disregarded. This will have long term consequences regarding other requests by 1net (and we still do not have a statement as to who is actually making decisions on behalf of 1net) for participation in the future. 1net really needs to think carefully about what kind of precedents it is setting and how much trust it is or is not building here. I have to say I am especially unimpressed with the statements from Mr. Sadowsky. When he says, "concentrate on substance, don't pay any attention to who is represented on committees," it has absolutely no credibility, because it comes from a person who is at least connected to, or more likely is actually one of the people making, decisions behind the scenes. George might do better to keep silent or to just recognize that a mess was made and apologize for it. If it truly doesn't matter who is on these committees, why did ICANN appoint some people to them and not others? And why not tell us who is making decisions for 1net? Let me make it clear: I attribute most of this problem to disorganization and bad procedure rather than ill intent. But when lame rationalizations are offered for the effects of the disorganization it contributes to ill will. --MM ________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Dec 11 16:12:03 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 16:12:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: <42B2C0E3-C9DE-4005-B2F2-0C2BA7FB7D3C@gmail.com> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20131210102833.6d19a9e8@quill> <20131210155159.47914fc0@quill> <20131210171740.GA10589@hserus.net> <84F53CF4-FED9-4ED7-A091-2C1CDDB64219@gmail.com> <10B5C398-356B-4810-9E48-A3A84340E21B@gmail.com> <42B2C0E3-C9DE-4005-B2F2-0C2BA7FB7D3C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <424CEDD1-4C25-46CC-9A08-E24DD6CADE14@gmail.com> Jean-Christophe, Based upon some recent remarks in various mails, there are three meetings in which the comments that attracted you could have been made: 1. The ISOC Chapters meeting - not an ISOC meeting, but held in the same venue. I was not there. 2. The early morning Wednesday meeting, used for filling people in with respect to events leading up to the Brazil meeting. I was not there. 3. The ICANN Open Forum on Thursday afternoon. I was there. I think that in the interests of fairness to Alex, to you, and to the substance of the discussion, that members of the list deserve to look at the transcript. I know that there is an official transcript for meeting 3, above, but I don't know whether any transcripts exist for he first two meetings. To which of these meetings are you referring? Please, I hope that you will identify the meeting and post Alex's remarks to the list directly soon. Thanks! George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ George, I am putting a final hand to my next hufpost and will provide the link once it is online. It will also include a link to the full transcript - was a bit of work for a Continental European like me to get through Alejandro's speedy Mexican English. No offense, just a bit of a hard time to be as precise as possible. JC Le 10 déc. 2013 à 22:33, George Sadowsky a écrit : > I typed too quickly. I meant to type "I am on the ICANN Board." I thought that it was rather well known. But whatever I post on these lists is my own personal opinion. I think that's well understood also. > > I have also been on this list for the last 10 years, and at that time I was running Internet policy projects in transition countries, mostly in the former Soviet Union. See http://www.georgesadowsky.org/. > > I clearly was at ICANN 48 but don't remember Alejandro's intervention. If it was at the Open Forum, I was involved in a couple of urgent side conversations, and I did leave the room at some point. Maybe it's just my faulty memory. If it occurred elsewhere, I was not in that session. Then again, I had had a long talk with Alejandro during the week, and perhaps I just wasn't listening well. > > I don't understand your Disneyland comment, but I want to comment on your "circle" allusion. I don't stand in one circle. I consult (small business), sometimes I consult for government (government), I am a technologist (technical) and I've been involved in a variety of economic and social development initiatives (civil society). Parts of me are in all circles, and to be identified with only one circle deforms who I am -- just like the stakeholder framework encourages us to be in silos. I wrote a post several weeks ago on this subject that you may not have seen; I'll send you a copy off list. > > So I'm waiting to receive the text that you are referring to. Perhaps if it's not too long you could just post it to the list so that everyone could make their own judgment? > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 3:18 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: > >> Thanks for informing those who didn't know about your ICANN relationship/link/... We might see in a near future, more clarity about who's who in the different circles. Internet Governance is not about going to Disneyland, giving smiles around at each other while gently spending money -for those who have some- and thinking that we live in a "ouin-ouin" world. >> >> Do you mean you were attending ICANN48, but did not participate to that session? Which then makes sense ("I did not hear him"). What Alejandro said was probably one of the greatest moment of the meeting. Unavoidable. >> >> But again, if we understand Alejandro, please no single definition, no single issue... What's about terminology? This is not really what is at stake here. What will be the next governance? That is the main concern and this is what needs to be urgently addressed and forwarded to the Brazilian meeting. And governance means some sort of political will, clarity, and "program". >> >> JC <> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nnenna75 at gmail.com Wed Dec 11 16:26:34 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 21:26:34 +0000 Subject: [governance] BB listers and IGC listers Message-ID: To persons subscribed to the Best Bits list and Internet Governance list I have started a sheet here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-TSs6WAZLtaGs-wHmw-cBxr4tF3Ix7tNEGV7JeXYa3E/edit#gid=1819847878 This sheet contains the 250 addresses subcribed to the Best Bits list. This list is available for all subscribed members. I am now auditing the BB list members who are/may be also in the IGC list. The list of IGC members is here: http://igcaucus.org/node/12/ One list uses email addresses and the other uses Names and profiles. There are about 347 at the moment (dunno if it is up to date) at the IGC list. This exercise follows the "double dipping" idea of BB and IGC. This comparison is only of BB and IGC. But in going through, I noticed there was still overlapping in APC, Diplo and NCSG of ICANN members. But since those communities are not being construed to be double dipping, we may spare ouselves that audit. But if someone has time, patience and access, it may be worthwhile to do same for the other networks! Hoping this will be useful to some of us Nnenna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Dec 11 17:00:18 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:00:18 -0500 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257BFB5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com>, <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257BFB5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear Milton, I'm sorry that you are especially unimpressed by my statements, but you do have a right to feel that way. However, I would appreciate it if you would be precise in quoting me I never said what you quoted me as saying below. Rather, what you have in quotes below appears to be a negative paraphrase of what you thought I meant. Milton, let's make a deal. I'll try to impress you more, and you try to quote me accurately, without paraphrasing me pejoratively. You don't have to like what I say, but please don't distort it. OK? Now, with regard to substance, perhaps the segué from the HLLM discssion to the general representation issue was imperfect. I think that neither Jeanette nor I were arguing specifically with respect to the issue of representation on the HLLM. I at least was addressing the general issue of concentrating so heavily upon representation processes in general and paying little attention to issues of substance. I wasn't thinking about the HLLM at all. Perhaps the poor segué caused you to miss that point. There is quite a confusion caused by the number of committees that have recently been formed. Here's my tally, and be aware that it may contain inaccuracies and misunderstandings: 1. Four Strategy Advisory Committees in a variety of issue areas, discussed over the summer, all internal to ICANN. 2. One HLLM, originally the fifth committee in the above group, repurposed from within ICANN sometime in October to provide a more general discussion of Internet governance, precipitated largely (I think) by the offer of Brazil to host a high-level meeting. The committee was essentially formed, but had not been announced, prior to the Brazil offer. 3. One steering committee for the i-coordination effort, with five members each from each stakeholder group. It was the selection process for this committee that I had in mind when I wrote the text that underwhelmed you. 4. Three committees specifically to support the Brazil meeting; according to Carlos Afonso, planning has not ye reached the stage when recommendations should be solicited for possible stakeholder representation. Are there any more committees lurking out there? I hope not! Now here is a question for you,Milton. When you use the plural in the sentence, "If it truly doesn't matter who is on these committees, why did ICANN appoint some people to them and not others?" Which committees are you implying that ICANN is , let's say, controlling by appoint some people and not others? I only see the HLLM committee as having a possible dispute regarding representation, not any other. Your use of plural implies otherwise. Can you explain? Next, you ask me to apologize for 'the mess.' Two points: first, the entire discussion regarding Internet governance is messy, because in general we know where we want to leave from, but we don't know where we want to end up. If we did, then that end state would have been widely articulated in detail and accepted. That is a problem that we all share, in common, and there's no need to apologize for it by me, or by you. That is just the reality of the current situation. Second, it is correct that the 1net initiative got off to a shaky start, but it is developing. My sense of 1net is that it is a place for multiple stakeholder groups to met and discuss IG issues of common concern. It is not tied to a meeting in Brazl, although if it were to produce useful output, it could be used there. AFAIK there isn't another discussion space like it except IGF, and the results of IGF are ephemeral. Perhaps you are aware of others. Perhaps you feel that the effort is in the wrong direction. Finally, as you are aware, I think that it's better to engage than to keep silent. I'd like to engage on courteous and professional terms. I hope that we can agree to that. Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Dec 11, 2013, at 3:53 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Thank you. Marilia's position as stated below reflects exactly my own. > > The point is not, as Jeanette mistakenly argues, that there is a "madness" about filling committee positions to the exclusion of substantive debate. No one can fairly accuse me, of all people, of failing to actively formulate positions on the substantive issues. That's what I spend most of my time doing. > > The problem is that we were told to provide names, we did a lot of work to do so, and then those names were disregarded. This will have long term consequences regarding other requests by 1net (and we still do not have a statement as to who is actually making decisions on behalf of 1net) for participation in the future. 1net really needs to think carefully about what kind of precedents it is setting and how much trust it is or is not building here. > > I have to say I am especially unimpressed with the statements from Mr. Sadowsky. When he says, "concentrate on substance, don't pay any attention to who is represented on committees," it has absolutely no credibility, because it comes from a person who is at least connected to, or more likely is actually one of the people making, decisions behind the scenes. George might do better to keep silent or to just recognize that a mess was made and apologize for it. If it truly doesn't matter who is on these committees, why did ICANN appoint some people to them and not others? And why not tell us who is making decisions for 1net? > > Let me make it clear: I attribute most of this problem to disorganization and bad procedure rather than ill intent. But when lame rationalizations are offered for the effects of the disorganization it contributes to ill will. > > --MM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 11 19:39:25 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 18:39:25 -0600 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: <6BAD6C26-2B94-43DA-AAC9-45CE358BBFA0@gmail.com> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20131210102833.6d19a9e8@quill> <20131210155159.47914fc0@quill> <20131210171740.GA10589@hserus.net> <84F53CF4-FED9-4ED7-A091-2C1CDDB64219@gmail.com> <9A2EC7F8-9801-432D-9877-A85DC8571C27@difference.com.au> <6BAD6C26-2B94-43DA-AAC9-45CE358BBFA0@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20131212003925.GA27874@hserus.net> +1 George Sadowsky [11/12/13 14:11 -0500]: >David makes good points. > >I agree with David that ISOC does things that a typical civil society organization would do, and it could be classified as such. At the same time, it funds the premier standards setting organizations for the Internet, and so also has a technical role. Also, within the UN and IGF stakeholder environment -- which I agree is a narrow role -- it coordinates the nominations process for representatives to various stakeholder groups. > >This confluence and co-existence of roles should make it clear that the technical community and the community of representatives of civil society causes have at least as much in common as they have apart. Representatives of civil society causes who do not want to have their views 'mediated by the technical community' should be asking themselves whether in fact their views might actually be amplified by joining with the technical community in dialogues to improve Internet governance. > >George > > > >On Dec 11, 2013, at 1:37 PM, David Cake wrote: > >> I agree with George. I agree with some of what Alejandro says, and disagree strongly with other parts, but the idea that we should classify individuals active in the IG space as within or without civil society, and judge their motivations accordingly, is deeply problematic. >> >> Regarding ISOC (as Alejandro is active in ISOC-Mexico, and the remarks under discussion where made at an ISOC Chapters and Members meeting), it is also worth noting that in any context outside the narrow world of multi-stakeholder Internet governance institutions that have formalised stakeholder groups, such as ICANN and the IGF (which is the space we largely operate within, but it is easy to forget that it is a small and rather artificial microcosm), ISOC and its chapters would be considered part of civil society. It is a non-profit organisation with an educational, charitable and development mandate, and it spends much of its time doing the sort of thing typical civil society organisations do, such as policy work and advocacy. >> >> Cheers >> >> David >> >> On 11 Dec 2013, at 2:18 am, George Sadowsky wrote: >> >>> All, >>> >>> I believe that Alejandro Pisanty is a person who has, among other things, significant concerns that map into some of the causes that are being promoted on this list. >>> >>> I think that we have a significant problem with terminology here, and the argument regarding the classification of Alejandro, is a clear manifestation of it. I would like to repeat what I said in a previous post and then try to improve on the terminology issue: >>> >>>> Fourth, I'd like to propose a reconceptualization of the term "civil society." In the multi-stakeholder instantiation that is now employed by the UN/MAG/IGF axis , it refers to groups if individuals, some representing organizations of various sizes that agree to various extents regarding the importance of individual rights of various kinds. These groups represent civil society goals and are therefore grouped as "civil society" to populate that stakeholder group. And although the goals of that group are generally quite positive, their actions are often based upon pushing back against other stakeholder groups, most notably government but also others. Perhaps that reflects the reality of the tension between groups, but that tension is not moderated, as it might sometimes be, by people bridging groups instead of being siloed. >>>> >>>> An alternate way to define civil society is to start with all people in the world and remove government involvement, the private sector involvement, and perhaps other large institutional influences. To borrow a phrase from Apple, what is left is "the rest of us," and it contains fractions, generally large fractions of most of us as individuals. >>>> >>>> Most individuals have interests in more than one sector or stakeholder group. We have interactions with government and may work for it. Alternatively we may work for a private or other public sector organization. Almost all of us are increasingly users of the internet. Using this approach, perhaps an aggregate of 5 billion of us constitute "civil society," as opposed to the people who are now labeled as being in the civil society stakeholder group. If we are all civil society in large parts of our lives, then we all have some claim to represent our views as we live. Thus, a representative of Internet technology on the MAG is likely to, and has a right to opine on issues in the larger space, just as self-defined representatives of civil society positions have a right to do. This illustrates again how the various stakeholder groups, or silos, are really quite intertwined, making the siloed and often competitive relationships between them at a formal level quite unrepresentative of the underlying reality, >>> >>> I think that the individuals who participate on this list are more appropriately described as self-selected representatives of civil society causes. I don't mean this pejoratively. There is nothing right or wrong with being a member of a self-selected group; it's just another form of organization. Similarly, as I noted in a previous post, there's nothing wrong with supporting, arguing for, or otherwise espousing a cause. >>> >>> But let's not confuse all of us, all the billions of us who are civil society, with a modest group of individuals who support causes that are generally very important to us. >>> >>> Speaking personally, While you do not represent me as an individual within civil society, I agree with a good part of what is said on this list. When I discover ideas with which I disagree, I intervene. and when the list seems to go into tailspins and obsessions with things that I believe are basically irrelevant, I intervene as i am doing now, hoping that what I do will help to reorient the direction o the conversation. >>> >>> Let's also not forget that many of us who have our primary affiliation in other sectors, such as the Internet technology sector, agree with much of what is said in a civil society context. Trying to classify Alejandro, as was done earlier, s either in or out of 'civil society' (whatever the writer meant) is essentially trying to take a rich and complex personality and reduce him to a single dimension. IMO that is totally counter productive. It's yet another reason why imposing a rigid stakeholder framework on a complex part of society is not only unproductive but harmful. >>> >>> As I said in an earlier diatribe on this list, and as Jeanette said, let's focus on issues, within and across stakeholder lines. >>> >>> George >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> On Dec 10, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> I say that as a long term member of isoc and of the academic community, he >>>> is a valued part of CS. >>>> >>>> His membership to the list is neither here nor there. Funnily enough, CS >>>> extends far beyond the confines of this caucus. >>>> >>>> Norbert Bollow [10/12/13 15:51 +0100]: >>>>> McTim wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>>>> In relation to Jean-Christophe's posting quoted below... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Those remarks of Alejandro Pisanty (who by the way is not only >>>>>>> Chair of ISOC Mexico, but also definitely an influential person in >>>>>>> the global technical community, for example he has served three >>>>>>> terms as an ICANN board member, and he is currently on ISOC's Board >>>>>>> of Trustees) >>>>>> >>>>>> and a member of this list (at least formerly and perhaps currently as >>>>>> a lurker) and therefore part of CS. >>>>> >>>>> Are you seriously proposing being a current or past subscriber to this >>>>> or any other mailing list results in the person being "therefore" part >>>>> of civil society??? (There are several reasonable approaches to roughly >>>>> defining the "civil society" stakeholder category, and there's room for >>>>> reasonable disagreement between proponents of them, but I wouldn't >>>>> expect anyone to seriously view being a subscriber to the list as being >>>>> indicative in one way or the other!) >>>>> >>>>>> are at >>>>>>> minutes 50:00-57:00 in this video: >>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtOfsC2n_lQ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Although the agenda that he is promoting is absolutely shocking when >>>>>>> looked at from any mainstream civil society perspective >>>>>> >>>>>> What exactly is shocking? >>>>> >>>>> a) what he actually said, in particular the statements that >>>>> Jean-Christophe has quoted >>>>> >>>>> b) the agenda which in my view / analysis is behind those statements >>>>> >>>>> c) these things being well received in the context where they were said >>>>> >>>>>>> In effect, he's saying that all power should be in the hands of the >>>>>>> engineers and by implication in the hands of the companies for which >>>>>>> they're working >>>>>> >>>>>> He didn't say that at all. Listen to it again maybe? >>>>> >>>>> I started that sentence with "in effect, he's saying". In other words, >>>>> the sentence presents my analysis of what he's saying means in effect. >>>>> >>>>>>> , and he is promoting the use of smoke screen tactics >>>>>>> that aim at preventing anyone else from gaining an effective >>>>>>> influence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Civil society absolutely needs to find a good way to deal with this >>>>>>> kind of tactics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> These tactics have been successfully used *within* civil society >>>>>>> networks such as the IGC with the aim of preventing IGC from being >>>>>>> an effective civil society voice >>>>>> >>>>>> So voicing a truly held opinion is a "tactic"? >>>>> >>>>> Not necessarily; it can be part of a tactic though. Choices about where >>>>> and how to voice one's opinion, and on which subset of the topics under >>>>> discussion, are tactical in nature though. >>>>> >>>>>> Your inability to accept diversity of opinion is showing (again). >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the insult. >>>>> >>>>> Greetings, >>>>> Norbert >>>>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Dec 11 20:38:01 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 08:38:01 +0700 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257BFB5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com>, <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257BFB5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <117101cef6da$cd94af60$68be0e20$@gmail.com> I think the issues are rather different from the polarity Milton (and George) are posing. It isn't just an issue of representation or substance but rather representation and substance or rather representation being necessary for substance. Even though there appears to be some issues with recognizing this in our current context. I'm also copying this to BestBits and by implication the "steering committee" (or whatever it is currently being called). So far, I have yet to see any specific recognition or more importantly accommodation to the quite evident differences as between various groupings within Civil Society as to the nature of the substantive inputs that will be given into any framework for which nominations are/will/should be solicited. There are I believe, quite significant differences with respect to how matters of Internet Governance could/should be addressed/resolved within (IG based) CS (as there is of course, in the larger CS and non-CS world. These differences apart from the cartoonish mis-characterizations pro-offered by certain irresponsible elements are serious and reflect different perspectives (and broad societally based interests) on how an overall balance towards a democratic, just and inclusive Internet can be achieved. Either these differences are reflected first within whatever approach to selection is entered into and then in the range of nominees themselves; or the selection process will be illegitimate, have done CS overall a major disservice, and any illusions of a common CS front will be impossible. And one can expect that the resulting parallel strategies for representation will be pursued with the utmost vigour including through whatever means of public visibility might be available. The usual process within CS of opting for "identity" based modes of "representivity" i.e. gender, region, age etc. is clearly insufficient in a context as fundamental and as normatively/substantively divided as the one that we are currently dealing with. I believe however, that there is within CS a broad underlying agreement on overall values with respect to IG and the future of the internet. I think it would be a serious mistake to not have the principled disagreements on how best to achieve those ultimate goals reflected within whatever representations CS makes in the various venues in the days going forward so that a united CS can move forward towards those goals. Best, Mike From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 3:53 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Marilia Maciel Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Thank you. Marilia's position as stated below reflects exactly my own. The point is not, as Jeanette mistakenly argues, that there is a "madness" about filling committee positions to the exclusion of substantive debate. No one can fairly accuse me, of all people, of failing to actively formulate positions on the substantive issues. That's what I spend most of my time doing. The problem is that we were told to provide names, we did a lot of work to do so, and then those names were disregarded. This will have long term consequences regarding other requests by 1net (and we still do not have a statement as to who is actually making decisions on behalf of 1net) for participation in the future. 1net really needs to think carefully about what kind of precedents it is setting and how much trust it is or is not building here. I have to say I am especially unimpressed with the statements from Mr. Sadowsky. When he says, "concentrate on substance, don't pay any attention to who is represented on committees," it has absolutely no credibility, because it comes from a person who is at least connected to, or more likely is actually one of the people making, decisions behind the scenes. George might do better to keep silent or to just recognize that a mess was made and apologize for it. If it truly doesn't matter who is on these committees, why did ICANN appoint some people to them and not others? And why not tell us who is making decisions for 1net? Let me make it clear: I attribute most of this problem to disorganization and bad procedure rather than ill intent. But when lame rationalizations are offered for the effects of the disorganization it contributes to ill will. --MM _____ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Dec 11 20:48:55 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 19:48:55 -0600 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] BB listers and IGC listers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Nnenna. Explain this to me again? Why does it matter? Isn't overlap of networks natural? Can't we be members of more than one? It's not double-dipping. It's assorted flavors. gp 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 11 December 2013 15:26, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > To persons subscribed to the Best Bits list and Internet Governance list > > I have started a sheet here: > > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-TSs6WAZLtaGs-wHmw-cBxr4tF3Ix7tNEGV7JeXYa3E/edit#gid=1819847878 > > This sheet contains the 250 addresses subcribed to the Best Bits list. > This list is available for all subscribed members. > > I am now auditing the BB list members who are/may be also in the IGC list. > The list of IGC members is here: http://igcaucus.org/node/12/ > > One list uses email addresses and the other uses Names and profiles. > > There are about 347 at the moment (dunno if it is up to date) at the IGC > list. > > This exercise follows the "double dipping" idea of BB and IGC. This > comparison is only of BB and IGC. But in going through, I noticed there was > still overlapping in APC, Diplo and NCSG of ICANN members. But since those > communities are not being construed to be double dipping, we may spare > ouselves that audit. > > But if someone has time, patience and access, it may be worthwhile to do > same for the other networks! > > Hoping this will be useful to some of us > > Nnenna > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 11 22:02:51 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 10:02:51 +0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] The Decentralized Web In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <120401cef6e6$abb80d40$032827c0$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On Behalf Of Dewayne Hendricks Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 4:52 AM To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net Subject: [Dewayne-Net] The Decentralized Web The Decentralized Web By Josh Levy & Renata Avilia, Free Press Dec 11 2013 Nearly half a billion people use Gmail. Facebook boasts more than a billion users. Want to host documents in the cloud? Dropbox has you covered. Photos? Ditto for Flickr (which Yahoo owns) and Google. If you buy an iPhone, you'll likely be sucked into iCloud, the service that backs up your email, photos, address books, calendars and documents - all at no cost (not including the price of the device). Same goes for Android and Google's own offerings. All of these companies are moving fast to implement fingerprinted identification. And they all provide one-stop access to your full information dossier. Welcome to the centralized Web. As the next billion Internet users come online in the coming years, they'll encounter a different Web than its first pioneers found. Corporate walled gardens are replacing open, community-run platforms. An unholy partnership between corporations and government iskilling online privacy and free speech. The result is access to a few useful services - at great cost to our digital rights. The newly online - most of whom will log on via a mobile phone - will encounter new uses of technology that violate our basic rights. For example, Pakistan has implemented a mandatory biometric regime for new SIM-card users, who must submit their fingerprints upon purchase so that private companies can line up matches with the state fingerprint database. Contrast this with Talea de Castro, the Mexican village in Oaxaca that built and has full control of its own mobile network - a private oasis outside the realm of state governments and big corporations. For most Internet users, the availability and utility of services like Gmail are prime examples of the magic of free. For others - free press advocates, corporate watchdogs, human rights defenders - Apple, Facebook and Google provide a kind of poisoned fruit: It's seductive but destructive. The very fact that just a handful of companies are capturing the vast majority of Internet users' communications and data is the great challenge of the information age. Most Internet users make a Faustian bargain with these companies: We give up our basic rights in exchange for convenient and inexpensive communications tools. But, as with any deal with the devil, we're ultimately on the losing side. Companies like Apple hook users with beautiful designs and usability. They're status symbols. They're convenient. But the hardware and software are usually locked so you can't see what's going on inside - or know who has access to your private data. But back to that bargain we've made. Who doesn't find comfort (and utility) in powerful search engines and bottomless email archives and deep databases of everything you and your friends (and their friends, and their friends' friends) value in this world? This is what people like to call Big Data: vast troves of our innermost secrets, our spending habits, details about our private lives, our preferred foods, our most-hated foods, our favorite musicians, our political interests, our social connections, our political preferences, our sexual preferences, our readings. And all of it can be mined either for good or evil. It can be used to deliver targeted advertising that allegedly benefits us. It can also be used to discover the illnesses we cover up, the financial distress we ignore, the unpopular beliefs we harbor and the suspicious people we know. Your data can be with you or against you. Most often, it's a mixture of the two. In too many ways, the Internet has become a vehicle for consumption, redirecting your attention to the wares of corporations. And as we now know thanks to the ongoing revelations about unchecked surveillance activities, this "attention economy" has made it all too easy for government to spy on us. Thanks to Google and others, the U.S. or EU governments don't have to compile a deep profile of you: These companies already have it. Whether these tools of surveillance are in state or corporate hands, that they exist at all should raise grave concerns about the future of democracy and our basic human rights. This exploitation of data is a tool of totalitarianism. As legal scholar Eben Moglen reminds us, this kind of surveillance is incompatible with "the system of enlightened, individual, democratic self-governance." [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 george.sadowsky at gmail.com Wed Dec 11 22:28:13 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 22:28:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <117101cef6da$cd94af60$68be0e20$@gmail.com> References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com>, <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257BFB5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <117101cef6da$cd94af60$68be0e20$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7CFD9307-1B80-4777-B759-7AD39D207063@gmail.com> I find this a refreshing view of civil society representative issues, and I take Mike's point that looking at a model with polar choices may not get at the real issue. I understand the concern about being at the table, especially when from a CS point of view, other actors have the potential, and often the intent, to weaken CS goals. Mike's comments strengthen the hypothesis that the arguments over representation really represent a proxy dispute for representation issues unsolved within the CS representative community. If that is the case, and CS is attempting to represent a diverse and apparently disparate set of views not bound by rough consensus, that helps to explain why specific representation is believed to be so important. Has there been any attempt to do some cluster analysis, quantitative or intuitive. on the divergent views, so that areas of agreement can be more sharply defined, and clusters of areas of disagreement also be identified? I suspect that these are difficult topics to discuss, in part because of believing that a united front provides more strength vis-à-vis other stakeholder groups, and exposing differences within the group could be regarded by some as an indication of weakness or disarray. Thanks for this analysis, Mike! George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Dec 11, 2013, at 8:38 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > I think the issues are rather different from the polarity Milton (and George) are posing… It isn’t just an issue of representation or substance but rather representation and substance or rather representation being necessary for substance… Even though there appears to be some issues with recognizing this in our current context. > > I’m also copying this to BestBits and by implication the “steering committee” (or whatever it is currently being called)… > > So far, I have yet to see any specific recognition or more importantly accommodation to the quite evident differences as between various groupings within Civil Society as to the nature of the substantive inputs that will be given into any framework for which nominations are/will/should be solicited. > > There are I believe, quite significant differences with respect to how matters of Internet Governance could/should be addressed/resolved within (IG based) CS (as there is of course, in the larger CS and non-CS world… > > These differences apart from the cartoonish mis-characterizations pro-offered by certain irresponsible elements are serious and reflect different perspectives (and broad societally based interests) on how an overall balance towards a democratic, just and inclusive Internet can be achieved. > > Either these differences are reflected first within whatever approach to selection is entered into and then in the range of nominees themselves; or the selection process will be illegitimate, have done CS overall a major disservice, and any illusions of a common CS front will be impossible. And one can expect that the resulting parallel strategies for representation will be pursued with the utmost vigour including through whatever means of public visibility might be available. > > The usual process within CS of opting for “identity” based modes of “representivity” i.e. gender, region, age etc. is clearly insufficient in a context as fundamental and as normatively/substantively divided as the one that we are currently dealing with. > > I believe however, that there is within CS a broad underlying agreement on overall values with respect to IG and the future of the internet. I think it would be a serious mistake to not have the principled disagreements on how best to achieve those ultimate goals reflected within whatever representations CS makes in the various venues in the days going forward so that a united CS can move forward towards those goals. > > Best, > > Mike > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 3:53 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Marilia Maciel > Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > Thank you. Marilia's position as stated below reflects exactly my own. > > The point is not, as Jeanette mistakenly argues, that there is a "madness" about filling committee positions to the exclusion of substantive debate. No one can fairly accuse me, of all people, of failing to actively formulate positions on the substantive issues. That's what I spend most of my time doing. > > The problem is that we were told to provide names, we did a lot of work to do so, and then those names were disregarded. This will have long term consequences regarding other requests by 1net (and we still do not have a statement as to who is actually making decisions on behalf of 1net) for participation in the future. 1net really needs to think carefully about what kind of precedents it is setting and how much trust it is or is not building here. > > I have to say I am especially unimpressed with the statements from Mr. Sadowsky. When he says, "concentrate on substance, don't pay any attention to who is represented on committees," it has absolutely no credibility, because it comes from a person who is at least connected to, or more likely is actually one of the people making, decisions behind the scenes. George might do better to keep silent or to just recognize that a mess was made and apologize for it. If it truly doesn't matter who is on these committees, why did ICANN appoint some people to them and not others? And why not tell us who is making decisions for 1net? > > Let me make it clear: I attribute most of this problem to disorganization and bad procedure rather than ill intent. But when lame rationalizations are offered for the effects of the disorganization it contributes to ill will. > > --MM > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 12 03:31:55 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 09:31:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20131210102833.6d19a9e8@quill> <20131210155159.47914fc0@quill> Message-ID: <20131212093155.7bd28383@quill> McTim wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > McTim wrote: > >> are at > >> > minutes 50:00-57:00 in this video: > >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtOfsC2n_lQ > >> > > >> > Although the agenda that he is promoting is absolutely shocking > >> > when looked at from any mainstream civil society perspective > >> > >> What exactly is shocking? > > > > a) what he actually said, in particular the statements that > > Jean-Christophe has quoted > > Which sentences exactly, or is it everything? All of what Jean-Christophe quoted. The aspect that I'm particularly concerned about is that, if those views should prevail, that would have very anti-democratic effects. 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Dec 12 03:58:33 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 19:58:33 +1100 Subject: [governance] 1net steering committee - civil society representation Message-ID: <5BAEE694E91549418B855FCEA4C75386@Toshiba> I am pleased to announce the results of the civil society coordination group process to provide representatives on the 1net steering committee. Our representatives will be a.. Joana Varon b.. Rafik Dammak c.. Anriette Esterhuysen d.. Vladimir Radunovik e.. Anja Kovacs With Marilia Maciel to fill any vacancy should any of the others find it impossible to continue. PROCESS – The selection committee was formed from representatives of the networks of NCSG (Robin Gross), APC (Chat Garcia Ramilo), Diplo (Virginia Paque), and Best Bits (Jeremy Malcolm). Ian Peter was an independent facilitator. Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was involved with the process and the call for nominations, but when its representative and sole co ordinator at this stage (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) withdrew at a late stage it was not possible to provide a replacement in the short time frame. Hopefully these difficulties within IGC will be resolved for future efforts (with IGC co ordinator elections due now). However, with 3 ex-coordinators of IGC involved with the selection process we believe its interests were fully represented. Calls from nominations were invited on the mailing lists of Diplo, Best Bits, IGC, NCSG and other civil society networks. Diplo community undertook a process of narrowing its large pool of nominations to two names before consideration by other selection committee members, and the result of the various calls from various networks was that 13 names were considered by the committee. The final names were arrived at by consensus of all the representatives involved. All of these representatives were chosen for their capacity to represent civil society as a whole, not just their individual organisational affiliations. We believe these representatives give a good cross section of the various interests of civil society in internet governance issues. Ian Peter Independent Facilitator for Civil Society Coordination Group -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From babatope at gmail.com Thu Dec 12 04:02:41 2013 From: babatope at gmail.com (Babatope Soremi) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 10:02:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] BB listers and IGC listers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I believe Nnenna's point and that of many others is the fact one gets the same mails on these different lists thus its duplicated. Although, there are discussions unique to each platform, it'll be great to find a way to better manage messages for folks who are double-dipping or prefer assorted flavors so contributions don't get lost along the way and in some cases,, muddled up. Regards On Dec 12, 2013 1:50 AM, "Ginger Paque" wrote: > Thanks, Nnenna. Explain this to me again? Why does it matter? Isn't > overlap of networks natural? Can't we be members of more than one? It's not > double-dipping. It's assorted flavors. > > gp > > 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 11 December 2013 15:26, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > >> To persons subscribed to the Best Bits list and Internet Governance list >> >> I have started a sheet here: >> >> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-TSs6WAZLtaGs-wHmw-cBxr4tF3Ix7tNEGV7JeXYa3E/edit#gid=1819847878 >> >> This sheet contains the 250 addresses subcribed to the Best Bits list. >> This list is available for all subscribed members. >> >> I am now auditing the BB list members who are/may be also in the IGC list. >> The list of IGC members is here: http://igcaucus.org/node/12/ >> >> One list uses email addresses and the other uses Names and profiles. >> >> There are about 347 at the moment (dunno if it is up to date) at the IGC >> list. >> >> This exercise follows the "double dipping" idea of BB and IGC. This >> comparison is only of BB and IGC. But in going through, I noticed there was >> still overlapping in APC, Diplo and NCSG of ICANN members. But since those >> communities are not being construed to be double dipping, we may spare >> ouselves that audit. >> >> But if someone has time, patience and access, it may be worthwhile to do >> same for the other networks! >> >> Hoping this will be useful to some of us >> >> Nnenna >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 12 04:14:39 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 22:14:39 +1300 Subject: [governance] 1net steering committee - civil society representation In-Reply-To: <5BAEE694E91549418B855FCEA4C75386@Toshiba> References: <5BAEE694E91549418B855FCEA4C75386@Toshiba> Message-ID: I must admit that one of the challenges I have had with the Civil Society Coordination Group was the lack of inclusivity despite my repeated attempts to have others involved such as the IRP. I felt that IGC participation was more like token participation. There is some sort of civil society backhanded politics to keep people from participating fairly and equally which I was not impressed with. However, given the short notice, process challenges are to be expected. However despite the shortcomings, I am confident in the strength of the five appointees to the Steering Committee as I feel that they are fairly able to communicate the diverse challenges of civil society to the steering committee. For the sake of completion and to avoid "capture": 1) For transparency sake, is there more than one candidate from the same organisation or civil society group? 2)Are any of the civil society candidates currently employed or on contract by government or intergovernmental organisation? 3)Are any of the civil society candidates currently employed by a public or private company (LLC, Franchise), partnership that could be deemed to be of private sector in nature? Disclosure statements. 4)Is there any conflict of interest that could undermine the candidate's capacity to represent civil society to the Steering Committee. Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad > On Dec 12, 2013, at 9:58 PM, "Ian Peter" wrote: > > I am pleased to announce the results of the civil society coordination group process to provide representatives on the 1net steering committee. > > Our representatives will be > > Joana Varon > Rafik Dammak > Anriette Esterhuysen > Vladimir Radunovik > Anja Kovacs > With Marilia Maciel to fill any vacancy should any of the others find it impossible to continue. > > PROCESS – > > The selection committee was formed from representatives of the networks of NCSG (Robin Gross), APC (Chat Garcia Ramilo), Diplo (Virginia Paque), and Best Bits (Jeremy Malcolm). Ian Peter was an independent facilitator. Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was involved with the process and the call for nominations, but when its representative and sole co ordinator at this stage (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) withdrew at a late stage it was not possible to provide a replacement in the short time frame. Hopefully these difficulties within IGC will be resolved for future efforts (with IGC co ordinator elections due now). However, with 3 ex-coordinators of IGC involved with the selection process we believe its interests were fully represented. > > Calls from nominations were invited on the mailing lists of Diplo, Best Bits, IGC, NCSG and other civil society networks. Diplo community undertook a process of narrowing its large pool of nominations to two names before consideration by other selection committee members, and the result of the various calls from various networks was that 13 names were considered by the committee. The final names were arrived at by consensus of all the representatives involved. > > All of these representatives were chosen for their capacity to represent civil society as a whole, not just their individual organisational affiliations. We believe these representatives give a good cross section of the various interests of civil society in internet governance issues. > > Ian Peter > > Independent Facilitator > > for Civil Society Coordination Group > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 12 04:15:40 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 04:15:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] 1net steering committee - civil society representation In-Reply-To: <5BAEE694E91549418B855FCEA4C75386@Toshiba> References: <5BAEE694E91549418B855FCEA4C75386@Toshiba> Message-ID: Hi, This sends a good result. And the ad hoc process seems to work in the direction of inclusivity, especially since it no longer gives solitary decision making status to a broken caucus. I am actually heartened that IGC and BB did not both participate, since until there is evidence from studies like Nnenna's, we cannot really consider them separate entities. And it is a good list of names. Avri Doria Ian Peter wrote: >I am pleased to announce the results of the civil society coordination >group process to provide representatives on the 1net steering >committee. > >Our representatives will be > > > a.. Joana Varon > b.. Rafik Dammak > c.. Anriette Esterhuysen > d.. Vladimir Radunovik > e.. Anja Kovacs >With Marilia Maciel to fill any vacancy should any of the others find >it impossible to continue. > >PROCESS – > >The selection committee was formed from representatives of the networks >of NCSG (Robin Gross), APC (Chat Garcia Ramilo), Diplo (Virginia >Paque), and Best Bits (Jeremy Malcolm). Ian Peter was an independent >facilitator. Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was involved with the >process and the call for nominations, but when its representative and >sole co ordinator at this stage (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) withdrew >at a late stage it was not possible to provide a replacement in the >short time frame. Hopefully these difficulties within IGC will be >resolved for future efforts (with IGC co ordinator elections due now). >However, with 3 ex-coordinators of IGC involved with the selection >process we believe its interests were fully represented. > >Calls from nominations were invited on the mailing lists of Diplo, Best >Bits, IGC, NCSG and other civil society networks. Diplo community >undertook a process of narrowing its large pool of nominations to two >names before consideration by other selection committee members, and >the result of the various calls from various networks was that 13 names >were considered by the committee. The final names were arrived at by >consensus of all the representatives involved. > >All of these representatives were chosen for their capacity to >represent civil society as a whole, not just their individual >organisational affiliations. We believe these representatives give a >good cross section of the various interests of civil society in >internet governance issues. > >Ian Peter > >Independent Facilitator > >for Civil Society Coordination Group -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Dec 12 04:23:24 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 10:23:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] BB listers and IGC listers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20131212102324.71be5669@quill> Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > To persons subscribed to the Best Bits list and Internet Governance > list > > I have started a sheet here: > https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-TSs6WAZLtaGs-wHmw-cBxr4tF3Ix7tNEGV7JeXYa3E/edit#gid=1819847878 > > This exercise follows the "double dipping" idea of BB and IGC. This > comparison is only of BB and IGC. I have concerns about that kind of thing. Carelessly creating, and signing, attendance lists has gotten people killed when surprisingly (to them) the political climate in which they were operating became totalitarian. Of course there is a threshold point at which, when someone is engaging in political processes in influential ways, the principle of transparency trumps any "personal privacy" concerns related to that political engagement. However just subscribing to a mailing list of a political kind, such as BestBits or IGC, is IMO far below that "threshold point". For that reason I object to the creation of that "sheet" for reasons of principle. I'm right now not speaking for anyone except myself, so I hereby insist that I have not given permission for any of my personal information to be included on a "sheet" of that kind, and I insist that I have the right to hereby demand that my personal information be removed from that "sheet". (I would not object to my name being included e.g. on a document listing "people who have made a great number of mailing list postings", since the creation of such a document would be justifiable on the basis of the transparency principle that I have mentioned above. But such justification does not apply to a document that includes people who are subscribed simply out of a desire to be informed.) Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Dec 12 04:29:54 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 22:29:54 +1300 Subject: [governance] 1net steering committee - civil society representation In-Reply-To: References: <5BAEE694E91549418B855FCEA4C75386@Toshiba> Message-ID: Sent from my iPad > On Dec 12, 2013, at 10:15 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > This sends a good result. And the ad hoc process seems to work in the direction of inclusivity, especially since it no longer gives solitary decision making status to a broken caucus. > Sala: From the outset, in terms of how the IGC conducted itself during Bali, post Bali and towards urging cross civil society group dialogue (which occurred offlist), we were adamant that the group was opened to include others. At no time was there any attempt to be the solitary decision making voice. We are certainly not arrogant nor foolish to think for one micro second that the IGC has solitary decision making status. > I am actually heartened that IGC and BB did not both participate, since until there is evidence from studies like Nnenna's, we cannot really consider them separate entities. Sala: I cannot speak for Best Bits and neither can I speak for the IGC. I will say that there is alot of room to have transparent mechanisms to show where people are. There is strength and diversity in terms of active participation in a variety of foras but where it comes to affecting the gene pool or the outcomes for selection, Nnenna's study will definitely come in handy. Before we think this is random and only attributed to this process, as far as Brazil preps goes, I also seeing it happening in other circles. There is a need for Version 2 of the Civil society selection process towards accountability and transparency that needs to be discussed but not right now as we have pressing things to do. One of which is concentrate on submissions as Jeanette had alluded to earlier. > > And it is a good list of names. Sala: Indeed! > Avri Doria > > Ian Peter wrote: >> >> I am pleased to announce the results of the civil society coordination group process to provide representatives on the 1net steering committee. >> >> Our representatives will be >> >> Joana Varon >> Rafik Dammak >> Anriette Esterhuysen >> Vladimir Radunovik >> Anja Kovacs >> With Marilia Maciel to fill any vacancy should any of the others find it impossible to continue. >> >> PROCESS – >> >> The selection committee was formed from representatives of the networks of NCSG (Robin Gross), APC (Chat Garcia Ramilo), Diplo (Virginia Paque), and Best Bits (Jeremy Malcolm). Ian Peter was an independent facilitator. Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) was involved with the process and the call for nominations, but when its representative and sole co ordinator at this stage (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) withdrew at a late stage it was not possible to provide a replacement in the short time frame. Hopefully these difficulties within IGC will be resolved for future efforts (with IGC co ordinator elections due now). However, with 3 ex-coordinators of IGC involved with the selection process we believe its interests were fully represented. >> >> Calls from nominations were invited on the mailing lists of Diplo, Best Bits, IGC, NCSG and other civil society networks. Diplo community undertook a process of narrowing its large pool of nominations to two names before consideration by other selection committee members, and the result of the various calls from various networks was that 13 names were considered by the committee. The final names were arrived at by consensus of all the representatives involved. >> >> All of these representatives were chosen for their capacity to represent civil society as a whole, not just their individual organisational affiliations. We believe these representatives give a good cross section of the various interests of civil society in internet governance issues. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> Independent Facilitator >> >> for Civil Society Coordination Group >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 12 05:06:07 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 23:06:07 +1300 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <897DF629-2F6E-4455-97F2-F2C6AE697963@gmail.com> Milton raises an important point. I totally get that Bill was invited as an Expert adviser and get his point. Firstly, it is important to remember that the HLLM is convened by ICANN and is an ICANN driven, initiated meeting. It follows that the ultimate discretion rests with them on who they want to invite to the party. We were informed that they only wanted and had space for one civil society representative to the table. From the outset, I was not under any illusion that they would do us any special favours. Clearly, as any normal entity would, they would be predisposed to self preservation and ensuring that all the "play nice civil society folk" will be present. Strategies to devise and shape outcomes and predetermine players whose voices will be loud in the room are all part of the political reality. Personally, I would suggest that the two nominees still go in as observers and fully deploy social media to report and offer real time commentaries. In today's modern day internet reality, power has shifted from the table to the floor so civil society can still be heard. If this was a Shared Forum, then there is room for us to kick a fuss and question the processes etc. We just have to deal with the hand that we have been given and trust that our people who are there will raise the issues. There is nothing stopping us from organizing our own high level panel and using a webcast to get it out! Best Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad > On Dec 10, 2013, at 5:53 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Let me be indelicate enough to raise an issue that probably no one wants to deal with but needs to be raised. And despite certain appearances, it is not a personal interest here but a process one. > The IGC, and several other groups, worked together to forward two recommended names to the President of ICANN. > > Congrats to some extent on being appointed to this HLLM, but your name was not on that CS-provided list, Bill. At this stage of the game I am certainly not suggesting that you turn it down, but one does want to know what kind of a process we are in and what kind of criteria are being applied? > > Other people are asking us for recommended lists of names for various positions. Aside from the usual junk associated with people positioning for these things, we need to assess the good faith and cooperative spirit of those who are making these requests. To put a finer point on it, what are the implications of CS being asked to provide recommended names, providing them, and then having a completely different name selected? > > I know it’s an uncomfortable topic but I think we’d have to be self-delusional not to discuss it. > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake > Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 4:57 AM > To: Governance; Adam Peake > Cc: McTim McTim; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> Best Bits > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > Hello > > I’ve mentioned this to a couple people privately and should probably state publicly as well that I will be participating in the High Level Panel process as an “expert” advisor, e.g. in London I’ll be giving a talk about the nature of IG, running a break out session, etc. I believe there may be a couple other people from other SGs similarly appointed, TBC. I don’t know how they intend to deal with the request for a CS “representative” panel member, but understand nothing will happen in time for the London meeting. > > I have suggested publicly announcing the agenda and providing options for people to provide written inputs, we’ll see what happens. The London meeting is in four days and there’s a lot late rushing around to pull it together, so it’s a bit difficult to predict exactly how everything will play out. > > Best, > > Bill > > ********************************************************** > 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 > *********************************************************** > > > > > > On Dec 9, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > > On Dec 8, 2013, at 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: > > > cc list trimmed to only one list. > > /transcript-president-opening-18nov13-en.pdf > > "USC, University of Southern California-Annenberg Foundation as well > as the World Economic Forum, the WEF, have partnered with us so we > ensure that this panel has some level of independency and is functioning > on a broader scale globally" > > > > > WEF > > Adam > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 10:49 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Thanks for this Ian, could someone please explain to me what is meant by > this fifth panel as more independent (in partnership with two other > organizations.. Is he referring to Inet here? Who are the other two > organizations? > > > > M > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:34 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake > Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > > > Hi Adam, > > > > Because it would be inappropriate I am deliberately not taking on a role of > coordinating back to various networks as that is what the various reps > should do. But here is the reply from Fadi to Robin (copied to the reps > earlier). > > > > Hello Robin, > > > > I hope you had a good thanksgiving holiday. I took several days off and > regained a lot of energy after our busy week in Buenos Aires. I just got > back and ready for the next phase of work. > > > > As I noted below and in Buenos Aires, we were never in a position to grow > the panel any further. In BA, however, after the panel was announced, we > made a final commitment to add only one panelist from the cc community, and > only one more from civil society -- understanding the need for broader > participation. Byron Holland from the cc community agreed to serve while in > Buenos Aires. > > > > At this stage, and now that we have established this fifth panel as more > independent (in partnership with two other organizations), I will need to > confer with our partners on your request, as well as with the Chairman of > the panel. I predict that they will be sensitive to diversity. > > > > I cannot meet with the chairman until next week on Wednesday. I will keep > you posted. It may be a little late for London but rest assured that Frank > La Rue, Lynn St. Amour, and myself will have our communities interests very > vigilantly on top of our agendas. > > > > Fadi > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Adam Peake > > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 10:03 PM > > To: Ian Peter > > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > > > Hi Ian, > > > > Any reply to the CS coalition's recommendations? The high level panel is > due to meet December 12-13 (London), a week from now. > > > > Best, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > On Nov 30, 2013, at 5:50 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > > Please find a letter just send to Fadi Chehade under my signatory as > > > an independent facilitator as regards civil society representation at > > > this meeting in two weeks time. > > > > > > Let me be the first to admit the process was imperfect, the result was > > > imperfect. But so was the task we were given, the timeframe, the > > > people involved in making the decision, and the facilitation process. > > > > > > I can only say that there was widespread agreement we should submit > > > names, and for the names submitted. And that doing and saying nothing > > > would have been the alternative in this timeframe. > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > 29 November 2013 > > > RE: Civil Society Representation on High Level Panel in London > > > > > > Dear Fadi and Nora: > > > > > > I am writing to you following from discussions held by a coalition of > > > representatives of the civil society networks most involved in > > > Internet governance deliberations, we appreciate your willingness to > > > engage civil society in discussions regarding the future of Internet > > > governance. We also appreciate your recognition that civil society is > > > under-represented on your High Level Panel and your willingness to > > > accept additional civil society participants to this panel to provide > > > more balance. > > > After consultations with our networks, we propose adding the following > > > 2 civil society representatives to begin to balance against the much > > > larger numbers from government, the private sector, and technical > > > representatives placed on the initial panel. > > > Civil society’s two nominated representatives for the London High > > > Level Panel are: > > > 1. Anriette Esterhuysen (anriette at apc.org) 2. Milton Mueller > > > (mueller at syr.edu) Would you please kindly confirm your acceptance of > > > these names, and contact our representatives directly to arrange their > > > participation? > > > We also strongly recommend the involvement of Jovan Kurbalija of the > > > Diplo Foundation as a highly experienced and knowledgeable > > > facilitator. > > > We trust that in future we will be able to look at much more equitable > > > representation of civil society in such panels and committees. > > > Persons involved with these deliberations and choice of names from > > > various civil society networks were: > > > Virginia Paque, Diplo Foundation > > > Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > > > Robin Gross, ICANN's Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) Norbert > > > Bollow and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Internet Governance Caucus > > > (IGC) > > > Jeremy Malcolm, Best Bits > > > Signed, > > > Ian Peter, Independent Facilitator > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 12 08:22:54 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 22:22:54 +0900 Subject: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> Comment below: On Dec 10, 2013, at 6:20 AM, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > Here are a few comments in line with JK > > So what you are saying is that the UN could tell the US to stop > serving the records for a ccTLD and the US could then tell VRSN (by > court order?) to delete that ccTLD? > This potential of the U.S. deleting a ccTLD has been worried over since the earliest days of WSIS. But there have been wars and ccTLDs haven't been touched (.iq/Iraq). North Korea .KP works ok . Palestine, .PS delegated in 2000 and redelegated 2004. U.S. hasn't edited them out of the root zone, so it seems we shouldn't worry too much. However, whatever we think the U.S. might do or not do, this issue is unlikely to go away. It might be helpful to codify what looks like de facto policy, something like: 'The U.S. government will not unilaterally remove any TLD from the root.' (Write that up in nice language). This could be one of the topics for the meeting in Brazil next April, discussions that might kick-off a process to develop and agree a policy statement on root operations. Not going to agree anything much in two days, but might be able to agree on a charter of a working group to come up proposals/recommendations. A working group that reports progress and outcomes within the IGF process: first in Istanbul a few months later, then back to Brazil for the IGF in 2015 where any agreement might be reviewed by a broader community. Might make it part of a larger effort looking at the Internationalization of the IANA, if that's a topic for Brazil next year -- and I think it should be one of the topics. More on this in another email. Adam > JK: Sanctions cannot be adopted without the US support. Any action under UN Chapter VII, including sanctions, must be agreed by the all 5 permanent members of the Security Council (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml). > > > If that is the case, and VRSN complied (which I think they would fight > BTW) then it would be a UN "power" and the US would just be an agent > of the UN? > > JK: If the USA, like any other state, adopts certain UN convention or policy, it has obligation to implement it. If the USA supports decision on sanctions against certain country, it should implement the sanction regime. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Dec 12 09:07:21 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 09:07:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US In-Reply-To: <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: All, Adam makes good points. I want to add something important that arises from the case of Palestine. As you know, the ISO 3166 list, maintained by the German National Statistical Organization, takes its input from the Un Statistical Office (UNSO), which has the authority to decide when an entry should be included. I worked in the UNSO from 1973-1986, and at one point was designing a data base for county statistics where the underlying country structure was dynamic and changed over time as countries merged and/or divided. The issue was how to improve statistical analysis when the underlying units of observation changed composition. The specific case of Israeli statistics came up, and I queried why Palestine was not considered to be a statistical entity so that the statistical profile of each entity could be more meaningful for analytical purposes. I was told that the decision of what was or was not a state of territory was political and not technical, and was communicated from the political authorities at the UN. That is why Palestine was blocked and had to wait until 2000 to be added to the root as a legitimate territory. So there you have it. The UN has the ultimate power of deciding what 'country codes' go into the root, not the US, and the UN uses it. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Dec 12, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Comment below: > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 6:20 AM, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > >> Here are a few comments in line with JK >> >> So what you are saying is that the UN could tell the US to stop >> serving the records for a ccTLD and the US could then tell VRSN (by >> court order?) to delete that ccTLD? >> > > > This potential of the U.S. deleting a ccTLD has been worried over since the earliest days of WSIS. But there have been wars and ccTLDs haven't been touched (.iq/Iraq). North Korea .KP works ok . Palestine, .PS delegated in 2000 and redelegated 2004. U.S. hasn't edited them out of the root zone, so it seems we shouldn't worry too much. However, whatever we think the U.S. might do or not do, this issue is unlikely to go away. It might be helpful to codify what looks like de facto policy, something like: 'The U.S. government will not unilaterally remove any TLD from the root.' (Write that up in nice language). > > This could be one of the topics for the meeting in Brazil next April, discussions that might kick-off a process to develop and agree a policy statement on root operations. Not going to agree anything much in two days, but might be able to agree on a charter of a working group to come up proposals/recommendations. A working group that reports progress and outcomes within the IGF process: first in Istanbul a few months later, then back to Brazil for the IGF in 2015 where any agreement might be reviewed by a broader community. Might make it part of a larger effort looking at the Internationalization of the IANA, if that's a topic for Brazil next year -- and I think it should be one of the topics. More on this in another email. > > Adam > > >> JK: Sanctions cannot be adopted without the US support. Any action under UN Chapter VII, including sanctions, must be agreed by the all 5 permanent members of the Security Council (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml). >> >> >> If that is the case, and VRSN complied (which I think they would fight >> BTW) then it would be a UN "power" and the US would just be an agent >> of the UN? >> >> JK: If the USA, like any other state, adopts certain UN convention or policy, it has obligation to implement it. If the USA supports decision on sanctions against certain country, it should implement the sanction regime. >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 nnenna75 at gmail.com Thu Dec 12 09:08:05 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 14:08:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] BB listers and IGC listers In-Reply-To: <20131212102324.71be5669@quill> References: <20131212102324.71be5669@quill> Message-ID: Hi Norbert, all > > (I would not object to my name being included e.g. on a document > listing "people who have made a great number of mailing list > postings", since the creation of such a document would be justifiable > on the basis of the transparency principle that I have mentioned above. > But such justification does not apply to a document that includes > people who are subscribed simply out of a desire to be informed.) > > The study did not include "Reasons for being on BB and IGC". Are you suggesting we further it? That will mean a kind of survey. But I find the idea actually tempting. That may just be the kind of knowledge that may help build the CS. I did not "create" as such, I only pulled information that is available. Anybody can do the same work. I gave the sources. Mailing list archives are open by default and the members' list is available to all members, no? 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 Dec 12 10:06:52 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 00:06:52 +0900 Subject: (part 1) [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <7CFD9307-1B80-4777-B759-7AD39D207063@gmail.com> References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com>, <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257BFB5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <117101cef6da$cd94af60$68be0e20$@gmail.com> <7CFD9307-1B80-4777-B759-7AD39D207063@gmail.com> Message-ID: <23A09BB2-F38A-4341-B99B-396901C2B102@glocom.ac.jp> (This now too many words... kind of leads on from another thread: Re: [governance] DMP} Statement on Process and Objectives for the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance and [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US) Hi George, (about representation and substantive proposals.) I suspect the problems of representation are a reason for the lack of substantive comment. Not just from CS, from any group. There's not much happening. We began with the quite surprising and in my opinion magnificent announcement from the ICANN CEO there would be a Summit on Internet governance. With indications that it would address --certainly was inspired by-- surveillance and threat those actions brought to the Internet, and the need to enshrine human rights online (President Rousseff's speech at the UN), and this following the Montevideo Statement. All very bold, great stuff. Then Bali, at the IGF opening and closing sessions Brazilian govt representatives made open invitations to organize and participate in the Summit. They were pretty definite: open to all, we shouldn't loose this as a foundation of the meeting. Discussions in many of the IGF main sessions were really quite rich and kept referring back to Brazil and Montevideo, but I heard that at side meetings the message wasn't entirely consistent, began to sound like a desire for control was seeping in (perhaps that's what has to happen when moving towards practical matters of organizing an international event?) 1net's poor start didn't help, suddenly the agenda seemed to narrow, some were invited to initial private/semi-private lists -- a bit of a reminder to some of us of the first year or so of the IGF where it seemed a rather timid Internet tech groups and business looked to make sure nothing too radical happened (I don't blame the I* for this, they have working systems to maintain, often with hundreds of member organizations to consider). And we still lack clarity from Brazil. It is not at all clear what the relationship between 1net (whoever its leaders are) and Brazil is. How to contribute is a bit of a mess, what committee have formed etc, so not surprising people are holding off on substance. Just 8 weeks ago (really was just 8 weeks when Fadi met with President Rousseff) it looked like there would be a broad, open discussion of Internet governance challenges, a much needed response to both some of the issues highlighted by WCIT (and largely ignored since Dubai), and our own concerns about facing 18 to 24 months of multilateral processes that perhaps posed a threat to the current model and our wishes for IG. Now the Brazil meeting's beginning to look like just 2 days of talk. Need to take care after raising expectations, the excitement in Bali, I'm concerned we're actually taking a step back. On top of this there's the ICANN panels: internal, but also addressing the wider "ecosystem", with the High Level Panel somewhat repurposed to focus on input to Brazil, and civil society concerned that it is not represented, at least those of us who have been active in WSIS/IGF and ICANN do not see representation (we began in WSIS over 10 years ago demanding to be let in the room, steps back aren't comfortable ones to take). This it too long... next email for some proposals. Adam On Dec 12, 2013, at 12:28 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > I find this a refreshing view of civil society representative issues, and I take Mike's point that looking at a model with polar choices may not get at the real issue. > > I understand the concern about being at the table, especially when from a CS point of view, other actors have the potential, and often the intent, to weaken CS goals. > > Mike's comments strengthen the hypothesis that the arguments over representation really represent a proxy dispute for representation issues unsolved within the CS representative community. If that is the case, and CS is attempting to represent a diverse and apparently disparate set of views not bound by rough consensus, that helps to explain why specific representation is believed to be so important. > > Has there been any attempt to do some cluster analysis, quantitative or intuitive. on the divergent views, so that areas of agreement can be more sharply defined, and clusters of areas of disagreement also be identified? I suspect that these are difficult topics to discuss, in part because of believing that a united front provides more strength vis-à-vis other stakeholder groups, and exposing differences within the group could be regarded by some as an indication of weakness or disarray. > > Thanks for this analysis, Mike! > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > On Dec 11, 2013, at 8:38 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> I think the issues are rather different from the polarity Milton (and George) are posing… It isn’t just an issue of representation or substance but rather representation and substance or rather representation being necessary for substance… Even though there appears to be some issues with recognizing this in our current context. >> >> I’m also copying this to BestBits and by implication the “steering committee” (or whatever it is currently being called)… >> >> So far, I have yet to see any specific recognition or more importantly accommodation to the quite evident differences as between various groupings within Civil Society as to the nature of the substantive inputs that will be given into any framework for which nominations are/will/should be solicited. >> >> There are I believe, quite significant differences with respect to how matters of Internet Governance could/should be addressed/resolved within (IG based) CS (as there is of course, in the larger CS and non-CS world… >> >> These differences apart from the cartoonish mis-characterizations pro-offered by certain irresponsible elements are serious and reflect different perspectives (and broad societally based interests) on how an overall balance towards a democratic, just and inclusive Internet can be achieved. >> >> Either these differences are reflected first within whatever approach to selection is entered into and then in the range of nominees themselves; or the selection process will be illegitimate, have done CS overall a major disservice, and any illusions of a common CS front will be impossible. And one can expect that the resulting parallel strategies for representation will be pursued with the utmost vigour including through whatever means of public visibility might be available. >> >> The usual process within CS of opting for “identity” based modes of “representivity” i.e. gender, region, age etc. is clearly insufficient in a context as fundamental and as normatively/substantively divided as the one that we are currently dealing with. >> >> I believe however, that there is within CS a broad underlying agreement on overall values with respect to IG and the future of the internet. I think it would be a serious mistake to not have the principled disagreements on how best to achieve those ultimate goals reflected within whatever representations CS makes in the various venues in the days going forward so that a united CS can move forward towards those goals. >> >> Best, >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller >> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 3:53 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Marilia Maciel >> Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >> >> Thank you. Marilia's position as stated below reflects exactly my own. >> >> The point is not, as Jeanette mistakenly argues, that there is a "madness" about filling committee positions to the exclusion of substantive debate. No one can fairly accuse me, of all people, of failing to actively formulate positions on the substantive issues. That's what I spend most of my time doing. >> >> The problem is that we were told to provide names, we did a lot of work to do so, and then those names were disregarded. This will have long term consequences regarding other requests by 1net (and we still do not have a statement as to who is actually making decisions on behalf of 1net) for participation in the future. 1net really needs to think carefully about what kind of precedents it is setting and how much trust it is or is not building here. >> >> I have to say I am especially unimpressed with the statements from Mr. Sadowsky. When he says, "concentrate on substance, don't pay any attention to who is represented on committees," it has absolutely no credibility, because it comes from a person who is at least connected to, or more likely is actually one of the people making, decisions behind the scenes. George might do better to keep silent or to just recognize that a mess was made and apologize for it. If it truly doesn't matter who is on these committees, why did ICANN appoint some people to them and not others? And why not tell us who is making decisions for 1net? >> >> Let me make it clear: I attribute most of this problem to disorganization and bad procedure rather than ill intent. But when lame rationalizations are offered for the effects of the disorganization it contributes to ill will. >> >> --MM >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Dec 12 10:15:38 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 00:15:38 +0900 Subject: (part 2) [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <7CFD9307-1B80-4777-B759-7AD39D207063@gmail.com> References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com>, <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257BFB5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <117101cef6da$cd94af60$68be0e20$@gmail.com> <7CFD9307-1B80-4777-B759-7AD39D207063@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3C6BE527-9146-4F83-9B28-0C2B9DCA5D7B@glocom.ac.jp> carrying on from my last email, sorry for the length... Brazil is a wonderful opportunity, so here are some ideas about how I think it could proceed. Purpose. A two-day meeting to discuss a limited number of IG issues/challenges. Address how to resolve those issues by creating a number of working groups which will report back to the 2015 IGF in Brazil. The Brazil meeting to charter each working group, charters can be reviewed and if necessary finalized at the 2014 IGF in Istanbul (IGF consultation in May can also be used.) IGF Istanbul and opportunity to check on progress, tweak, and set the WG off to report back the following year (opportunity for review during the typical February and May IGF sessions of 2015.) The IGF is an established global process with some participation from all stakeholders. Participation must be improved, but it is the best we have for interested parties to discuss as peers. Brazil is an opportunity to strengthen the IGF, make it more relevant, more useful. And at the same time give the Brazil meeting a means to be more than just another two days of talk. Themes. Importance of Bali IGF as a starting point for identifying themes. The Brazil "summit" was an important topic referred to repeatedly during sessions in Bali. The Montevideo Statement attracted almost as much interest and support. Bali's been the only opportunity we've had to hear a broad spectrum of views on the proposal to meet in Brazil, the only significant gathering of different stakeholders where that meeting and why it was called has been discussed. There were rich discussions in Bali, they are worth building on, we aren't staring from nothing. The chair's summary attempts to cover some topics , the transcripts provide a full record A few things I think there's some agreement on: - The Brazil meeting should focus on dialogue, not in itself be a decision making event. - Widespread support for the IGF: the Brazil meeting should not in anyway replace/undermine the IGF (and nor should 1net.) - Widespread support for the five principles President Rousseff proposed to the UN general assembly (they inspired Fadi Chehadé to meet her and to call for the meeting). - The Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation is widely supported (also by Brazil govt representatives during the IGF.) - The multi-stakeholder approach must be strengthened; there is concern about a coming period of multilateral processes. - Condemnation of surveillance. - Agreement that global principles protecting human rights online should be developed and adopted (a close fit with President Rousseff's principles, and also Marco Civil -- the still draft Brazilian bill of online rights.) More recently the Brazil Steering committee announcement refers to President Rousseff's UN speech and to the Montevideo Statement and says of the meeting it should "pursue consensus about universally accepted governance principles and to improve their institutional framework." I suggest the meeting should focus on universal governance principles (Rousseff) and institutional framework (Montevideo, and noting that parts of statement are complementary with Rousseff's principles.) I think we can take it that "institutional framework" refers to IANA and ICANN, the original themes of Internet governance. Gives seven main discussion themes for the meeting: President Rousseff (speech to the UN General Assembly), principles and norms to help guide the international operation of the Internet: 1. Freedom of expression, privacy of the individual and respect for human rights. 2. Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective creativity and the participation of society, governments and the private sector. 3. Universality that ensures the social and human development and the construction of inclusive and non-discriminatory societies. 4. Cultural diversity, without the imposition of beliefs, customs and values. 5. Neutrality of the network, guided only by technical and ethical criteria, rendering it inadmissible to restrict it for political, commercial, religious or any other purposes. Original issues of Internet governance and from the Montevideo Statement: 6 & 7. The globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing, i.e. development of new institutional framework. These fall into five main areas: (1) Good work's done on Internet governance principles and cooperation in many organizations and fora, these were well presented in Bali. Bring the different actors together for Brazil, invite them to join a working group and collectively develop a set of principles for global governance, tasks completed by IGF 2015. To address aspects of Rousseff 1-4 and parts of the Montevideo Statement. (2) Global principles for protecting Human Rights online. Work's been done by various parties, from the UN Rapporteur to more recently a group leading international authors, and a collection of U.S. Internet companies. In Bali the Swedish Government presented seven fundamental principles that should apply to maintain respect for human rights when carrying out surveillance of electronic communications -- these were strongly supported, they refer to legality, legitimate aim, necessity and adequacy, proportionality, judicial authority, transparency, and public oversight. And of course there's much more. Brazil is an opportunity to bring these parties together, hear their ideas and set the tasks for a working group to develop appropriate and working principles. It is not hard to imagine working groups on these themes producing adoptable outcomes. (3) President Rousseff's fifth topic, Network Neutrality, might be harder to reach consensus on. But that doesn't mean discussion of different approaches to network neutrality would not be valuable (e.g. proposed regulation in Europe, actual situations elsewhere, the IGF net neutrality coalition reported in Bali, greater consideration of what network neutrality means in developing markets, particularly mobile). If a working group was unable to reach definite recommendations, one still might be established with the task of providing model frameworks, an overview of different approaches and critiques of them. (4) Institutional Framework for the IANA function. Internet tech community has been making recommendations since 2006, RIRs made proposals for an independent IANA function during the last re-bid of the contract. Civil society actors have made proposals and have strong opinions... so do governments. A multi-stakeholder discussion of IANA, root zone database and Verisign's contract with NTIA, the root operators and whether their work needs more oversight, this is a discussion I think needs to happen. Give a working group 18 months to develop a new institutional framework. (5) Globalization of ICANN. What would an independent ICANN look like? How would an independent ICANN be globally accountable? An affirmation of commitments between ICANN and us not U.S. From oversight by one government to no government, or oversight by all? What kind of host country agreement, what protections? And many more questions. A working group might monitor the Accountability and Transparency Review Team process and provide advice on ICANN's internal processes, while also propose new models for independence. 18 months to get an international framework for IANA into acceptable shape, for principles on good governance and human rights, for some dialogue that may or may not shape some domestic policy on net neutrality, to provide models for an independent ICANN. Between now and April 2014 various actors invited to make proposals, papers to help shape discussion, and provide ideas as to charters for the working groups. The Brazil meeting discusses issues, the charters and tasks of working groups, sets ground rules for there operation (multi-stakeholder, transparency, etc). September 2014, IGF in Istanbul can be used to review progress, perhaps recommend changes. Not hard to imagine a role for the high-level/ministerial pre-meeting. Tasks to be complete by IGF of 2015 back in Brazil. The IGF offers check-points along the way: first in May 2014 when the MAG typically meets to finalize the agenda for the year, and two meetings in 2015. The IGF is our only substantive multi-stakeholder process, it's known, it can be a means to carry work forward, so use it. And make the Brazil meeting more than talk. Adam On Dec 12, 2013, at 12:28 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > I find this a refreshing view of civil society representative issues, and I take Mike's point that looking at a model with polar choices may not get at the real issue. > > I understand the concern about being at the table, especially when from a CS point of view, other actors have the potential, and often the intent, to weaken CS goals. > > Mike's comments strengthen the hypothesis that the arguments over representation really represent a proxy dispute for representation issues unsolved within the CS representative community. If that is the case, and CS is attempting to represent a diverse and apparently disparate set of views not bound by rough consensus, that helps to explain why specific representation is believed to be so important. > > Has there been any attempt to do some cluster analysis, quantitative or intuitive. on the divergent views, so that areas of agreement can be more sharply defined, and clusters of areas of disagreement also be identified? I suspect that these are difficult topics to discuss, in part because of believing that a united front provides more strength vis-à-vis other stakeholder groups, and exposing differences within the group could be regarded by some as an indication of weakness or disarray. > > Thanks for this analysis, Mike! > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > On Dec 11, 2013, at 8:38 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> I think the issues are rather different from the polarity Milton (and George) are posing… It isn’t just an issue of representation or substance but rather representation and substance or rather representation being necessary for substance… Even though there appears to be some issues with recognizing this in our current context. >> >> I’m also copying this to BestBits and by implication the “steering committee” (or whatever it is currently being called)… >> >> So far, I have yet to see any specific recognition or more importantly accommodation to the quite evident differences as between various groupings within Civil Society as to the nature of the substantive inputs that will be given into any framework for which nominations are/will/should be solicited. >> >> There are I believe, quite significant differences with respect to how matters of Internet Governance could/should be addressed/resolved within (IG based) CS (as there is of course, in the larger CS and non-CS world… >> >> These differences apart from the cartoonish mis-characterizations pro-offered by certain irresponsible elements are serious and reflect different perspectives (and broad societally based interests) on how an overall balance towards a democratic, just and inclusive Internet can be achieved. >> >> Either these differences are reflected first within whatever approach to selection is entered into and then in the range of nominees themselves; or the selection process will be illegitimate, have done CS overall a major disservice, and any illusions of a common CS front will be impossible. And one can expect that the resulting parallel strategies for representation will be pursued with the utmost vigour including through whatever means of public visibility might be available. >> >> The usual process within CS of opting for “identity” based modes of “representivity” i.e. gender, region, age etc. is clearly insufficient in a context as fundamental and as normatively/substantively divided as the one that we are currently dealing with. >> >> I believe however, that there is within CS a broad underlying agreement on overall values with respect to IG and the future of the internet. I think it would be a serious mistake to not have the principled disagreements on how best to achieve those ultimate goals reflected within whatever representations CS makes in the various venues in the days going forward so that a united CS can move forward towards those goals. >> >> Best, >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller >> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 3:53 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Marilia Maciel >> Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >> >> Thank you. Marilia's position as stated below reflects exactly my own. >> >> The point is not, as Jeanette mistakenly argues, that there is a "madness" about filling committee positions to the exclusion of substantive debate. No one can fairly accuse me, of all people, of failing to actively formulate positions on the substantive issues. That's what I spend most of my time doing. >> >> The problem is that we were told to provide names, we did a lot of work to do so, and then those names were disregarded. This will have long term consequences regarding other requests by 1net (and we still do not have a statement as to who is actually making decisions on behalf of 1net) for participation in the future. 1net really needs to think carefully about what kind of precedents it is setting and how much trust it is or is not building here. >> >> I have to say I am especially unimpressed with the statements from Mr. Sadowsky. When he says, "concentrate on substance, don't pay any attention to who is represented on committees," it has absolutely no credibility, because it comes from a person who is at least connected to, or more likely is actually one of the people making, decisions behind the scenes. George might do better to keep silent or to just recognize that a mess was made and apologize for it. If it truly doesn't matter who is on these committees, why did ICANN appoint some people to them and not others? And why not tell us who is making decisions for 1net? >> >> Let me make it clear: I attribute most of this problem to disorganization and bad procedure rather than ill intent. But when lame rationalizations are offered for the effects of the disorganization it contributes to ill will. >> >> --MM >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Dec 12 10:28:58 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 15:28:58 +0000 Subject: (part 2) [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <3C6BE527-9146-4F83-9B28-0C2B9DCA5D7B@glocom.ac.jp> References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com>, <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257BFB5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <117101cef6da$cd94af60$68be0e20$@gmail.com> <7CFD9307-1B80-4777-B759-7AD39D207063@gmail.com>,<3C6BE527-9146-4F83-9B28-0C2B9DCA5D7B@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BDAF2@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> +1 ________________________________ From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] on behalf of Adam Peake [ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 10:15 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; George Sadowsky Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Bits Subject: Re: (part 2) [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps carrying on from my last email, sorry for the length... Brazil is a wonderful opportunity, so here are some ideas about how I think it could proceed. Purpose. A two-day meeting to discuss a limited number of IG issues/challenges. Address how to resolve those issues by creating a number of working groups which will report back to the 2015 IGF in Brazil. The Brazil meeting to charter each working group, charters can be reviewed and if necessary finalized at the 2014 IGF in Istanbul (IGF consultation in May can also be used.) IGF Istanbul and opportunity to check on progress, tweak, and set the WG off to report back the following year (opportunity for review during the typical February and May IGF sessions of 2015.) The IGF is an established global process with some participation from all stakeholders. Participation must be improved, but it is the best we have for interested parties to discuss as peers. Brazil is an opportunity to strengthen the IGF, make it more relevant, more useful. And at the same time give the Brazil meeting a means to be more than just another two days of talk. Themes. Importance of Bali IGF as a starting point for identifying themes. The Brazil "summit" was an important topic referred to repeatedly during sessions in Bali. The Montevideo Statement attracted almost as much interest and support. Bali's been the only opportunity we've had to hear a broad spectrum of views on the proposal to meet in Brazil, the only significant gathering of different stakeholders where that meeting and why it was called has been discussed. There were rich discussions in Bali, they are worth building on, we aren't staring from nothing. The chair's summary attempts to cover some topics , the transcripts provide a full record A few things I think there's some agreement on: - The Brazil meeting should focus on dialogue, not in itself be a decision making event. - Widespread support for the IGF: the Brazil meeting should not in anyway replace/undermine the IGF (and nor should 1net.) - Widespread support for the five principles President Rousseff proposed to the UN general assembly (they inspired Fadi Chehadé to meet her and to call for the meeting). - The Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation is widely supported (also by Brazil govt representatives during the IGF.) - The multi-stakeholder approach must be strengthened; there is concern about a coming period of multilateral processes. - Condemnation of surveillance. - Agreement that global principles protecting human rights online should be developed and adopted (a close fit with President Rousseff's principles, and also Marco Civil -- the still draft Brazilian bill of online rights.) More recently the Brazil Steering committee announcement refers to President Rousseff's UN speech and to the Montevideo Statement and says of the meeting it should "pursue consensus about universally accepted governance principles and to improve their institutional framework." I suggest the meeting should focus on universal governance principles (Rousseff) and institutional framework (Montevideo, and noting that parts of statement are complementary with Rousseff's principles.) I think we can take it that "institutional framework" refers to IANA and ICANN, the original themes of Internet governance. Gives seven main discussion themes for the meeting: President Rousseff (speech to the UN General Assembly), principles and norms to help guide the international operation of the Internet: 1. Freedom of expression, privacy of the individual and respect for human rights. 2. Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective creativity and the participation of society, governments and the private sector. 3. Universality that ensures the social and human development and the construction of inclusive and non-discriminatory societies. 4. Cultural diversity, without the imposition of beliefs, customs and values. 5. Neutrality of the network, guided only by technical and ethical criteria, rendering it inadmissible to restrict it for political, commercial, religious or any other purposes. Original issues of Internet governance and from the Montevideo Statement: 6 & 7. The globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing, i.e. development of new institutional framework. These fall into five main areas: (1) Good work's done on Internet governance principles and cooperation in many organizations and fora, these were well presented in Bali. Bring the different actors together for Brazil, invite them to join a working group and collectively develop a set of principles for global governance, tasks completed by IGF 2015. To address aspects of Rousseff 1-4 and parts of the Montevideo Statement. (2) Global principles for protecting Human Rights online. Work's been done by various parties, from the UN Rapporteur to more recently a group leading international authors, and a collection of U.S. Internet companies. In Bali the Swedish Government presented seven fundamental principles that should apply to maintain respect for human rights when carrying out surveillance of electronic communications -- these were strongly supported, they refer to legality, legitimate aim, necessity and adequacy, proportionality, judicial authority, transparency, and public oversight. And of course there's much more. Brazil is an opportunity to bring these parties together, hear their ideas and set the tasks for a working group to develop appropriate and working principles. It is not hard to imagine working groups on these themes producing adoptable outcomes. (3) President Rousseff's fifth topic, Network Neutrality, might be harder to reach consensus on. But that doesn't mean discussion of different approaches to network neutrality would not be valuable (e.g. proposed regulation in Europe, actual situations elsewhere, the IGF net neutrality coalition reported in Bali, greater consideration of what network neutrality means in developing markets, particularly mobile). If a working group was unable to reach definite recommendations, one still might be established with the task of providing model frameworks, an overview of different approaches and critiques of them. (4) Institutional Framework for the IANA function. Internet tech community has been making recommendations since 2006, RIRs made proposals for an independent IANA function during the last re-bid of the contract. Civil society actors have made proposals and have strong opinions... so do governments. A multi-stakeholder discussion of IANA, root zone database and Verisign's contract with NTIA, the root operators and whether their work needs more oversight, this is a discussion I think needs to happen. Give a working group 18 months to develop a new institutional framework. (5) Globalization of ICANN. What would an independent ICANN look like? How would an independent ICANN be globally accountable? An affirmation of commitments between ICANN and us not U.S. From oversight by one government to no government, or oversight by all? What kind of host country agreement, what protections? And many more questions. A working group might monitor the Accountability and Transparency Review Team process and provide advice on ICANN's internal processes, while also propose new models for independence. 18 months to get an international framework for IANA into acceptable shape, for principles on good governance and human rights, for some dialogue that may or may not shape some domestic policy on net neutrality, to provide models for an independent ICANN. Between now and April 2014 various actors invited to make proposals, papers to help shape discussion, and provide ideas as to charters for the working groups. The Brazil meeting discusses issues, the charters and tasks of working groups, sets ground rules for there operation (multi-stakeholder, transparency, etc). September 2014, IGF in Istanbul can be used to review progress, perhaps recommend changes. Not hard to imagine a role for the high-level/ministerial pre-meeting. Tasks to be complete by IGF of 2015 back in Brazil. The IGF offers check-points along the way: first in May 2014 when the MAG typically meets to finalize the agenda for the year, and two meetings in 2015. The IGF is our only substantive multi-stakeholder process, it's known, it can be a means to carry work forward, so use it. And make the Brazil meeting more than talk. Adam On Dec 12, 2013, at 12:28 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > I find this a refreshing view of civil society representative issues, and I take Mike's point that looking at a model with polar choices may not get at the real issue. > > I understand the concern about being at the table, especially when from a CS point of view, other actors have the potential, and often the intent, to weaken CS goals. > > Mike's comments strengthen the hypothesis that the arguments over representation really represent a proxy dispute for representation issues unsolved within the CS representative community. If that is the case, and CS is attempting to represent a diverse and apparently disparate set of views not bound by rough consensus, that helps to explain why specific representation is believed to be so important. > > Has there been any attempt to do some cluster analysis, quantitative or intuitive. on the divergent views, so that areas of agreement can be more sharply defined, and clusters of areas of disagreement also be identified? I suspect that these are difficult topics to discuss, in part because of believing that a united front provides more strength vis-à-vis other stakeholder groups, and exposing differences within the group could be regarded by some as an indication of weakness or disarray. > > Thanks for this analysis, Mike! > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > On Dec 11, 2013, at 8:38 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> I think the issues are rather different from the polarity Milton (and George) are posing… It isn’t just an issue of representation or substance but rather representation and substance or rather representation being necessary for substance… Even though there appears to be some issues with recognizing this in our current context. >> >> I’m also copying this to BestBits and by implication the “steering committee” (or whatever it is currently being called)… >> >> So far, I have yet to see any specific recognition or more importantly accommodation to the quite evident differences as between various groupings within Civil Society as to the nature of the substantive inputs that will be given into any framework for which nominations are/will/should be solicited. >> >> There are I believe, quite significant differences with respect to how matters of Internet Governance could/should be addressed/resolved within (IG based) CS (as there is of course, in the larger CS and non-CS world… >> >> These differences apart from the cartoonish mis-characterizations pro-offered by certain irresponsible elements are serious and reflect different perspectives (and broad societally based interests) on how an overall balance towards a democratic, just and inclusive Internet can be achieved. >> >> Either these differences are reflected first within whatever approach to selection is entered into and then in the range of nominees themselves; or the selection process will be illegitimate, have done CS overall a major disservice, and any illusions of a common CS front will be impossible. And one can expect that the resulting parallel strategies for representation will be pursued with the utmost vigour including through whatever means of public visibility might be available. >> >> The usual process within CS of opting for “identity” based modes of “representivity” i.e. gender, region, age etc. is clearly insufficient in a context as fundamental and as normatively/substantively divided as the one that we are currently dealing with. >> >> I believe however, that there is within CS a broad underlying agreement on overall values with respect to IG and the future of the internet. I think it would be a serious mistake to not have the principled disagreements on how best to achieve those ultimate goals reflected within whatever representations CS makes in the various venues in the days going forward so that a united CS can move forward towards those goals. >> >> Best, >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller >> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 3:53 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Marilia Maciel >> Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >> >> Thank you. Marilia's position as stated below reflects exactly my own. >> >> The point is not, as Jeanette mistakenly argues, that there is a "madness" about filling committee positions to the exclusion of substantive debate. No one can fairly accuse me, of all people, of failing to actively formulate positions on the substantive issues. That's what I spend most of my time doing. >> >> The problem is that we were told to provide names, we did a lot of work to do so, and then those names were disregarded. This will have long term consequences regarding other requests by 1net (and we still do not have a statement as to who is actually making decisions on behalf of 1net) for participation in the future. 1net really needs to think carefully about what kind of precedents it is setting and how much trust it is or is not building here. >> >> I have to say I am especially unimpressed with the statements from Mr. Sadowsky. When he says, "concentrate on substance, don't pay any attention to who is represented on committees," it has absolutely no credibility, because it comes from a person who is at least connected to, or more likely is actually one of the people making, decisions behind the scenes. George might do better to keep silent or to just recognize that a mess was made and apologize for it. If it truly doesn't matter who is on these committees, why did ICANN appoint some people to them and not others? And why not tell us who is making decisions for 1net? >> >> Let me make it clear: I attribute most of this problem to disorganization and bad procedure rather than ill intent. But when lame rationalizations are offered for the effects of the disorganization it contributes to ill will. >> >> --MM >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 12 10:45:44 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 16:45:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] BB listers and IGC listers In-Reply-To: References: <20131212102324.71be5669@quill> Message-ID: <20131212164544.3160e974@quill> Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > > (I would not object to my name being included e.g. on a document > > listing "people who have made a great number of mailing list > > postings", since the creation of such a document would be > > justifiable on the basis of the transparency principle that I have > > mentioned above. But such justification does not apply to a > > document that includes people who are subscribed simply out of a > > desire to be informed.) > > The study did not include "Reasons for being on BB and IGC". Are you > suggesting we further it? No. I thought I was very clear that I was suggesting that the creation of a specific, different kind of document was unjustifiable, and that I insisted that my personal information be removed from it. > That will mean a kind of survey. But I find > the idea actually tempting. That may just be the kind of knowledge > that may help build the CS. For the purpose of understanding whether there is significant "double dipping", i.e. figuring out whether there is a significant number of people who feel represented (in some sense) both by a BestBits delegate to a civil society coordination group and by an IGC delegate, a survey would certainly make much more sense than to just compare who is subscribed. I certainly wouldn't want the fact that I have been a subscriber of the BestBits list since pretty much its beginning to be interpreted as wanting to be represented in any way by a "BestBits" representative to some civil society coordination group. Quite on the contrary, I'd like to give my input to such processes either directly or through the IGC. I'm not at all interested in what has been called "double dipping" even if I'm subscribed to both mailing lists. I think however (and this was for me a main reason for resigning from IGC coordinatorship) that IGC needs to get its act together before it can credibly provide any further input to any civil society coordination process; until IGC has overcome its current paralysis, the "double dipping" concern is rather pointless anyway, and it also doesn't make sense to ask people in a survey whether they wish to be represented through IGC in any civil society coordination process. > I did not "create" as such, I only pulled information that is > available. Anybody can do the same work. I gave the sources. Mailing > list archives are open by default and the members' list is available > to all members, no? Even when that information is available to all subscribers, that does not imply that it is available for every purpose. When someone is subscribed to a mailing list but not posting, they don't show up in the archives, and after they unsubscribe, the mailing list server will not disclose who was subscribed in the past. So in the case of a country changing so that it becomes dangerous to be known as a BestBits or IGC mailing list subscriber, people who were subscribed just to be informed (without posting themselves) can unsubscribe (and possibly, if they're willing to take the associated risks, resubscribe under a pseudonym). That possibility gets destroyed by creating and sharing static documents that document who was subscribed at a specific point in time. But regardless of whether this argument convinces you or not, please simply respect the fact that I do not want my personal information to be included in that "study" document. 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Dec 12 10:58:23 2013 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 16:58:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: proposal re committee selection In-Reply-To: References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com> <52A749CB.3060809@wzb.eu> <52A817AE.3090707@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <52A9DD1F.40909@wzb.eu> Hi Nnenna, thank you for your kind words, which is somewhat rare on this list. The coordination group is not quite what I had in mind. I was thinking of a group whose members are nominated by the list. The members should have our trust to represent us well but also to be fair with each other in choosing people for specific committees or similar jobs. jeanette Am 11.12.2013 13:50, schrieb Nnenna Nwakanma: > Thanks Jeanette and really happy to have you back and hear you! > Actually, that was the thinking behind the current "Coordinating group > on nominations". It is true this did not take long to process. What I > know is that there is a kind of cross-networked representation on this > group for nominations. It is made up of: > > 1. Jeremy of Best Bits (bestbits.net ) > 2. Ginger of Diplo (diplointernetgovernance.org > ) > 3. Robin of the ICANN NCSG (community.icann.org > ) > 4. Anriette of APC (apc.org ) > 5. Sala of IGC - (igcaucus.org ) > 6. Ian Peter as Independent Chair > > The thinking behind this is that each network rep will circulate any > representation need information to their respective networks, then these > networks can forward nominations in accordance with the task at hand. > > All for now > > > Nnenna > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Jeanette Hofmann > wrote: > > Hi Marília, > > > One could add a nomcom I suppose. Although it would probabl double > the amount of people to be involved in the selection of candidates. > In any case, my point would be to take these conversations off the > list and to make the trust for our representatives last a bit longer. > > jeanette > > Am 11.12.13 02:23, schrieb Marilia Maciel: > > Thanks for this, Jeanette. That sounds like a very interesting > idea. It > increases the predictability of the process and diminishes recurrent > tensions in the moment of choosing CS representatives. It also > helps in > the process of achieving regional and gender balance. > > My only suggestion would be that, instead of leaving people who > are part > of the pool "insulated" to make this choice, a NomCom could be > appointed > to select from the poll, based of thematic affinity, experience, > gender > and regional diversity, etc. And the person who is being considered > could say if he or she would accept that particular position or not, > although the idea of "best before" that you mentioned already > indicates > the members of the pool are willing to serve. I liked the work > of this > diverse NomCom that was just put in place, with IGC, BB, APC, etc, > working together. Maybe a NomCom with a broader scope could be > created. > > It is possible this particular proposal would not work for ongoing > discussions of representatives, but it is an idea to discuss, > refine and > consider for the next selection processes in my opinion. > > Marília > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Jeanette Hofmann > > >> wrote: > > > There seems to be a flooding of committees at the moment, > and we > have no way of knowing how important each of them will be. > Moreover, > we have no way of knowing what specific stances the people > we are > considered as representatives will take up on the issues > addressed. > Still it seems we make a lot of a fuss on procedures for > nominating > them. > > Here is a practical proposal for simplifying the process and > creating more room for substantive discussion: > > Lets create a balanced pool of people who enjoy respect and > trust on > the various lists, balanced in terms of gender and region. > With such > a pool of people in place, we can leave the question of who > participates in what venue, or more precisely, who is > proposed to > join a given committee, to that very pool of people. The > price the > people have to pay for being among these talented few is > going again > and again through the torture of selecting the best > candidates for > each individual job. > > Each request for cs representation would be forwarded to > this pool. > The pool would be given a "best before" time stamp of, say, > 18 or 24 > months. > > jeanette > > Am 10.12.13 17:32, schrieb Marilia Maciel: > > I'm sorry, but to me this discussion does not reflect > fundamental > divergence of views with any of the names - Bill, Milton or > Anriette - > and it is certainly not about lack of trust. The > underpinning reason > here is not a disagreement among CS people, it is a > disagreement > with > how the HL panel matter has been conducted. > > Do we need one HL panel? Many ppl think we dont, yet we > have it. > Since > we have it, do we have space for CS? No, there is an > appalling > lack of > CS representation. "Then give us names", they said. And we > engaged in a > process to do it, because we want to be constructive and to > participate. > Just to see that effort being disregarded without any > convincing > explanation. To my knowledge, we will not have any > representative there > to convey any substantial message that we wish to > convey. Bill is > invited as expert. What bothers me is the feeling that > CS - and all > organizations that participated in the NonCom process - > were > made fool > in a way. If they wanted experts, not CS > representatives, why not be > clear about it? Sometimes a blunt no is better than a > unfulfilled yes. > > With that I am not saying that I do not agree with > Jeanette and > George. > I think we are missing the point of the most important > thing, the > substance. Then, let's unbury Andrew's thread about > substance, > answer > the survey (deadline today) and move on with concrete > stuff, as > soon as > we have this compilation/mapping of replies back. But > this present > thread is about "HL and CS reps". So I think it is > understandable that > we are talking about process. Process is all we have to > talk about > without knowing not even what the agenda is, and > without having > an idea > of how to contribute. > > Anyway, reinforcing previous suggestions to communicate > concerns, I rest > my case about this. > > Marília > > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:58 PM, George Sadowsky > > > > ____com > > >>> wrote: > > I strongly share Jeanette's opinion. > > Representatives of civil society causes (RCSC) (that > characterization typifies many of the people on > the list, I > think) > have both positive messages and concerns. The > positive > messages are > those that many of us automatically subscribe to > when they are > expressed at the highest level, such as 'freedom > of expression. > These are positive messages. > > The concerns come because such desired states are > often > weakened by > others, typically by governments but also by > certain trends > in other > sectors. Hence the need, often expressed by RCSCs > to be > 'at the > table' with other sectors, comes from the > possibility that > these > positions will be eroded, consciously or > unconsciously, by > other > sectors. The desire to be included is a quite > understandable > reaction to that possibility. > > But what I don't understand is the intense > internal process and > disputes regarding who gets to represent a group > that appears > homogeneous at the top level. Is the homogeneity > superficial? If > so, it would be more useful to explore and > understand the > differences within the RCSC. Is the dispute based > upon > ideological > purity of the process for selection? That seems > counterproductive > and generally a waste of time to me. Is the > dispute based > upon lack > of trust among group members? Are there other > reasons. Is the > representation process an end in itself, > regardless of its > effect > upon pursuing other CS goals. If so, then perhaps this > should be > reconstituted as a political science theory group. > > It seems to me that rather than spending so much time > discussing and > debating representation issues, it would be more > useful to > discuss > why representation issues are so important, often > IMO to the > detriment of working on real civil society issues. > > I'm with Jeanette. Concentrate upon issues, and > that means > areas of > agreement and disagreement with other sectors as > well as > within the > RCSC community. Disputes about representation seem > unproductive, > unless they imply unaddressed issues within the > community. > If so, > it surely seems more productive to address them > directly > rather than > through this proxy dispute based on representation. > > George > > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 10:29 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > I fully agree with Rafik's concern. In fact, > both the > IGC and the > > bestbits list seem to have become rather > obsessed with > filling > positions > > on various committtees. > > > > In another message from last week that probably > got lost > or still > awaits > > the moderator's approvement, I noticed a > growing madness > about > committee > > positions and other appointments which is more > or less > pushing aside > > the debate over issues and opinions. > > > > Besides, I also think that a distinction should > be made > between > > appointed experts and stakeholder representatives. > Generally, I > wished > > we paid less attention to the issue of > representatives and > focused more > > on the message we want to convey. > > > > jeanette > > > > Am 10.12.13 14:49, schrieb Rafik Dammak: > >> Hello,dfasfd > >> > >> I am wondering if we are not giving too much > weight to > HLM than it > >> should be and doing for it a free promotion! > honestly, I was > not in > >> favour of the ICANN strategic panels since > they are not > bottom-up, > >> formed by handpicked members and bypassing the > usual > process. I > found > >> now that we want badly to be in that high > level panel > and making it > >> relevant and maybe even giving it a big role > for Brazil > meeting! > hope > >> that we wont regret such decision later. > >> > >> we can ask for giving inputs, openness etc but > that will be > definitely > >> depending to the will ICANN/WEF/Anneberg > Foundation and > there > won't be > >> any guarantee on how they process the inputs > or how it > will be > included > >> in their deliverable. everything is ad-hoc > there and any > decision will > >> depend to the will of the organisers. why shall we > encourage > such process? > >> > >> Back to the previous discussion, Bill was > invited as > expert and > the name > >> of panel is not "an expert group" , I don't > see the > confusion here. > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> > >> 2013/12/10 Marilia Maciel > > > > ____com > >> > >> ____com > > > ____com > > >>>> > >> > >> Milton is right about the (lack of) > process. On the > one hand, > it is > >> positive that we have someone we trust > there. On the > other > hand, it > >> does seem that they are including who they > want and > how they > want, > >> totally disregarding the serious process we > have been > conducting to > >> appoint names. > >> > >> I think that a letter signed by all > organizations that > participated > >> in the nomination process should be sent to > ICANN > and ideally > read > >> during the meeting, expressing our > frustration and > adding some > >> concrete suggestions. I come back to the > points I > made earlier: > >> - the agenda of the HL panel meetings should be > publicized in > advance > >> - channels to receive inputs (procedural or > substantive) > should be > >> created or clarified > >> - their meetings should be open to > observers (like the > meetings of > >> the CSTD ECWG) > >> - Reports of the meetings should be > published. They > could follow > >> Chatam House rules > >> And > >> - CS representatives (names), who were > appointed > following an > >> internal and legitimate process carried out > by CS, > should be > >> immediately included in the HL panel to ensure > minimum CS > >> representation. > >> > >> Marília > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Norbert Bollow > > > > > >> > >> > > > > >>>> wrote: > >> > >> Milton L Mueller > > > > >> > > > > > >>>> wrote: > >> > >> > The distinction between Bill's > appointment as an > expert and > >> the CS > >> > groups' nomination of people to be > on the > committee is > not so > >> clear > >> > to me, and we cannot assume that it > is clear > to Fadi, > especially > >> > since the London meeting of the > group starts > in two days. > >> Either one > >> > could be seen as Fadi making a > concession to CS > demands to be > >> > included in the HLLM, and he may > consider one > to be a > >> substitute for > >> > the other. At this stage, I would > assume that if > there is no > >> > appointment of another CS rep to the > HL Panel > by now, that > >> there will > >> > not be one at all, and Bill is all > we will be > given. > The fact > >> that > >> > Bill's appointment came from a > random F2F hallway > meeting isn't > >> > something that inspires confidence, > is it? > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> Especially given that there was in fact a > coordinated > civil society > >> process through which names have been > put forward. > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Norbert > >> > >> > > __________________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a > subscriber on the > list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > > > __bestb__its.net > >> > __bestb__its.net > > > __bestb__its.net > > >>>. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, > visit: > >> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/____info/bestbits > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> *Marília Maciel* > >> Pesquisadora Gestora > >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV > Direito Rio > >> > >> Researcher and Coordinator > >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law > School > >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > >> > >> DiploFoundation associate > >> www.diplomacy.edu > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > __________________________________________________________________ > > >> You received this message as a subscriber > on the list: > >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > > > __bestb__its.net > >> > __bestb__its.net > > > __bestb__its.net > > >>>. > >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > >> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/____info/bestbits > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on > the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > __igc__aucus.org > > >> > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/____unsubscribing > > > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/____info/governance > > > > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's > charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/____translate_t > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > __igc__aucus.org > > >> > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/____unsubscribing > > > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/____info/governance > > > > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's > charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/____translate_t > > > > > > > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > > > > > > -- > *Marília Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Dec 12 11:23:25 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 23:23:25 +0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee References: <3CA61873-A825-4687-9BB5-507CE26DD663@ciroap.org> <7F389FFA-0F74-4E5B-9BB8-5B314329D02C@ciroap.org> <52A06B55.3090303@itforchange.net> <52A0DFD8.5080304@cdt.org> <9CF11A9A-118D-4110-BF4B-EE3C95070A99@gmail.com> <52A19D87.7070507@cdt.org> <947CE775-274E-469E-BB52-DF92C15FE21D@ciroap.org> <12c501cef705$95a0e5d0$c0e2b170$@gmail.com> <86636F20-A0D0-475C-BABB-B3F49D578BCF@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <012101cef756$81573fb0$8405bf10$@gmail.com> From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 4:30 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: cs-coord at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call for expressions of interest: 1net steering committee . switching lists because this is not a Best Bits process issue. Ian has already provided some more detail in the next email in the thread, which crossed with yours. But generally, all of the liaisons were asked to choose their preferred candidates based on discussions within their networks (for example, on the Best Bits list several people spoke up in favour of Rafik), and these were tallied up. The three candidates mentioned had the most common support. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm ---------------------------------------------- MG: Ah, I see, you sat down with a couple of mates, licked your finger and tested the wind and then hey presto, the "result of the civil society coordination group process"--all of course conducted with that appropriate measure of democratic transparency and accountability that we so often expect of those to whom we pro-offer advice and comment. And I particularly like the fact that you forgo humility and claim that this represents "the civil society . process". not the false modesty of "a civil society process" or perhaps "a process among a small and self-selected group of civil society actors". You are too modest, this model should be shared with the larger Civil Society community and beyond. (And as I said in another email yesterday, this is not simply about process but specifically about representing (or not) the full range of CS positions and interests which your lack of an appropriate process deliberately, it appears, was designed to preclude.) Shame. M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Dec 12 11:28:58 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 11:28:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > I'm sorry, but to me this discussion does not reflect fundamental divergence > of views with any of the names - Bill, Milton or Anriette - and it is > certainly not about lack of trust. The underpinning reason here is not a > disagreement among CS people, it is a disagreement with how the HL panel > matter has been conducted. > > Do we need one HL panel? Many ppl think we dont, yet we have it. Since we > have it, do we have space for CS? No, there is an appalling lack of CS > representation. I'm not sure this is correct. While they aren't perhaps "representative" in the sense of the whole of CS coming together and deciding on a set of stances on issues that need to be communicated, if you look at the list of folks on the HLP: https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-17nov13-en.htm I see Mozilla Foundation, NLNet Labs, ISOC, Frank La Rue, Hudson Institute, Wikipedia and ICANN as neither biz nor gov nor Intergov, so there are CS (in the broader sense) folks on the Panel. "Then give us names", they said. And we engaged in a process > to do it, because we want to be constructive and to participate. Just to see > that effort being disregarded without any convincing explanation. That remains to be seen. IIUC, 1 more CS rep was NEVER going to be on the London meeting. Just not enough time. In any case, I would expect that if we were asked to add one more name, then they will honor that in due course. To my > knowledge, we will not have any representative there to convey any > substantial message that we wish to convey. Bill is invited as expert. What > bothers me is the feeling that CS - and all organizations that participated > in the NonCom process - were made fool in a way. If they wanted experts, not > CS representatives, why not be clear about it? Sometimes a blunt no is > better than a unfulfilled yes. > > With that I am not saying that I do not agree with Jeanette and George. I > think we are missing the point of the most important thing, the substance. Exactly, and we can convey our substantive issues via Mozilla or Wikipedia or whichever non-profit we think will be receptive. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Dec 12 13:57:39 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 07:57:39 +1300 Subject: [governance] BB listers and IGC listers In-Reply-To: References: <20131212102324.71be5669@quill> Message-ID: A critical distinction is that within the context of the IGC, there is a difference between subscribers and members who have voting rights on Charter matters. Sent from my iPad > On Dec 13, 2013, at 3:08 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > > Hi Norbert, all >> >> (I would not object to my name being included e.g. on a document >> listing "people who have made a great number of mailing list >> postings", since the creation of such a document would be justifiable >> on the basis of the transparency principle that I have mentioned above. >> But such justification does not apply to a document that includes >> people who are subscribed simply out of a desire to be informed.) >> > The study did not include "Reasons for being on BB and IGC". Are you suggesting we further it? That will mean a kind of survey. But I find the idea actually tempting. That may just be the kind of knowledge that may help build the CS. > > I did not "create" as such, I only pulled information that is available. Anybody can do the same work. I gave the sources. Mailing list archives are open by default and the members' list is available to all members, no? > > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From remmyn at gmail.com Thu Dec 12 14:00:00 2013 From: remmyn at gmail.com (Remmy Nweke) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 20:00:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] BB listers and IGC listers In-Reply-To: References: <20131212102324.71be5669@quill> Message-ID: In all these, are we building the so-called all-inclusive community, we so much expected from ICANN from our little groups? On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > A critical distinction is that within the context of the IGC, there is a > difference between subscribers and members who have voting rights on > Charter matters. > > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Dec 13, 2013, at 3:08 AM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > > Hi Norbert, all > >> >> (I would not object to my name being included e.g. on a document >> listing "people who have made a great number of mailing list >> postings", since the creation of such a document would be justifiable >> on the basis of the transparency principle that I have mentioned above. >> But such justification does not apply to a document that includes >> people who are subscribed simply out of a desire to be informed.) >> >> The study did not include "Reasons for being on BB and IGC". Are you > suggesting we further it? That will mean a kind of survey. But I find the > idea actually tempting. That may just be the kind of knowledge that may > help build the CS. > > I did not "create" as such, I only pulled information that is available. > Anybody can do the same work. I gave the sources. Mailing list archives are > open by default and the members' list is available to all members, no? > > 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 > > -- REMMY NWEKE, Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd (publishers of) DigitalSENSE Business News; ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet (Multiple-award winning medium) Published by: DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms [Member, NIRA Executive Board] Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria NDS Forum on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2014< http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>- June 5 Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2014 - June 6 @Welcome Centre Hotels. Register now. Email: remnekkv at gmail.com _____________________________________________________________________ *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Dec 12 14:15:34 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 19:15:34 +0000 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com> , Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BDBF2@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Sorry McTim, not quite buying it. I will read between the lines that our choice of names was not quite welcome as a last minute add to the London meeting; albeit only last minute since IGC were not asked earlier to engage at 'High Level.' Admittedly, those 2 names were NEVER going to be warmly received. Ok, 1 name. Cough, Milton. (I suspect Anriette's exclusion is a guilt by association thing, NOT about timing; but of course no need for anyone to admit or deny that.) Since I was one of Milton's advocates for inclusion, frankly I do consider this a test case for willingness of ICANN for the Brazil meeting to be as - forward-looking and substantive - as IGCers would like. Fine, as Milton and everyone else notes, the HLLM process was started by ICANN and they can invite whomever they wish to their party, no need for explanations of invitations not extended. Still, the test case imho shows the limits to what ICANN wants to have on the Brazil agenda, and that's again - their choice as co-convenor of a process. Therefore, I suggest we stop paying so much attention to HLLM since it is its own ICANN show; and focus instead on the substance of Adam's suggestions as to steps and processes on the cs road to Brazil. Feeding docs to those engaged with HLLM to - maybe - make some level of mention of what we do, is ok, but not a high priority given that the HLLM die is cast. Mozilla, ICANN, Heritage etc will all do the best they can for their constituents, as they should, and agreed with McTim in broader CS sense there is representation. So no problem, we all move on. Even as the clock ticks ever more loudly towards April 2014. When either - substance or show - happens. I already placed my bet that we are all invited to witness/participate in the -show - of a Fadi/Dilma April 2014 handshake photo op, to advance President Rousseff's reelection bid AND Fadi's ITU Pleni-phobia agendas. Fine, some of us can be extras in or out of the photo frame; but is that all we are trying to do? CSers engaged in Internet governance discussions as IGC, Best Bits, APC, whatever label, can of course input directly to Brazil co-organizers and liaisons, without the need to negotiate or filter through HLLM, to try to make more of the Brazil event than might otherwise occur, towards initiating a multi-year process to move the global ball ahead towards an - open and shared Internet governance goal or set of goals. (Keeping with the sports analogy, the fumbled HLLM process counts as another own goal along with fumbled launch of 1net, but as Milton generously noted, there is a rush and not much time and we all make mistakes.) Still, in the virtual hothouse of the final April agenda assembly effort, by Brazilian CS, and Brazilian government and business interests, AND ICANN as lead for the 1net, hllm etc processes, things will shake out one way, or another. So my 2 cents - let's move on, and leave HLLM to Bill to advise and inform, since that's all they appear to want from us. Fine, there's much more to do and debate, as Adam has begun to do. Without needing HLLM endorsement or permission for those discussions. Who has further comments on Adam's 2-part email? Modifications? Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 11:28 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Marilia Maciel Cc: George Sadowsky; Jeanette Hofmann Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps Hi, On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > I'm sorry, but to me this discussion does not reflect fundamental divergence > of views with any of the names - Bill, Milton or Anriette - and it is > certainly not about lack of trust. The underpinning reason here is not a > disagreement among CS people, it is a disagreement with how the HL panel > matter has been conducted. > > Do we need one HL panel? Many ppl think we dont, yet we have it. Since we > have it, do we have space for CS? No, there is an appalling lack of CS > representation. I'm not sure this is correct. While they aren't perhaps "representative" in the sense of the whole of CS coming together and deciding on a set of stances on issues that need to be communicated, if you look at the list of folks on the HLP: https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-17nov13-en.htm I see Mozilla Foundation, NLNet Labs, ISOC, Frank La Rue, Hudson Institute, Wikipedia and ICANN as neither biz nor gov nor Intergov, so there are CS (in the broader sense) folks on the Panel. "Then give us names", they said. And we engaged in a process > to do it, because we want to be constructive and to participate. Just to see > that effort being disregarded without any convincing explanation. That remains to be seen. IIUC, 1 more CS rep was NEVER going to be on the London meeting. Just not enough time. In any case, I would expect that if we were asked to add one more name, then they will honor that in due course. To my > knowledge, we will not have any representative there to convey any > substantial message that we wish to convey. Bill is invited as expert. What > bothers me is the feeling that CS - and all organizations that participated > in the NonCom process - were made fool in a way. If they wanted experts, not > CS representatives, why not be clear about it? Sometimes a blunt no is > better than a unfulfilled yes. > > With that I am not saying that I do not agree with Jeanette and George. I > think we are missing the point of the most important thing, the substance. Exactly, and we can convey our substantive issues via Mozilla or Wikipedia or whichever non-profit we think will be receptive. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Thu Dec 12 14:21:17 2013 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at)) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 20:21:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] AW: Advocate General of CJEU on data detention directive Message-ID: <9BE1170D378AFF47BAA5A0949EDBF76C038019AC6B@APOLLON.pers.ad.uni-graz.at> FYI - http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2013-12/cp130157en.pdf Wolfgang Benedek -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com Thu Dec 12 16:59:18 2013 From: jeanchristophe.nothias at gmail.com (Jean-Christophe Nothias) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 22:59:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BDBF2@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BDBF2@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: +1 Envoyé de mon iPhone > Le 12 déc. 2013 à 20:15, Lee W McKnight a écrit : > > Sorry McTim, not quite buying it. > > I will read between the lines that our choice of names was not quite welcome as a last minute add to the London meeting; albeit only last minute since IGC were not asked earlier to engage at 'High Level.' > > Admittedly, those 2 names were NEVER going to be warmly received. Ok, 1 name. Cough, Milton. (I suspect Anriette's exclusion is a guilt by association thing, NOT about timing; but of course no need for anyone to admit or deny that.) > > Since I was one of Milton's advocates for inclusion, frankly I do consider this a test case for willingness of ICANN for the Brazil meeting to be as - forward-looking and substantive - as IGCers would like. > > Fine, as Milton and everyone else notes, the HLLM process was started by ICANN and they can invite whomever they wish to their party, no need for explanations of invitations not extended. > > Still, the test case imho shows the limits to what ICANN wants to have on the Brazil agenda, and that's again - their choice as co-convenor of a process. > > Therefore, I suggest we stop paying so much attention to HLLM since it is its own ICANN show; and focus instead on the substance of Adam's suggestions as to steps and processes on the cs road to Brazil. > > Feeding docs to those engaged with HLLM to - maybe - make some level of mention of what we do, is ok, but not a high priority given that the HLLM die is cast. Mozilla, ICANN, Heritage etc will all do the best they can for their constituents, as they should, and agreed with McTim in broader CS sense there is representation. So no problem, we all move on. > > Even as the clock ticks ever more loudly towards April 2014. When either - substance or show - happens. > > I already placed my bet that we are all invited to witness/participate in the -show - of a Fadi/Dilma April 2014 handshake photo op, to advance President Rousseff's reelection bid AND Fadi's ITU Pleni-phobia agendas. > > Fine, some of us can be extras in or out of the photo frame; but is that all we are trying to do? > > CSers engaged in Internet governance discussions as IGC, Best Bits, APC, whatever label, can of course input directly to Brazil co-organizers and liaisons, without the need to negotiate or filter through HLLM, to try to make more of the Brazil event than might otherwise occur, towards initiating a multi-year process to move the global ball ahead towards an - open and shared Internet governance goal or set of goals. (Keeping with the sports analogy, the fumbled HLLM process counts as another own goal along with fumbled launch of 1net, but as Milton generously noted, there is a rush and not much time and we all make mistakes.) > > Still, in the virtual hothouse of the final April agenda assembly effort, by Brazilian CS, and Brazilian government and business interests, AND ICANN as lead for the 1net, hllm etc processes, things will shake out one way, or another. > > So my 2 cents - let's move on, and leave HLLM to Bill to advise and inform, since that's all they appear to want from us. > > Fine, there's much more to do and debate, as Adam has begun to do. Without needing HLLM endorsement or permission for those discussions. Who has further comments on Adam's 2-part email? Modifications? > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 11:28 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Marilia Maciel > Cc: George Sadowsky; Jeanette Hofmann > Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > Hi, > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Marilia Maciel > wrote: >> I'm sorry, but to me this discussion does not reflect fundamental divergence >> of views with any of the names - Bill, Milton or Anriette - and it is >> certainly not about lack of trust. The underpinning reason here is not a >> disagreement among CS people, it is a disagreement with how the HL panel >> matter has been conducted. >> >> Do we need one HL panel? Many ppl think we dont, yet we have it. Since we >> have it, do we have space for CS? No, there is an appalling lack of CS >> representation. > > I'm not sure this is correct. While they aren't perhaps > "representative" in the sense of the whole of CS coming together and > deciding on a set of stances on issues that need to be communicated, > if you look at the list of folks on the HLP: > > https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-17nov13-en.htm > > I see Mozilla Foundation, NLNet Labs, ISOC, Frank La Rue, Hudson > Institute, Wikipedia and ICANN as neither biz nor gov nor Intergov, so > there are CS (in the broader sense) folks on the Panel. > > > > "Then give us names", they said. And we engaged in a process >> to do it, because we want to be constructive and to participate. Just to see >> that effort being disregarded without any convincing explanation. > > That remains to be seen. IIUC, 1 more CS rep was NEVER going to be on > the London meeting. Just not enough time. In any case, I would > expect that if we were asked to add one more name, then they will > honor that in due course. > > > To my >> knowledge, we will not have any representative there to convey any >> substantial message that we wish to convey. Bill is invited as expert. What >> bothers me is the feeling that CS - and all organizations that participated >> in the NonCom process - were made fool in a way. If they wanted experts, not >> CS representatives, why not be clear about it? Sometimes a blunt no is >> better than a unfulfilled yes. >> >> With that I am not saying that I do not agree with Jeanette and George. I >> think we are missing the point of the most important thing, the substance. > > Exactly, and we can convey our substantive issues via Mozilla or > Wikipedia or whichever non-profit we think will be receptive. > > > -- > 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Dec 12 17:24:23 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 11:24:23 +1300 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BDBF2@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BDBF2@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7199908E-ED13-4FBE-9414-7FB3A1D28891@gmail.com> In absolute agreement. Sent from my iPad > On Dec 13, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > Sorry McTim, not quite buying it. > > I will read between the lines that our choice of names was not quite welcome as a last minute add to the London meeting; albeit only last minute since IGC were not asked earlier to engage at 'High Level.' > > Admittedly, those 2 names were NEVER going to be warmly received. Ok, 1 name. Cough, Milton. (I suspect Anriette's exclusion is a guilt by association thing, NOT about timing; but of course no need for anyone to admit or deny that.) > > Since I was one of Milton's advocates for inclusion, frankly I do consider this a test case for willingness of ICANN for the Brazil meeting to be as - forward-looking and substantive - as IGCers would like. > > Fine, as Milton and everyone else notes, the HLLM process was started by ICANN and they can invite whomever they wish to their party, no need for explanations of invitations not extended. > > Still, the test case imho shows the limits to what ICANN wants to have on the Brazil agenda, and that's again - their choice as co-convenor of a process. > > Therefore, I suggest we stop paying so much attention to HLLM since it is its own ICANN show; and focus instead on the substance of Adam's suggestions as to steps and processes on the cs road to Brazil. > > Feeding docs to those engaged with HLLM to - maybe - make some level of mention of what we do, is ok, but not a high priority given that the HLLM die is cast. Mozilla, ICANN, Heritage etc will all do the best they can for their constituents, as they should, and agreed with McTim in broader CS sense there is representation. So no problem, we all move on. > > Even as the clock ticks ever more loudly towards April 2014. When either - substance or show - happens. > > I already placed my bet that we are all invited to witness/participate in the -show - of a Fadi/Dilma April 2014 handshake photo op, to advance President Rousseff's reelection bid AND Fadi's ITU Pleni-phobia agendas. > > Fine, some of us can be extras in or out of the photo frame; but is that all we are trying to do? > > CSers engaged in Internet governance discussions as IGC, Best Bits, APC, whatever label, can of course input directly to Brazil co-organizers and liaisons, without the need to negotiate or filter through HLLM, to try to make more of the Brazil event than might otherwise occur, towards initiating a multi-year process to move the global ball ahead towards an - open and shared Internet governance goal or set of goals. (Keeping with the sports analogy, the fumbled HLLM process counts as another own goal along with fumbled launch of 1net, but as Milton generously noted, there is a rush and not much time and we all make mistakes.) > > Still, in the virtual hothouse of the final April agenda assembly effort, by Brazilian CS, and Brazilian government and business interests, AND ICANN as lead for the 1net, hllm etc processes, things will shake out one way, or another. > > So my 2 cents - let's move on, and leave HLLM to Bill to advise and inform, since that's all they appear to want from us. > > Fine, there's much more to do and debate, as Adam has begun to do. Without needing HLLM endorsement or permission for those discussions. Who has further comments on Adam's 2-part email? Modifications? > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 11:28 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Marilia Maciel > Cc: George Sadowsky; Jeanette Hofmann > Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps > > Hi, > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Marilia Maciel > wrote: >> I'm sorry, but to me this discussion does not reflect fundamental divergence >> of views with any of the names - Bill, Milton or Anriette - and it is >> certainly not about lack of trust. The underpinning reason here is not a >> disagreement among CS people, it is a disagreement with how the HL panel >> matter has been conducted. >> >> Do we need one HL panel? Many ppl think we dont, yet we have it. Since we >> have it, do we have space for CS? No, there is an appalling lack of CS >> representation. > > I'm not sure this is correct. While they aren't perhaps > "representative" in the sense of the whole of CS coming together and > deciding on a set of stances on issues that need to be communicated, > if you look at the list of folks on the HLP: > > https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-17nov13-en.htm > > I see Mozilla Foundation, NLNet Labs, ISOC, Frank La Rue, Hudson > Institute, Wikipedia and ICANN as neither biz nor gov nor Intergov, so > there are CS (in the broader sense) folks on the Panel. > > > > "Then give us names", they said. And we engaged in a process >> to do it, because we want to be constructive and to participate. Just to see >> that effort being disregarded without any convincing explanation. > > That remains to be seen. IIUC, 1 more CS rep was NEVER going to be on > the London meeting. Just not enough time. In any case, I would > expect that if we were asked to add one more name, then they will > honor that in due course. > > > To my >> knowledge, we will not have any representative there to convey any >> substantial message that we wish to convey. Bill is invited as expert. What >> bothers me is the feeling that CS - and all organizations that participated >> in the NonCom process - were made fool in a way. If they wanted experts, not >> CS representatives, why not be clear about it? Sometimes a blunt no is >> better than a unfulfilled yes. >> >> With that I am not saying that I do not agree with Jeanette and George. I >> think we are missing the point of the most important thing, the substance. > > Exactly, and we can convey our substantive issues via Mozilla or > Wikipedia or whichever non-profit we think will be receptive. > > > -- > 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 joannakulesza at gmail.com Thu Dec 12 18:25:09 2013 From: joannakulesza at gmail.com (Joanna Kulesza) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 00:25:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Hi everyone, as much as this is my very first post on the list, the discussion is so riveting, I had to chip in, with a question rather than an opinion really. Would the ICANN "power" you were discussing not also be visible in the delegation/redelegation policy? Not "taking the country offline" but redelegating the management of the ccTLD to an entitiy more... willing to colaborate with ICANN/US? The case that always come to my mind when we speak about ICANN "power" over the online reflections of state sovereignty, that is the ccTLDs, is the 2004 Haiti case: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/14/haiti_kisses_icann_ring_rewarded/ or http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/0138212.Just for the sake of objectivity, here's the IANA take on the case: http://www.iana.org/reports/2004/ht-report-13jan04.html My question to the members of the list, should they choose to answer it, is simple - was this a stricly technical decision or would you consider it a politically influenced one? Does the Haiti case stand out? Are there any other examples of redelegation decision viewed as controversial, like this one? Is this a state sovereignty issue? Or not at all? Thank you, Joanna Kulesza 2013/12/12 George Sadowsky > All, > > Adam makes good points. > > I want to add something important that arises from the case of Palestine. > > As you know, the ISO 3166 list, maintained by the German National > Statistical Organization, takes its input from the Un Statistical Office > (UNSO), which has the authority to decide when an entry should be included. > I worked in the UNSO from 1973-1986, and at one point was designing a data > base for county statistics where the underlying country structure was > dynamic and changed over time as countries merged and/or divided. The > issue was how to improve statistical analysis when the underlying units of > observation changed composition. > > The specific case of Israeli statistics came up, and I queried why > Palestine was not considered to be a statistical entity so that the > statistical profile of each entity could be more meaningful for analytical > purposes. I was told that the decision of what was or was not a state of > territory was political and not technical, and was communicated from the > political authorities at the UN. That is why Palestine was blocked and had > to wait until 2000 to be added to the root as a legitimate territory. > > So there you have it. The UN has the ultimate power of deciding what > 'country codes' go into the root, not the US, and the UN uses it. > > George > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > On Dec 12, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > Comment below: > > > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 6:20 AM, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > > > >> Here are a few comments in line with JK > >> > >> So what you are saying is that the UN could tell the US to stop > >> serving the records for a ccTLD and the US could then tell VRSN (by > >> court order?) to delete that ccTLD? > >> > > > > > > This potential of the U.S. deleting a ccTLD has been worried over since > the earliest days of WSIS. But there have been wars and ccTLDs haven't been > touched (.iq/Iraq). North Korea .KP works ok < > http://www.naenara.com.kp/en/>. Palestine, .PS delegated in 2000 and > redelegated 2004. U.S. hasn't edited them out of the root zone, so it > seems we shouldn't worry too much. However, whatever we think the U.S. > might do or not do, this issue is unlikely to go away. It might be helpful > to codify what looks like de facto policy, something like: 'The U.S. > government will not unilaterally remove any TLD from the root.' (Write that > up in nice language). > > > > This could be one of the topics for the meeting in Brazil next April, > discussions that might kick-off a process to develop and agree a policy > statement on root operations. Not going to agree anything much in two > days, but might be able to agree on a charter of a working group to come up > proposals/recommendations. A working group that reports progress and > outcomes within the IGF process: first in Istanbul a few months later, then > back to Brazil for the IGF in 2015 where any agreement might be reviewed by > a broader community. Might make it part of a larger effort looking at the > Internationalization of the IANA, if that's a topic for Brazil next year -- > and I think it should be one of the topics. More on this in another email. > > > > Adam > > > > > >> JK: Sanctions cannot be adopted without the US support. Any action > under UN Chapter VII, including sanctions, must be agreed by the all 5 > permanent members of the Security Council ( > http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml). > >> > >> > >> If that is the case, and VRSN complied (which I think they would fight > >> BTW) then it would be a UN "power" and the US would just be an agent > >> of the UN? > >> > >> JK: If the USA, like any other state, adopts certain UN convention or > policy, it has obligation to implement it. If the USA supports decision on > sanctions against certain country, it should implement the sanction regime. > >> > >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Joanna Kulesza -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Dec 12 18:54:31 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 18:54:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Joanna Kulesza wrote: > Hi everyone, > > as much as this is my very first post on the list, the discussion is so > riveting, I had to chip in, with a question rather than an opinion really. > > Would the ICANN "power" you were discussing not also be visible in the > delegation/redelegation policy? Not "taking the country offline" but > redelegating the management of the ccTLD to an entitiy more... willing to > colaborate with ICANN/US? The case that always come to my mind when we speak > about ICANN "power" over the online reflections of state sovereignty, that > is the ccTLDs, is the 2004 Haiti case: > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/14/haiti_kisses_icann_ring_rewarded/ > or http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/0138212.Just for the > sake of objectivity, here's the IANA take on the case: > http://www.iana.org/reports/2004/ht-report-13jan04.html > > My question to the members of the list, should they choose to answer it, is > simple - was this a stricly technical decision or would you consider it a > politically influenced one? Neither, it is an administrative procedure/decision. Does the Haiti case stand out? Are there any > other examples of redelegation decision viewed as controversial, many like this > one? This one seems to have been easy, as parties agreed. > Is this a state sovereignty issue? Or not at all? For some it is, for others, not so much. Some of us believe that the Internet Community (not technical community) in a country should run the ccTLD, others think States are sovereign (this is part of the Tunis Agenda, which is non-binding). -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Thu Dec 12 19:16:40 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 00:16:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: As a current director of CIRA who are delegated to run .ca as designated by the Canadian government I too find the discussion fascinating. I was not on CIRA’s board when the relegation from UBC to CIRA took place. John Demco who had the original delegation at UBC is on our board and I’ve had many discussions with him about the process. Here is a link that outlines the process IRA went through. http://www.iana.org/reports/2000/ca-report-01dec00.html My understanding of the process for delegation into the IANA/ICANN root is that the government of the country can request the delegation be changed to another party. It is then up to IANA to determine the validity of the request and providing it is valid the ccTLD will be delegated to the entity specified by the government. Kerry Brown From: Joanna Kulesza > Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >, Joanna Kulesza > Date: Thursday, December 12, 2013 at 3:25 PM To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > Subject: Re: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US Hi everyone, as much as this is my very first post on the list, the discussion is so riveting, I had to chip in, with a question rather than an opinion really. Would the ICANN "power" you were discussing not also be visible in the delegation/redelegation policy? Not "taking the country offline" but redelegating the management of the ccTLD to an entitiy more... willing to colaborate with ICANN/US? The case that always come to my mind when we speak about ICANN "power" over the online reflections of state sovereignty, that is the ccTLDs, is the 2004 Haiti case: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/14/haiti_kisses_icann_ring_rewarded/ or http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/0138212.Just for the sake of objectivity, here's the IANA take on the case: http://www.iana.org/reports/2004/ht-report-13jan04.html My question to the members of the list, should they choose to answer it, is simple - was this a stricly technical decision or would you consider it a politically influenced one? Does the Haiti case stand out? Are there any other examples of redelegation decision viewed as controversial, like this one? Is this a state sovereignty issue? Or not at all? Thank you, Joanna Kulesza 2013/12/12 George Sadowsky > All, Adam makes good points. I want to add something important that arises from the case of Palestine. As you know, the ISO 3166 list, maintained by the German National Statistical Organization, takes its input from the Un Statistical Office (UNSO), which has the authority to decide when an entry should be included. I worked in the UNSO from 1973-1986, and at one point was designing a data base for county statistics where the underlying country structure was dynamic and changed over time as countries merged and/or divided. The issue was how to improve statistical analysis when the underlying units of observation changed composition. The specific case of Israeli statistics came up, and I queried why Palestine was not considered to be a statistical entity so that the statistical profile of each entity could be more meaningful for analytical purposes. I was told that the decision of what was or was not a state of territory was political and not technical, and was communicated from the political authorities at the UN. That is why Palestine was blocked and had to wait until 2000 to be added to the root as a legitimate territory. So there you have it. The UN has the ultimate power of deciding what 'country codes' go into the root, not the US, and the UN uses it. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Dec 12, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Comment below: > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 6:20 AM, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > >> Here are a few comments in line with JK >> >> So what you are saying is that the UN could tell the US to stop >> serving the records for a ccTLD and the US could then tell VRSN (by >> court order?) to delete that ccTLD? >> > > > This potential of the U.S. deleting a ccTLD has been worried over since the earliest days of WSIS. But there have been wars and ccTLDs haven't been touched (.iq/Iraq). North Korea .KP works ok . Palestine, .PS delegated in 2000 and redelegated 2004. U.S. hasn't edited them out of the root zone, so it seems we shouldn't worry too much. However, whatever we think the U.S. might do or not do, this issue is unlikely to go away. It might be helpful to codify what looks like de facto policy, something like: 'The U.S. government will not unilaterally remove any TLD from the root.' (Write that up in nice language). > > This could be one of the topics for the meeting in Brazil next April, discussions that might kick-off a process to develop and agree a policy statement on root operations. Not going to agree anything much in two days, but might be able to agree on a charter of a working group to come up proposals/recommendations. A working group that reports progress and outcomes within the IGF process: first in Istanbul a few months later, then back to Brazil for the IGF in 2015 where any agreement might be reviewed by a broader community. Might make it part of a larger effort looking at the Internationalization of the IANA, if that's a topic for Brazil next year -- and I think it should be one of the topics. More on this in another email. > > Adam > > >> JK: Sanctions cannot be adopted without the US support. Any action under UN Chapter VII, including sanctions, must be agreed by the all 5 permanent members of the Security Council (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml). >> >> >> If that is the case, and VRSN complied (which I think they would fight >> BTW) then it would be a UN "power" and the US would just be an agent >> of the UN? >> >> JK: If the USA, like any other state, adopts certain UN convention or policy, it has obligation to implement it. If the USA supports decision on sanctions against certain country, it should implement the sanction regime. >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Joanna Kulesza -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 13 01:33:14 2013 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 07:33:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] GAC ccTLD Principles In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: http://archive.icann.org/en/committees/gac/gac-cctldprinciples-23feb00.htm Good morning: I suggest that those participating in this discussion read the GAC ccTLD Principles. Regards CW On 13 Dec 2013, at 00:25, Joanna Kulesza wrote: > Hi everyone, > > as much as this is my very first post on the list, the discussion is so riveting, I had to chip in, with a question rather than an opinion really. > > Would the ICANN "power" you were discussing not also be visible in the delegation/redelegation policy? Not "taking the country offline" but redelegating the management of the ccTLD to an entitiy more... willing to colaborate with ICANN/US? The case that always come to my mind when we speak about ICANN "power" over the online reflections of state sovereignty, that is the ccTLDs, is the 2004 Haiti case: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/14/haiti_kisses_icann_ring_rewarded/ or http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/0138212.Just for the sake of objectivity, here's the IANA take on the case: http://www.iana.org/reports/2004/ht-report-13jan04.html > > My question to the members of the list, should they choose to answer it, is simple - was this a stricly technical decision or would you consider it a politically influenced one? Does the Haiti case stand out? Are there any other examples of redelegation decision viewed as controversial, like this one? Is this a state sovereignty issue? Or not at all? > > Thank you, > Joanna Kulesza > > > 2013/12/12 George Sadowsky > All, > > Adam makes good points. > > I want to add something important that arises from the case of Palestine. > > As you know, the ISO 3166 list, maintained by the German National Statistical Organization, takes its input from the Un Statistical Office (UNSO), which has the authority to decide when an entry should be included. I worked in the UNSO from 1973-1986, and at one point was designing a data base for county statistics where the underlying country structure was dynamic and changed over time as countries merged and/or divided. The issue was how to improve statistical analysis when the underlying units of observation changed composition. > > The specific case of Israeli statistics came up, and I queried why Palestine was not considered to be a statistical entity so that the statistical profile of each entity could be more meaningful for analytical purposes. I was told that the decision of what was or was not a state of territory was political and not technical, and was communicated from the political authorities at the UN. That is why Palestine was blocked and had to wait until 2000 to be added to the root as a legitimate territory. > > So there you have it. The UN has the ultimate power of deciding what 'country codes' go into the root, not the US, and the UN uses it. > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > On Dec 12, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > Comment below: > > > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 6:20 AM, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > > > >> Here are a few comments in line with JK > >> > >> So what you are saying is that the UN could tell the US to stop > >> serving the records for a ccTLD and the US could then tell VRSN (by > >> court order?) to delete that ccTLD? > >> > > > > > > This potential of the U.S. deleting a ccTLD has been worried over since the earliest days of WSIS. But there have been wars and ccTLDs haven't been touched (.iq/Iraq). North Korea .KP works ok . Palestine, .PS delegated in 2000 and redelegated 2004. U.S. hasn't edited them out of the root zone, so it seems we shouldn't worry too much. However, whatever we think the U.S. might do or not do, this issue is unlikely to go away. It might be helpful to codify what looks like de facto policy, something like: 'The U.S. government will not unilaterally remove any TLD from the root.' (Write that up in nice language). > > > > This could be one of the topics for the meeting in Brazil next April, discussions that might kick-off a process to develop and agree a policy statement on root operations. Not going to agree anything much in two days, but might be able to agree on a charter of a working group to come up proposals/recommendations. A working group that reports progress and outcomes within the IGF process: first in Istanbul a few months later, then back to Brazil for the IGF in 2015 where any agreement might be reviewed by a broader community. Might make it part of a larger effort looking at the Internationalization of the IANA, if that's a topic for Brazil next year -- and I think it should be one of the topics. More on this in another email. > > > > Adam > > > > > >> JK: Sanctions cannot be adopted without the US support. Any action under UN Chapter VII, including sanctions, must be agreed by the all 5 permanent members of the Security Council (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml). > >> > >> > >> If that is the case, and VRSN complied (which I think they would fight > >> BTW) then it would be a UN "power" and the US would just be an agent > >> of the UN? > >> > >> JK: If the USA, like any other state, adopts certain UN convention or policy, it has obligation to implement it. If the USA supports decision on sanctions against certain country, it should implement the sanction regime. > >> > >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Joanna Kulesza > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 13 04:50:53 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:50:53 +0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [opennetcoalition] Crucial Moment Ahead for Net Neutrality at the EU Parliament Message-ID: <051001cef7e8$d23fc130$76bf4390$@gmail.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: La Quadrature du Net Date: Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:28 PM Subject: [opennetcoalition] Crucial Moment Ahead for Net Neutrality at the EU Parliament To: opennetcoalition at laquadrature.net Themes: NET NEUTRALITY, EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, CATHERINE TRAUTMANN, PILAR DEL CASTILLO VERA, NEELIE KROES La Quadrature du Net Permanent link: https://www.laquadrature.net/en/crucial-moment-ahead-for-net-neutrality-at-t he-eu-parliament Crucial Moment Ahead for Net Neutrality at the EU Parliament On September 11th, the European Commission adopted [1] an important legislative package geared to achieve the European Single Market of telecommunication and build thereby a connected continent. Since this summer La Quadrature du Net and others have tried to raise attention [2] to the threats contained in the proposal of the European Commission, especially concerning the protection of the Net neutrality principle, which the legislative proposal claims to defend in a deceiving manner [3]. This dossier is now on the table of the European Parliament [4], which is forced to work and make decisions under the pressure of a very tight calendar [5], conditioned by the upcoming elections and the political need – for each MEP involved in the process – to conclude their mandate with, at least, an intermediary legislative act. Unluckily, this scenario is not favourable to an in-depth, analytical and widespread debate on the different and relevant aspects of the proposal, which is quite technical in nature. Such a haste carries a high risk of disregard for the position of civil society organizations [6], whose contribution would be absolutely crucial to reach a decision based not purely on economic interests, but also on the defense of the freedom and rights of European citizens. Pilar del Castillo Vera (EPP - Spain), Chair of the European Internet Foundation[7] is the rapporteur appointed within the European Parliament on that file. Her draft report [8] was considered during an extraordinary meeting of the “Industry” (ITRE) Committee, held in Strasbourg on December 9th. Unluckily, the choice of the French seat, instead of the Belgian one, to hold this important step of the procedure [9], resulted de facto in a not-fully-transparent debate: no video has been distributed on the European Parliament website, which is apparently due to the absence of dedicated equipments in Strasbourg seat [10]. In addition to the non-trivial dysfunctions observed in the process, we've already pointed out [11] how the del Castillo's draft report disregards all the concerns voiced by civil society since last summer. The rapporteur's refusal to amend sensitive provisions – such as the definition of “specialised services” – would result de facto in inflicting a mortal blow to the Net neutrality principle. Until next Tuesday, on December 17th, MEPs have the opportunity to table amendments on the proposal of the European Commission and guarantee that EU citizens will be able to exert their freedom of expression and information on the Net. As a citizen platform, La Quadrature du Net provides the PiPhone [12], a web tool allowing to call Members of the ITRE Committee free of charge, to urge them to include in the final report an uncompromising vision of Net neutrality. We feel confident that, with the active support of the shadow rapporteurs, the proposal of the European Commission could be fixed in its critical points. In particular, we welcome Mrs Trautmann's (S&D - France) recent declarations at the annual conference of the European Competitive Telecommunication Association, which took place in Brussels on December 3rd. She said she wants to improve the definition of specialised services and obligate the Internet access providers to develop their activities within their networks. There is good opportunity for this to become the position of the European Parliament. If not, the Net neutrality principle will be undermined and the morphology of our communications and the nature of the information we will be able to access and impart would radically change. Protecting and defending the Net neutrality principle means thereby allowing the Internet to actively contribute to the functioning of modern democracies and protect citizens against any sorts of discrimination and abuse. If the foundations of that principle are – even barely – compromised, private stakeholders will hamper the normal and natural functioning of the Internet commons – whose rules would be decided by commercial and business logics. By Miriam Artino, in charge of legal and political analysis for La Quadrature du Net * References * 1. https://www.laquadrature.net/en/kroes-unacceptable-anti-net-neutrality-law-r ushed-despite-criticisms 2. https://www.laquadrature.net/en/why-the-eu-commissions-true-intent-is-to-kil l-net-neutrality 3. The proposal for a Regulation on the Telecom Package pretends to defend the Net neutrality principle by stating in its article 23.5 that “providers of Internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms [of communication] by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services”, but breaches this principle right before introducing it, allowing in its article 23.2 the provision of “specialised service [ ] with an enhanced quality of service" – that is to say services offering prioritization. 4. https://www.laquadrature.net/en/net-neutrality-eu-parliament-must-amend-kroe s-dangerous-proposal 5. https://www.laquadrature.net/en/will-the-eu-parliament-enable-discrimination -online-or-uncompromising-net-neutrality#footnote6_esccsw8 6. In the public hearing on the Commission’s proposal organised within the “Industry” (ITRE) committee on November 28th, no representative of the civil society was among contributors: https://www.laquadrature.net/files/20131128_ITRE_Public_hearing_NN.pdf 7. The European Internet Foundation brings together MEPs of various parties and experts representing often industry and technology interests: https://www.eifonline.org/ 8. https://laquadrature.net/files/Net%20Neutrality%20-%20Draft%20Report%20ITRE% 20-%20%20Del%20Castillo%20Vera.pdf 9. In the European decision-making process, the consideration of a report is a key moment, allowing citizens to understand what is the nature of the different positions an MEP will take on the file. 10. This is the explanation the services of the European Parliament gave us when we called for more information on the reason why we were not able to access the debate online. 11. https://www.laquadrature.net/en/will-the-eu-parliament-enable-discrimination -online-or-uncompromising-net-neutrality 12. https://piphone.lqdn.fr/campaign/call2/NetNeutrality-ITRE-nov_13 ** About La Quadrature du Net ** La Quadrature du Net is an advocacy group that defends the rights and freedoms of citizens on the Internet. More specifically, it advocates for the adaptation of French and European legislations to respect the founding principles of the Internet, most notably the free circulation of knowledge. In addition to its advocacy work, the group also aims to foster a better understanding of legislative processes among citizens. Through specific and pertinent information and tools, La Quadrature du Net hopes to encourage citizens' participation in the public debate on rights and freedoms in the digital age. La Quadrature du Net is supported by French, European and international NGOs including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Open Society Institute and Privacy International. List of supporting organisations: https://www.laquadrature.net/en/they-support-la-quadrature-du-net ** Press contact and press room ** Jérémie Zimmermann, jz at laquadrature.net, +33 (0)615 940 675 http://www.laquadrature.net/en/press-room ______________________________________________ Opennetcoalition mailing list Opennetcoalition at laquadrature.net https://laquadrature.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opennetcoalition -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Fri Dec 13 04:53:54 2013 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 11:53:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] GAC ccTLD Principles In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <52AAD932.7020003@digsys.bg> Also, it is good idea to take note of 4. 2) in RFC1591, which says: The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is not a country. The selection of the ISO 3166 list as a basis for country code top-level domain names was made with the knowledge that ISO has a procedure for determining which entities should be and should not be on that list. This is relevant, because the ICANN so many here to refer as an authority in this regard, at in fact a contractor to perform the IANA function. The real authority is IANA, and in it's original definition of it's TLD management policies it has said precisely the above. That document has never been revised, it is only interpreted from time to time (GAC Principles, the current FOI working group at ccNSO). The US Government has in fact delegated all of the "power" over DNS to IANA. Not impossible to influence it's decisions, but IANA performance has always been subject to much scrutiny by the community. Daniel On 13.12.13 08:33, CW Mail wrote: > http://archive.icann.org/en/committees/gac/gac-cctldprinciples-23feb00.htm > > > Good morning: > > I suggest that those participating in this discussion read the GAC > ccTLD Principles. > > Regards > > CW > > > > On 13 Dec 2013, at 00:25, Joanna Kulesza > wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> as much as this is my very first post on the list, the discussion is >> so riveting, I had to chip in, with a question rather than an opinion >> really. >> >> Would the ICANN "power" you were discussing not also be visible in >> the delegation/redelegation policy? Not "taking the country offline" >> but redelegating the management of the ccTLD to an entitiy more... >> willing to colaborate with ICANN/US? The case that always come to my >> mind when we speak about ICANN "power" over the online reflections of >> state sovereignty, that is the ccTLDs, is the 2004 Haiti case: >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/14/haiti_kisses_icann_ring_rewarded/ >> or http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/0138212.Just for >> the sake of objectivity, here's the IANA take on the case: >> http://www.iana.org/reports/2004/ht-report-13jan04.html >> >> My question to the members of the list, should they choose to answer >> it, is simple - was this a stricly technical decision or would you >> consider it a politically influenced one? Does the Haiti case stand >> out? Are there any other examples of redelegation decision viewed as >> controversial, like this one? Is this a state sovereignty issue? Or >> not at all? >> >> Thank you, >> Joanna Kulesza >> >> >> 2013/12/12 George Sadowsky > > >> >> All, >> >> Adam makes good points. >> >> I want to add something important that arises from the case of >> Palestine. >> >> As you know, the ISO 3166 list, maintained by the German National >> Statistical Organization, takes its input from the Un Statistical >> Office (UNSO), which has the authority to decide when an entry >> should be included. I worked in the UNSO from 1973-1986, and at >> one point was designing a data base for county statistics where >> the underlying country structure was dynamic and changed over >> time as countries merged and/or divided. The issue was how to >> improve statistical analysis when the underlying units of >> observation changed composition. >> >> The specific case of Israeli statistics came up, and I queried >> why Palestine was not considered to be a statistical entity so >> that the statistical profile of each entity could be more >> meaningful for analytical purposes. I was told that the decision >> of what was or was not a state of territory was political and not >> technical, and was communicated from the political authorities at >> the UN. That is why Palestine was blocked and had to wait until >> 2000 to be added to the root as a legitimate territory. >> >> So there you have it. The UN has the ultimate power of deciding >> what 'country codes' go into the root, not the US, and the UN >> uses it. >> >> George >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> >> On Dec 12, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> > Comment below: >> > >> > On Dec 10, 2013, at 6:20 AM, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: >> > >> >> Here are a few comments in line with JK >> >> >> >> So what you are saying is that the UN could tell the US to stop >> >> serving the records for a ccTLD and the US could then tell >> VRSN (by >> >> court order?) to delete that ccTLD? >> >> >> > >> > >> > This potential of the U.S. deleting a ccTLD has been worried >> over since the earliest days of WSIS. But there have been wars >> and ccTLDs haven't been touched (.iq/Iraq). North Korea .KP works >> ok . Palestine, .PS delegated in >> 2000 and redelegated 2004. U.S. hasn't edited them out of the >> root zone, so it seems we shouldn't worry too much. However, >> whatever we think the U.S. might do or not do, this issue is >> unlikely to go away. It might be helpful to codify what looks >> like de facto policy, something like: 'The U.S. government will >> not unilaterally remove any TLD from the root.' (Write that up in >> nice language). >> > >> > This could be one of the topics for the meeting in Brazil next >> April, discussions that might kick-off a process to develop and >> agree a policy statement on root operations. Not going to agree >> anything much in two days, but might be able to agree on a >> charter of a working group to come up proposals/recommendations. >> A working group that reports progress and outcomes within the IGF >> process: first in Istanbul a few months later, then back to >> Brazil for the IGF in 2015 where any agreement might be reviewed >> by a broader community. Might make it part of a larger effort >> looking at the Internationalization of the IANA, if that's a >> topic for Brazil next year -- and I think it should be one of the >> topics. More on this in another email. >> > >> > Adam >> > >> > >> >> JK: Sanctions cannot be adopted without the US support. Any >> action under UN Chapter VII, including sanctions, must be agreed >> by the all 5 permanent members of the Security Council >> (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml). >> >> >> >> >> >> If that is the case, and VRSN complied (which I think they >> would fight >> >> BTW) then it would be a UN "power" and the US would just be an >> agent >> >> of the UN? >> >> >> >> JK: If the USA, like any other state, adopts certain UN >> convention or policy, it has obligation to implement it. If the >> USA supports decision on sanctions against certain country, it >> should implement the sanction regime. >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Joanna Kulesza >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joannakulesza at gmail.com Fri Dec 13 05:40:12 2013 From: joannakulesza at gmail.com (Joanna Kulesza) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 11:40:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] GAC ccTLD Principles In-Reply-To: <52AAD932.7020003@digsys.bg> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> <52AAD932.7020003@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <52AAE40C.2030505@gmail.com> Just for the sake of argument: please try and locate the .eu, .ac and .uk ccTLDs on the ISO list. A similar argument might be made for .tp .yu and .su yet I realize that those domains are no longer accepting new registrations. The point is that there is some space left for IANA/ICANN in making their decisions despite the seemingly clear RFCs. Thanks, Joanna W dniu 2013-12-13 10:53, Daniel Kalchev pisze: > Also, it is good idea to take note of 4. 2) in RFC1591, which says: > > The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is > not a country. > > The selection of the ISO 3166 list as a basis for country code > top-level domain names was made with the knowledge that ISO has a > procedure for determining which entities should be and should not > be on that list. > > This is relevant, because the ICANN so many here to refer as an > authority in this regard, at in fact a contractor to perform the IANA > function. The real authority is IANA, and in it's original definition > of it's TLD management policies it has said precisely the above. That > document has never been revised, it is only interpreted from time to > time (GAC Principles, the current FOI working group at ccNSO). > > The US Government has in fact delegated all of the "power" over DNS to > IANA. Not impossible to influence it's decisions, but IANA performance > has always been subject to much scrutiny by the community. > > Daniel > > On 13.12.13 08:33, CW Mail wrote: >> http://archive.icann.org/en/committees/gac/gac-cctldprinciples-23feb00.htm >> >> >> Good morning: >> >> I suggest that those participating in this discussion read the GAC >> ccTLD Principles. >> >> Regards >> >> CW >> >> >> >> On 13 Dec 2013, at 00:25, Joanna Kulesza > > wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> as much as this is my very first post on the list, the discussion is >>> so riveting, I had to chip in, with a question rather than an >>> opinion really. >>> >>> Would the ICANN "power" you were discussing not also be visible in >>> the delegation/redelegation policy? Not "taking the country offline" >>> but redelegating the management of the ccTLD to an entitiy more... >>> willing to colaborate with ICANN/US? The case that always come to my >>> mind when we speak about ICANN "power" over the online reflections >>> of state sovereignty, that is the ccTLDs, is the 2004 Haiti case: >>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/14/haiti_kisses_icann_ring_rewarded/ >>> or http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/0138212.Just >>> for the sake of objectivity, here's the IANA take on the case: >>> http://www.iana.org/reports/2004/ht-report-13jan04.html >>> >>> My question to the members of the list, should they choose to answer >>> it, is simple - was this a stricly technical decision or would you >>> consider it a politically influenced one? Does the Haiti case stand >>> out? Are there any other examples of redelegation decision viewed as >>> controversial, like this one? Is this a state sovereignty issue? Or >>> not at all? >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Joanna Kulesza >>> >>> >>> 2013/12/12 George Sadowsky >> > >>> >>> All, >>> >>> Adam makes good points. >>> >>> I want to add something important that arises from the case of >>> Palestine. >>> >>> As you know, the ISO 3166 list, maintained by the German >>> National Statistical Organization, takes its input from the Un >>> Statistical Office (UNSO), which has the authority to decide >>> when an entry should be included. I worked in the UNSO from >>> 1973-1986, and at one point was designing a data base for county >>> statistics where the underlying country structure was dynamic >>> and changed over time as countries merged and/or divided. The >>> issue was how to improve statistical analysis when the >>> underlying units of observation changed composition. >>> >>> The specific case of Israeli statistics came up, and I queried >>> why Palestine was not considered to be a statistical entity so >>> that the statistical profile of each entity could be more >>> meaningful for analytical purposes. I was told that the >>> decision of what was or was not a state of territory was >>> political and not technical, and was communicated from the >>> political authorities at the UN. That is why Palestine was >>> blocked and had to wait until 2000 to be added to the root as a >>> legitimate territory. >>> >>> So there you have it. The UN has the ultimate power of deciding >>> what 'country codes' go into the root, not the US, and the UN >>> uses it. >>> >>> George >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> >>> On Dec 12, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>> > Comment below: >>> > >>> > On Dec 10, 2013, at 6:20 AM, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: >>> > >>> >> Here are a few comments in line with JK >>> >> >>> >> So what you are saying is that the UN could tell the US to stop >>> >> serving the records for a ccTLD and the US could then tell >>> VRSN (by >>> >> court order?) to delete that ccTLD? >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > This potential of the U.S. deleting a ccTLD has been worried >>> over since the earliest days of WSIS. But there have been wars >>> and ccTLDs haven't been touched (.iq/Iraq). North Korea .KP >>> works ok . Palestine, .PS >>> delegated in 2000 and redelegated 2004. U.S. hasn't edited them >>> out of the root zone, so it seems we shouldn't worry too much. >>> However, whatever we think the U.S. might do or not do, this >>> issue is unlikely to go away. It might be helpful to codify >>> what looks like de facto policy, something like: 'The U.S. >>> government will not unilaterally remove any TLD from the root.' >>> (Write that up in nice language). >>> > >>> > This could be one of the topics for the meeting in Brazil next >>> April, discussions that might kick-off a process to develop and >>> agree a policy statement on root operations. Not going to agree >>> anything much in two days, but might be able to agree on a >>> charter of a working group to come up proposals/recommendations. >>> A working group that reports progress and outcomes within the >>> IGF process: first in Istanbul a few months later, then back to >>> Brazil for the IGF in 2015 where any agreement might be reviewed >>> by a broader community. Might make it part of a larger effort >>> looking at the Internationalization of the IANA, if that's a >>> topic for Brazil next year -- and I think it should be one of >>> the topics. More on this in another email. >>> > >>> > Adam >>> > >>> > >>> >> JK: Sanctions cannot be adopted without the US support. Any >>> action under UN Chapter VII, including sanctions, must be >>> agreed by the all 5 permanent members of the Security Council >>> (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml). >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> If that is the case, and VRSN complied (which I think they >>> would fight >>> >> BTW) then it would be a UN "power" and the US would just be >>> an agent >>> >> of the UN? >>> >> >>> >> JK: If the USA, like any other state, adopts certain UN >>> convention or policy, it has obligation to implement it. If the >>> USA supports decision on sanctions against certain country, it >>> should implement the sanction regime. >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> > >>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> > >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Joanna Kulesza >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joannakulesza at gmail.com Fri Dec 13 05:58:58 2013 From: joannakulesza at gmail.com (Joanna Kulesza) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 11:58:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Thanks for this example Kerry. I think it all boils down to the language of the RFC 1591 where in pt. 4 it states that "4) Significantly interested parties in the domain should agree that the designated manager is the appropriate party." Who decides on the scope and legitimacy of the "significantly interested parties in the domain"? IANA? Is it also IANA who asseses that there is "agreement"? Or is it "the community"? Meaning who? I believe there is no doubt that states hold no particular role in assigning the ccTLD manager, even though ccTLDs are perceived by some as manifestations of nationality. States are to be considered one of the "significantly interested parties" and seek consensus. With IANA/ICANN being the judge of the consensus in place. Just for the record - I am not saying it's a bad thing, just seeking confirmation on the facts as I see them. Will appreciate any comments or corrections. Thanks, Joanna 2013/12/13 Kerry Brown > As a current director of CIRA who are delegated to run .ca as designated > by the Canadian government I too find the discussion fascinating. I was not > on CIRA’s board when the relegation from UBC to CIRA took place. John Demco > who had the original delegation at UBC is on our board and I’ve had many > discussions with him about the process. Here is a link that outlines the > process IRA went through. > > http://www.iana.org/reports/2000/ca-report-01dec00.html > > My understanding of the process for delegation into the IANA/ICANN root > is that the government of the country can request the delegation be changed > to another party. It is then up to IANA to determine the validity of the > request and providing it is valid the ccTLD will be delegated to the entity > specified by the government. > > Kerry Brown > > From: Joanna Kulesza > Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > Joanna Kulesza > Date: Thursday, December 12, 2013 at 3:25 PM > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > Subject: Re: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the > Internet root, not US > > Hi everyone, > > as much as this is my very first post on the list, the discussion is so > riveting, I had to chip in, with a question rather than an opinion really. > > Would the ICANN "power" you were discussing not also be visible in the > delegation/redelegation policy? Not "taking the country offline" but > redelegating the management of the ccTLD to an entitiy more... willing to > colaborate with ICANN/US? The case that always come to my mind when we > speak about ICANN "power" over the online reflections of state sovereignty, > that is the ccTLDs, is the 2004 Haiti case: > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/14/haiti_kisses_icann_ring_rewarded/ > or http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/0138212.Just for the > sake of objectivity, here's the IANA take on the case: > http://www.iana.org/reports/2004/ht-report-13jan04.html > > My question to the members of the list, should they choose to answer it, > is simple - was this a stricly technical decision or would you consider it > a politically influenced one? Does the Haiti case stand out? Are there any > other examples of redelegation decision viewed as controversial, like this > one? Is this a state sovereignty issue? Or not at all? > > Thank you, > Joanna Kulesza > > > 2013/12/12 George Sadowsky > >> All, >> >> Adam makes good points. >> >> I want to add something important that arises from the case of Palestine. >> >> As you know, the ISO 3166 list, maintained by the German National >> Statistical Organization, takes its input from the Un Statistical Office >> (UNSO), which has the authority to decide when an entry should be included. >> I worked in the UNSO from 1973-1986, and at one point was designing a data >> base for county statistics where the underlying country structure was >> dynamic and changed over time as countries merged and/or divided. The >> issue was how to improve statistical analysis when the underlying units of >> observation changed composition. >> >> The specific case of Israeli statistics came up, and I queried why >> Palestine was not considered to be a statistical entity so that the >> statistical profile of each entity could be more meaningful for analytical >> purposes. I was told that the decision of what was or was not a state of >> territory was political and not technical, and was communicated from the >> political authorities at the UN. That is why Palestine was blocked and had >> to wait until 2000 to be added to the root as a legitimate territory. >> >> So there you have it. The UN has the ultimate power of deciding what >> 'country codes' go into the root, not the US, and the UN uses it. >> >> George >> >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> >> On Dec 12, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> > Comment below: >> > >> > On Dec 10, 2013, at 6:20 AM, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: >> > >> >> Here are a few comments in line with JK >> >> >> >> So what you are saying is that the UN could tell the US to stop >> >> serving the records for a ccTLD and the US could then tell VRSN (by >> >> court order?) to delete that ccTLD? >> >> >> > >> > >> > This potential of the U.S. deleting a ccTLD has been worried over since >> the earliest days of WSIS. But there have been wars and ccTLDs haven't been >> touched (.iq/Iraq). North Korea .KP works ok < >> http://www.naenara.com.kp/en/>. Palestine, .PS delegated in 2000 and >> redelegated 2004. U.S. hasn't edited them out of the root zone, so it >> seems we shouldn't worry too much. However, whatever we think the U.S. >> might do or not do, this issue is unlikely to go away. It might be helpful >> to codify what looks like de facto policy, something like: 'The U.S. >> government will not unilaterally remove any TLD from the root.' (Write that >> up in nice language). >> > >> > This could be one of the topics for the meeting in Brazil next April, >> discussions that might kick-off a process to develop and agree a policy >> statement on root operations. Not going to agree anything much in two >> days, but might be able to agree on a charter of a working group to come up >> proposals/recommendations. A working group that reports progress and >> outcomes within the IGF process: first in Istanbul a few months later, then >> back to Brazil for the IGF in 2015 where any agreement might be reviewed by >> a broader community. Might make it part of a larger effort looking at the >> Internationalization of the IANA, if that's a topic for Brazil next year -- >> and I think it should be one of the topics. More on this in another email. >> > >> > Adam >> > >> > >> >> JK: Sanctions cannot be adopted without the US support. Any action >> under UN Chapter VII, including sanctions, must be agreed by the all 5 >> permanent members of the Security Council ( >> http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml). >> >> >> >> >> >> If that is the case, and VRSN complied (which I think they would fight >> >> BTW) then it would be a UN "power" and the US would just be an agent >> >> of the UN? >> >> >> >> JK: If the USA, like any other state, adopts certain UN convention or >> policy, it has obligation to implement it. If the USA supports decision on >> sanctions against certain country, it should implement the sanction regime. >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Joanna Kulesza > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Joanna Kulesza -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Fri Dec 13 06:27:13 2013 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 13:27:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <52AAEF11.80408@digsys.bg> As already mentioned, because of questionable practices by IANA in ICANN's "grey period" the policy defined in RFC1591 and further "clarified" by the GAC Principles is being curently interpreted by a broadly constituted working group under the authority of the ccNSO. The group is far from finished with this task, but a lot of findings could be found at: http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/foiwg.htm The topic who the community is and how significant the Government's role in that community is a difficult one to solve --- considering especially, that most governments do not even recognize their is community besides their own party/leader/other interests. As with everything else in Internet, this too requires cooperation and broader inclusion -- especially as it turns out Governments have absolutely no control over the network, other than what the community has let them have. In essence, your observations are correct. Daniel On 13.12.13 12:58, Joanna Kulesza wrote: > Thanks for this example Kerry. > > I think it all boils down to the language of the RFC 1591 where in pt. > 4 it states that "4) Significantly interested parties in the domain > should agree that the designated manager is the appropriate party." > Who decides on the scope and legitimacy of the "significantly > interested parties in the domain"? IANA? Is it also IANA who asseses > that there is "agreement"? Or is it "the community"? Meaning who? > > I believe there is no doubt that states hold no particular role in > assigning the ccTLD manager, even though ccTLDs are perceived by some > as manifestations of nationality. States are to be considered one of > the "significantly interested parties" and seek consensus. With > IANA/ICANN being the judge of the consensus in place. Just for the > record - I am not saying it's a bad thing, just seeking confirmation > on the facts as I see them. Will appreciate any comments or corrections. > > Thanks, > Joanna > > > > 2013/12/13 Kerry Brown > > > As a current director of CIRA who are delegated to run .ca as > designated by the Canadian government I too find the discussion > fascinating. I was not on CIRA’s board when the relegation from > UBC to CIRA took place. John Demco who had the original delegation > at UBC is on our board and I’ve had many discussions with him > about the process. Here is a link that outlines the process IRA > went through. > > http://www.iana.org/reports/2000/ca-report-01dec00.html > > My understanding of the process for delegation into the IANA/ICANN > root is that the government of the country can request the > delegation be changed to another party. It is then up to IANA to > determine the validity of the request and providing it is valid > the ccTLD will be delegated to the entity specified by the government. > > Kerry Brown > > From: Joanna Kulesza > > Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org > " > >, Joanna Kulesza > > > Date: Thursday, December 12, 2013 at 3:25 PM > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org > " > > > Subject: Re: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the > Internet root, not US > > Hi everyone, > > as much as this is my very first post on the list, the > discussion is so riveting, I had to chip in, with a question > rather than an opinion really. > > Would the ICANN "power" you were discussing not also be > visible in the delegation/redelegation policy? Not "taking the > country offline" but redelegating the management of the ccTLD > to an entitiy more... willing to colaborate with ICANN/US? The > case that always come to my mind when we speak about ICANN > "power" over the online reflections of state sovereignty, that > is the ccTLDs, is the 2004 Haiti case: > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/14/haiti_kisses_icann_ring_rewarded/ > or > http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/0138212.Just > for the sake of objectivity, here's the IANA take on the case: > http://www.iana.org/reports/2004/ht-report-13jan04.html > > My question to the members of the list, should they choose to > answer it, is simple - was this a stricly technical decision > or would you consider it a politically influenced one? Does > the Haiti case stand out? Are there any other examples of > redelegation decision viewed as controversial, like this one? > Is this a state sovereignty issue? Or not at all? > > Thank you, > Joanna Kulesza > > > 2013/12/12 George Sadowsky > > > All, > > Adam makes good points. > > I want to add something important that arises from the > case of Palestine. > > As you know, the ISO 3166 list, maintained by the German > National Statistical Organization, takes its input from > the Un Statistical Office (UNSO), which has the authority > to decide when an entry should be included. I worked in > the UNSO from 1973-1986, and at one point was designing a > data base for county statistics where the underlying > country structure was dynamic and changed over time as > countries merged and/or divided. The issue was how to > improve statistical analysis when the underlying units of > observation changed composition. > > The specific case of Israeli statistics came up, and I > queried why Palestine was not considered to be a > statistical entity so that the statistical profile of each > entity could be more meaningful for analytical purposes. > I was told that the decision of what was or was not a > state of territory was political and not technical, and > was communicated from the political authorities at the UN. > That is why Palestine was blocked and had to wait until > 2000 to be added to the root as a legitimate territory. > > So there you have it. The UN has the ultimate power of > deciding what 'country codes' go into the root, not the > US, and the UN uses it. > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > On Dec 12, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > Comment below: > > > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 6:20 AM, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > > > >> Here are a few comments in line with JK > >> > >> So what you are saying is that the UN could tell the US > to stop > >> serving the records for a ccTLD and the US could then > tell VRSN (by > >> court order?) to delete that ccTLD? > >> > > > > > > This potential of the U.S. deleting a ccTLD has been > worried over since the earliest days of WSIS. But there > have been wars and ccTLDs haven't been touched (.iq/Iraq). > North Korea .KP works ok . > Palestine, .PS delegated in 2000 and redelegated 2004. > U.S. hasn't edited them out of the root zone, so it seems > we shouldn't worry too much. However, whatever we think > the U.S. might do or not do, this issue is unlikely to go > away. It might be helpful to codify what looks like de > facto policy, something like: 'The U.S. government will > not unilaterally remove any TLD from the root.' (Write > that up in nice language). > > > > This could be one of the topics for the meeting in > Brazil next April, discussions that might kick-off a > process to develop and agree a policy statement on root > operations. Not going to agree anything much in two days, > but might be able to agree on a charter of a working group > to come up proposals/recommendations. A working group that > reports progress and outcomes within the IGF process: > first in Istanbul a few months later, then back to Brazil > for the IGF in 2015 where any agreement might be reviewed > by a broader community. Might make it part of a larger > effort looking at the Internationalization of the IANA, if > that's a topic for Brazil next year -- and I think it > should be one of the topics. More on this in another email. > > > > Adam > > > > > >> JK: Sanctions cannot be adopted without the US support. > Any action under UN Chapter VII, including sanctions, > must be agreed by the all 5 permanent members of the > Security Council > (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml). > >> > >> > >> If that is the case, and VRSN complied (which I think > they would fight > >> BTW) then it would be a UN "power" and the US would > just be an agent > >> of the UN? > >> > >> JK: If the USA, like any other state, adopts certain UN > convention or policy, it has obligation to implement it. > If the USA supports decision on sanctions against certain > country, it should implement the sanction regime. > >> > >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > Joanna Kulesza > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Joanna Kulesza -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 13 08:08:58 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 22:08:58 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [opennetcoalition] Crucial Moment Ahead for Net Neutrality at the EU Parliament In-Reply-To: <051001cef7e8$d23fc130$76bf4390$@gmail.com> References: <051001cef7e8$d23fc130$76bf4390$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks Michael. Have you read del Castillo Vera's proposed amendments mentioned in the article , what do you think? Some text in recital 47 that a few civil society organizations in Brussels found offensive has been deleted. Generally looks to have strengthened not weakened the Commissions proposals. But the politicians would do that: the package seems highly unlikely to pass, but they still get to say I defended the open Internet in elections next May. Adam On Dec 13, 2013, at 6:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: La Quadrature du Net > Date: Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:28 PM > Subject: [opennetcoalition] Crucial Moment Ahead for Net Neutrality at the EU Parliament > To: opennetcoalition at laquadrature.net > > > Themes: NET NEUTRALITY, EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, CATHERINE TRAUTMANN, PILAR DEL CASTILLO VERA, NEELIE KROES > > La Quadrature du Net > > Permanent link: https://www.laquadrature.net/en/crucial-moment-ahead-for-net-neutrality-at-the-eu-parliament > > > Crucial Moment Ahead for Net Neutrality at the EU Parliament > > > > On September 11th, the European Commission adopted [1] an important legislative package geared to achieve the European Single Market of telecommunication and build thereby a connected continent. > > Since this summer La Quadrature du Net and others have tried to raise attention [2] to the threats contained in the proposal of the European Commission, especially concerning the protection of the Net neutrality principle, which the legislative proposal claims to defend in a deceiving manner [3]. > > This dossier is now on the table of the European Parliament [4], which is forced to work and make decisions under the pressure of a very tight calendar [5], conditioned by the upcoming elections and the political need – for each MEP involved in the process – to conclude their mandate with, at least, an intermediary legislative act. Unluckily, this scenario is not favourable to an in-depth, analytical and widespread debate on the different and relevant aspects of the proposal, which is quite technical in nature. > > Such a haste carries a high risk of disregard for the position of civil society organizations [6], whose contribution would be absolutely crucial to reach a decision based not purely on economic interests, but also on the defense of the freedom and rights of European citizens. > > Pilar del Castillo Vera (EPP - Spain), Chair of the European Internet Foundation[7] is the rapporteur appointed within the European Parliament on that file. Her draft report [8] was considered during an extraordinary meeting of the “Industry” (ITRE) Committee, held in Strasbourg on December 9th. Unluckily, the choice of the French seat, instead of the Belgian one, to hold this important step of the procedure [9], resulted de facto in a not-fully-transparent debate: no video has been distributed on the European Parliament website, which is apparently due to the absence of dedicated equipments in Strasbourg seat [10]. > > In addition to the non-trivial dysfunctions observed in the process, we've already pointed out [11] how the del Castillo's draft report disregards all the concerns voiced by civil society since last summer. The rapporteur's refusal to amend sensitive provisions – such as the definition of “specialised services” – would result de facto in inflicting a mortal blow to the Net neutrality principle. > > Until next Tuesday, on December 17th, MEPs have the opportunity to table amendments on the proposal of the European Commission and guarantee that EU citizens will be able to exert their freedom of expression and information on the Net. As a citizen platform, La Quadrature du Net provides the PiPhone [12], a web tool allowing to call Members of the ITRE Committee free of charge, to urge them to include in the final report an uncompromising vision of Net neutrality. > > We feel confident that, with the active support of the shadow rapporteurs, the proposal of the European Commission could be fixed in its critical points. In particular, we welcome Mrs Trautmann's (S&D - France) recent declarations at the annual conference of the European Competitive Telecommunication Association, which took place in Brussels on December 3rd. She said she wants to improve the definition of specialised services and obligate the Internet access providers to develop their activities within their networks. > > There is good opportunity for this to become the position of the European Parliament. If not, the Net neutrality principle will be undermined and the morphology of our communications and the nature of the information we will be able to access and impart would radically change. > > Protecting and defending the Net neutrality principle means thereby allowing the Internet to actively contribute to the functioning of modern democracies and protect citizens against any sorts of discrimination and abuse. If the foundations of that principle are – even barely – compromised, private stakeholders will hamper the normal and natural functioning of the Internet commons – whose rules would be decided by commercial and business logics. > > By Miriam Artino, in charge of legal and political analysis for La Quadrature du Net > > > > > > * References * > > 1. https://www.laquadrature.net/en/kroes-unacceptable-anti-net-neutrality-law-rushed-despite-criticisms > > 2. https://www.laquadrature.net/en/why-the-eu-commissions-true-intent-is-to-kill-net-neutrality > > 3. The proposal for a Regulation on the Telecom Package pretends to defend the Net neutrality principle by stating in its article 23.5 that “providers of Internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms [of communication] by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services”, but breaches this principle right before introducing it, allowing in its article 23.2 the provision of “specialised service […] with an enhanced quality of service" – that is to say services offering prioritization. > > 4. https://www.laquadrature.net/en/net-neutrality-eu-parliament-must-amend-kroes-dangerous-proposal > > 5. https://www.laquadrature.net/en/will-the-eu-parliament-enable-discrimination-online-or-uncompromising-net-neutrality#footnote6_esccsw8 > > 6. In the public hearing on the Commission’s proposal organised within the “Industry” (ITRE) committee on November 28th, no representative of the civil society was among contributors:https://www.laquadrature.net/files/20131128_ITRE_Public_hearing_NN.pdf > > 7. The European Internet Foundation brings together MEPs of various parties and experts representing often industry and technology interests: https://www.eifonline.org/ > > 8. https://laquadrature.net/files/Net%20Neutrality%20-%20Draft%20Report%20ITRE%20-%20%20Del%20Castillo%20Vera.pdf > > 9. In the European decision-making process, the consideration of a report is a key moment, allowing citizens to understand what is the nature of the different positions an MEP will take on the file. > > 10. This is the explanation the services of the European Parliament gave us when we called for more information on the reason why we were not able to access the debate online. > > 11. https://www.laquadrature.net/en/will-the-eu-parliament-enable-discrimination-online-or-uncompromising-net-neutrality > > 12. https://piphone.lqdn.fr/campaign/call2/NetNeutrality-ITRE-nov_13 > > > > > > > ** About La Quadrature du Net ** > > > La Quadrature du Net is an advocacy group that defends the rights and freedoms of citizens on the Internet. More specifically, it advocates for the adaptation of French and European legislations to respect the founding principles of the Internet, most notably the free circulation of knowledge. > > In addition to its advocacy work, the group also aims to foster a better understanding of legislative processes among citizens. Through specific and pertinent information and tools, La Quadrature du Net hopes to encourage citizens' participation in the public debate on rights and freedoms in the digital age. > > La Quadrature du Net is supported by French, European and international NGOs including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Open Society Institute and Privacy International. > > List of supporting organisations: https://www.laquadrature.net/en/they-support-la-quadrature-du-net > > > ** Press contact and press room ** > > Jérémie Zimmermann, jz at laquadrature.net, +33 (0)615 940 675 > > http://www.laquadrature.net/en/press-room > > ______________________________________________ > Opennetcoalition mailing list > Opennetcoalition at laquadrature.net > https://laquadrature.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opennetcoalition > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Fri Dec 13 12:25:41 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 17:25:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: I think the people in this discussion are failing to distinguish who “owns” the ccTLD and the process by which the DNS zone for the ccTLD is inserted into the root. I would argue that most ccTLDs would agree that the government of the country involved “owns" the ccTLD. I can’t imagine IANA not changing the delegation after receiving a legitimate request from a UN recognized government. The repercussions would be profound. Another point that hasn’t been brought up is that many ccTLDs do not have any contract with IANA/ICANN and pay no fees to have their zone in the root. The above not withstanding I have always considered that IANA is under control of the US government and would accede to any instructions from the US government regarding delegation. I don’t like this but I believe it is the reality. So far to my knowledge the US government has never intervened but in a time of war I could certainly imagine that it might happen. I can also imagine a powerful lobby group (copyright) convincing the US government to alter a ccTLD zone. Both of these cases would probably be the end of one root. I would very much like to see the root moved out of US control but I am at a loss as to how this could be accomplished without eventually fracturing the root into several forks. Kerry Brown From: Joanna Kulesza > Date: Friday, December 13, 2013 at 2:58 AM To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >, Kerry Brown > Subject: Re: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US Thanks for this example Kerry. I think it all boils down to the language of the RFC 1591 where in pt. 4 it states that "4) Significantly interested parties in the domain should agree that the designated manager is the appropriate party." Who decides on the scope and legitimacy of the "significantly interested parties in the domain"? IANA? Is it also IANA who asseses that there is "agreement"? Or is it "the community"? Meaning who? I believe there is no doubt that states hold no particular role in assigning the ccTLD manager, even though ccTLDs are perceived by some as manifestations of nationality. States are to be considered one of the "significantly interested parties" and seek consensus. With IANA/ICANN being the judge of the consensus in place. Just for the record - I am not saying it's a bad thing, just seeking confirmation on the facts as I see them. Will appreciate any comments or corrections. Thanks, Joanna 2013/12/13 Kerry Brown > As a current director of CIRA who are delegated to run .ca as designated by the Canadian government I too find the discussion fascinating. I was not on CIRA’s board when the relegation from UBC to CIRA took place. John Demco who had the original delegation at UBC is on our board and I’ve had many discussions with him about the process. Here is a link that outlines the process IRA went through. http://www.iana.org/reports/2000/ca-report-01dec00.html My understanding of the process for delegation into the IANA/ICANN root is that the government of the country can request the delegation be changed to another party. It is then up to IANA to determine the validity of the request and providing it is valid the ccTLD will be delegated to the entity specified by the government. Kerry Brown From: Joanna Kulesza > Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >, Joanna Kulesza > Date: Thursday, December 12, 2013 at 3:25 PM To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > Subject: Re: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US Hi everyone, as much as this is my very first post on the list, the discussion is so riveting, I had to chip in, with a question rather than an opinion really. Would the ICANN "power" you were discussing not also be visible in the delegation/redelegation policy? Not "taking the country offline" but redelegating the management of the ccTLD to an entitiy more... willing to colaborate with ICANN/US? The case that always come to my mind when we speak about ICANN "power" over the online reflections of state sovereignty, that is the ccTLDs, is the 2004 Haiti case: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/14/haiti_kisses_icann_ring_rewarded/ or http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/0138212.Just for the sake of objectivity, here's the IANA take on the case: http://www.iana.org/reports/2004/ht-report-13jan04.html My question to the members of the list, should they choose to answer it, is simple - was this a stricly technical decision or would you consider it a politically influenced one? Does the Haiti case stand out? Are there any other examples of redelegation decision viewed as controversial, like this one? Is this a state sovereignty issue? Or not at all? Thank you, Joanna Kulesza 2013/12/12 George Sadowsky > All, Adam makes good points. I want to add something important that arises from the case of Palestine. As you know, the ISO 3166 list, maintained by the German National Statistical Organization, takes its input from the Un Statistical Office (UNSO), which has the authority to decide when an entry should be included. I worked in the UNSO from 1973-1986, and at one point was designing a data base for county statistics where the underlying country structure was dynamic and changed over time as countries merged and/or divided. The issue was how to improve statistical analysis when the underlying units of observation changed composition. The specific case of Israeli statistics came up, and I queried why Palestine was not considered to be a statistical entity so that the statistical profile of each entity could be more meaningful for analytical purposes. I was told that the decision of what was or was not a state of territory was political and not technical, and was communicated from the political authorities at the UN. That is why Palestine was blocked and had to wait until 2000 to be added to the root as a legitimate territory. So there you have it. The UN has the ultimate power of deciding what 'country codes' go into the root, not the US, and the UN uses it. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Dec 12, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Comment below: > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 6:20 AM, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > >> Here are a few comments in line with JK >> >> So what you are saying is that the UN could tell the US to stop >> serving the records for a ccTLD and the US could then tell VRSN (by >> court order?) to delete that ccTLD? >> > > > This potential of the U.S. deleting a ccTLD has been worried over since the earliest days of WSIS. But there have been wars and ccTLDs haven't been touched (.iq/Iraq). North Korea .KP works ok . Palestine, .PS delegated in 2000 and redelegated 2004. U.S. hasn't edited them out of the root zone, so it seems we shouldn't worry too much. However, whatever we think the U.S. might do or not do, this issue is unlikely to go away. It might be helpful to codify what looks like de facto policy, something like: 'The U.S. government will not unilaterally remove any TLD from the root.' (Write that up in nice language). > > This could be one of the topics for the meeting in Brazil next April, discussions that might kick-off a process to develop and agree a policy statement on root operations. Not going to agree anything much in two days, but might be able to agree on a charter of a working group to come up proposals/recommendations. A working group that reports progress and outcomes within the IGF process: first in Istanbul a few months later, then back to Brazil for the IGF in 2015 where any agreement might be reviewed by a broader community. Might make it part of a larger effort looking at the Internationalization of the IANA, if that's a topic for Brazil next year -- and I think it should be one of the topics. More on this in another email. > > Adam > > >> JK: Sanctions cannot be adopted without the US support. Any action under UN Chapter VII, including sanctions, must be agreed by the all 5 permanent members of the Security Council (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml). >> >> >> If that is the case, and VRSN complied (which I think they would fight >> BTW) then it would be a UN "power" and the US would just be an agent >> of the UN? >> >> JK: If the USA, like any other state, adopts certain UN convention or policy, it has obligation to implement it. If the USA supports decision on sanctions against certain country, it should implement the sanction regime. >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Joanna Kulesza ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Joanna Kulesza -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Fri Dec 13 11:59:51 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 08:59:51 -0800 Subject: [governance] GAC ccTLD Principles In-Reply-To: <52AAE40C.2030505@gmail.com> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> <52AAD932.7020003@digsys.bg> <52AAE40C.2 030505@g mail.com> Message-ID: <1E4046AA-9A5B-408D-A311-3F507929777E@virtualized.org> Joanna, On Dec 13, 2013, at 2:40 AM, Joanna Kulesza wrote: > Just for the sake of argument: please try and locate the .eu, .ac and .uk ccTLDs on the ISO list. This should probably be in a FAQ someplace. Please see the ISO-3166 Decoding Table: http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-3166-1_decoding_table (BTW, pedantic phraseology nit: ccTLDs are not on the ISO list. ISO 3166/MA maintains a list of (two- and three-letter) country codes, the two-letter version of which is used to derive ccTLDs. This distinction is important as it demonstrates the chain of authority.) As you can see from that table, EU, AC, UK, and a number of others are "Exceptionally Reserved" which ISO defines to mean "Code element may be used but restrictions may apply". IANA, even before ICANN, interpreted any code that is green ("allocated") or yellow ("exceptionally reserved") in that table to be available for delegation as a ccTLD (albeit other restrictions obviously apply). Note that there are some folks who believe IANA should only use the green ("allocated") codes, but I figure that ship sailed long before ICANN was established. > A similar argument might be made for .tp .yu and .su yet I realize that those domains are no longer accepting new registrations. TP and YU are "Transitionally Reserved" the use of which ISO-3166/MA has indicated should stop "ASAP". SU was moved from "Transitionally Reserved" to "Exceptionally Reserved" by ISO-3166/MA a few years back (a bit of a story there that I could rant on about, but that's probably a different thread). My understanding is that .SU does, in fact, accept new registrations. > The point is that there is some space left for IANA/ICANN in making their decisions despite the seemingly clear RFCs. With regards to what defines a ccTLD, not so much. 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 drc at virtualized.org Fri Dec 13 12:19:12 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 09:19:12 -0800 Subject: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US In-Reply-To: <52AAEF11.80408@digsys.bg> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> <52AAEF11.80408@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <66D9983A-3FE2-4E79-8474-E62AC3DA03F8@virtualized.org> Daniel, On Dec 13, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > As already mentioned, because of questionable practices by IANA in ICANN's "grey period" the policy defined in RFC1591 and further "clarified" by the GAC Principles is being curently interpreted by a broadly constituted working group under the authority of the ccNSO. Back when I was there, one of the hardest jobs folks at IANA had was trying to establish the interests of the "local Internet community", particularly in the context of the GAC Principles. There are a number of folks (perhaps not surprisingly, many of which are on the GAC) who believe that if a government says "redelegate the ccTLD to Bob", IANA should do so with no questions asked. Unfortunately, historically, this proved problematic -- there were cases (long ago) in which IANA did essentially this, resulting in the ccTLD becoming unreachable because the government designated administrators were not capable/competent/knowledgable enough in the operation of the DNS. Since the failure to resolve a ccTLD impacts all names within that TLD as well as anyone in any other domain attempting to reach names within the TLD, it was felt that security/stability concerns for the Internet as a whole required a broader view than simply the ccTLD's government's view and the interests of the "local Internet community" (a term that has never to my knowledge been defined) had to be taken into account. I'm sure any of the folks trying to interpret the (arguably) conflicting requirements of RFC 1591 and the GAC Principles are looking forward to the output of the FOI working group. Regards, -drc -------------- 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Dec 13 13:46:04 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 13:46:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: > I think the people in this discussion are failing to distinguish who “owns” > the ccTLD and the process by which the DNS zone for the ccTLD is inserted > into the root. The above are 2 separate things. Ideally, ccTLDs are not 'owned" rather they have 'stewards'. I would argue that most ccTLDs would agree that the > government of the country involved “owns" the ccTLD. I think it is an empirical question. One that in my experience is about 50-50. I can’t imagine IANA > not changing the delegation after receiving a legitimate request from a UN > recognized government. This is a common occurrence. I lived in .ug for 5 years, and the gov there really wanted to do a re-delegation, so far it hasn't happened. .rw has taken many, many years and there are many other examples. >The repercussions would be profound. So far they have not been. Another point > that hasn’t been brought up is that many ccTLDs do not have any contract > with IANA/ICANN and pay no fees to have their zone in the root. > > The above not withstanding I have always considered that IANA is under > control of the US government and would accede to any instructions from the > US government regarding delegation. I don't recall reading any such provision in the IANA contract. The USG probably does have a say in the .us delegation, but not in other ccTLDs AFAIK. I don’t like this but I believe it is > the reality. So far to my knowledge the US government has never intervened > but in a time of war I could certainly imagine that it might happen. I can > also imagine a powerful lobby group (copyright) convincing the US government > to alter a ccTLD zone. Via a registry/registrar in the US, yes, but not to remove a ccTLD entirely. >Both of these cases would probably be the end of one > root. that seems to be the conventional wisdom. I would very much like to see the root moved out of US control but I > am at a loss as to how this could be accomplished without eventually > fracturing the root into several forks. > The easy way would be to first remove the NTIA from their auth role. Then the contract itself could be amended to be a perpetual non-revokable thing, but that is the harder bit. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Dec 13 14:00:50 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 06:00:50 +1100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: <7199908E-ED13-4FBE-9414-7FB3A1D28891@gmail.com> References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BDBF2@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <7199908E-ED13-4FBE-9414-7FB3A1D28891@gmail.com> Message-ID: Have just received advice that Anriette Esterhuysen has been added to this panel now and next meeting will be in February. Anriette was chosen over Milton Mueller "for reasons of diversity". This has apparently been discussed with panel and accepted. Be interesting in due course to get reports from our various observers/experts on what (if anything) of significance happened in London. Ian Peter -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Fri Dec 13 14:12:50 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 19:12:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > > I think the people in this discussion are failing to distinguish who "owns" > > the ccTLD and the process by which the DNS zone for the ccTLD is > > inserted into the root. > > The above are 2 separate things. Ideally, ccTLDs are not 'owned" > rather they have 'stewards'. > I agree. That is why I had it in quotes. Couldn't figure out what terminology to use. Stewards is better. > > I would argue that most ccTLDs would agree that the > > government of the country involved "owns" the ccTLD. > > > I think it is an empirical question. One that in my experience is about 50-50. > Given the leaked draft of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement I would say at least some countries believe they can regulate ccTLDs if not own them. I wonder what would happen if a country signed the final TPPA and then the ccTLD operator didn't conform. Would they request a redelegation? It is certainly a confusing area of interest. Kerry Brown -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Dec 13 14:58:11 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 14:58:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> > I think the people in this discussion are failing to distinguish who "owns" >> > the ccTLD and the process by which the DNS zone for the ccTLD is >> > inserted into the root. >> >> The above are 2 separate things. Ideally, ccTLDs are not 'owned" >> rather they have 'stewards'. >> > > I agree. That is why I had it in quotes. Couldn't figure out what terminology to use. Stewards is better. > >> >> I would argue that most ccTLDs would agree that the >> > government of the country involved "owns" the ccTLD. >> >> >> I think it is an empirical question. One that in my experience is about 50-50. >> > > Given the leaked draft of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement I would say at least some countries believe they can regulate ccTLDs if not own them. Many believe this, some actually *do* have complete control. there is a whole spectrum of ccTLD management entities from authoritarian to egalitarian. >I wonder what would happen if a country signed the final TPPA and then the ccTLD operator didn't conform. Would they request a redelegation? They might, but the IANA wouldn't necessarily comply -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Fri Dec 13 16:18:28 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 14:18:28 -0700 Subject: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <51344B82-C325-4222-927B-503FAB4303A9@virtualized.org> Kerry, On Dec 13, 2013, at 10:25 AM, Kerry Brown wrote: > I think the people in this discussion are failing to distinguish who “owns” the ccTLD and the process by which the DNS zone for the ccTLD is inserted into the root. Not surprising as the concept of who "owns" (or, as McTim mentions, "stewards") the ccTLD is highly ambiguous (I suspect purposefully) and/or contentious (a direct result of the ambiguity). > I would argue that most ccTLDs would agree that the government of the country involved “owns" the ccTLD. Some would. A number would argue quite strongly against this, as would a number of folks who were involved in the drafting of RFC 1591. > I can’t imagine IANA not changing the delegation after receiving a legitimate request from a UN recognized government. The repercussions would be profound. It has happened a number of times and the repercussions were mostly a lot of unhappiness, people running to NTIA to demand IANA processes be shortcut/ignored (which NTIA never to my knowledge even considered), and even people running to the ITU where more entertainment ensued. One of the problems is figuring out who speaks for the "government". I've had personal experience where multiple ministries within a single country have each demanded IANA force a redelegation to their ministry (within days of each other). I've also had personal experience where a delegation to the UN-recognized "government" of a ISO-3166-designated region was objected to (with extreme insistence) by the UN-recognized "region administrator". And then there were the cases where the folks the "government" nominated to run the TLD were opposed by other parts of the "government" (and, in some cases, pretty much everyone else in the country from ISPs to civil society to academia: "we don't want a combination of our equivalent of the NSA and the Mafia to operate our TLD"). Another problem is that the mission of ICANN is "to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the *stable and secure* operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems" and IANA has received demands to do redelegations to folks who were demonstrably unable to operate a DNS infrastructure in a "stable and secure" manner. Should IANA staff do a redelegation when it is obvious the redelegation will fatally break the country's DNS infrastructure? > Another point that hasn’t been brought up is that many ccTLDs do not have any contract with IANA/ICANN and pay no fees to have their zone in the root. As far as I am aware, there are no contracts between ICANN and any ccTLD. There are a number of agreements of various flavors, but I do not believe the vast majority pay any fees to ICANN for IANA-related services. > The above not withstanding I have always considered that IANA is under control of the US government and would accede to any instructions from the US government regarding delegation. In the sense that ICANN is under a contractual agreement to the US government to perform the IANA functions, this is true. > I don’t like this but I believe it is the reality. So far to my knowledge the US government has never intervened but in a time of war I could certainly imagine that it might happen. To my knowledge, they have never intervened period (despite being at war, participating in UN sanction activities, not having diplomatic relations, etc. at times). > I can also imagine a powerful lobby group (copyright) convincing the US government to alter a ccTLD zone. If the US government did not take action during wartime, I'm skeptical it would take action at the demand of any lobbying group. > Both of these cases would probably be the end of one root. Exactly. > I would very much like to see the root moved out of US control but I am at a loss as to how this could be accomplished without eventually fracturing the root into several forks. Isn't this part of what some of the various "Internet Governance" discussions trying to work out? 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 joannakulesza at gmail.com Fri Dec 13 17:21:12 2013 From: joannakulesza at gmail.com (Joanna Kulesza) Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 23:21:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] GAC ccTLD Principles In-Reply-To: <1E4046AA-9A5B-408D-A311-3F507929777E@virtualized.org> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> <52AAD932.7020003@digsys.bg> <52AAE40C.2030505@g mail.com> <1E4046AA-9A5B-408D-A311-3F507929777E@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <52AB8858.7040901@gmail.com> Hi David, many thanks for this clarification, I must admit I was aware of the "special" character of those ccTLDs, but I find it important to be discussed here on the list. Taking the argument made a step further one might ask why we have a .eu and not .ax, .cp, .dg, .ea, .ic etc. One might still consider that there is some flexibility left to IANA in including elements of the reserve list into the ccTLD catalogue. I suppose that would be the argument of the "folks who believe IANA should only use the green ("allocated") codes. I'm not saying it's ICANN's job to fix it - I'm just saying there is no simple, solely "technical" transition of the political UN decision on statehood into the IANA ccTLD root. Best, Joanna P.S. Many thanks for the link - the table is very helpful for visualising all the various ccTLD elements all at once. W dniu 2013-12-13 17:59, David Conrad pisze: > Joanna, > > On Dec 13, 2013, at 2:40 AM, Joanna Kulesza > wrote: >> Just for the sake of argument: please try and locate the .eu, .ac and >> .uk ccTLDs on the ISO list. > > This should probably be in a FAQ someplace. Please see the ISO-3166 > Decoding Table: http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-3166-1_decoding_table > > (BTW, pedantic phraseology nit: ccTLDs are not on the ISO list. ISO > 3166/MA maintains a list of (two- and three-letter) country codes, the > two-letter version of which is used to derive ccTLDs. This > distinction is important as it demonstrates the chain of authority.) > > As you can see from that table, EU, AC, UK, and a number of others are > "Exceptionally Reserved" which ISO defines to mean "Code element may > be used but restrictions may apply". > > IANA, even before ICANN, interpreted any code that is green > ("allocated") or yellow ("exceptionally reserved") in that table to be > available for delegation as a ccTLD (albeit other restrictions > obviously apply). Note that there are some folks who believe IANA > should only use the green ("allocated") codes, but I figure that ship > sailed long before ICANN was established. > >> A similar argument might be made for .tp .yu and .su yet I realize >> that those domains are no longer accepting new registrations. > > TP and YU are "Transitionally Reserved" the use of which ISO-3166/MA > has indicated should stop "ASAP". SU was moved from "Transitionally > Reserved" to "Exceptionally Reserved" by ISO-3166/MA a few years back > (a bit of a story there that I could rant on about, but that's > probably a different thread). My understanding is that .SU does, in > fact, accept new registrations. > >> The point is that there is some space left for IANA/ICANN in making >> their decisions despite the seemingly clear RFCs. > > With regards to what defines a ccTLD, not so much. > > Regards, > -drc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Dec 13 20:50:55 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 08:50:55 +0700 Subject: (part 2) [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com>, <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257BFB5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <117101cef6da$cd94af60$68be0e20$@gmail.com> <7CFD9307-1B80-4777-B759-7AD39D207063@gmail.com> <3C6BE527-9146-4F83-9B28-0C2B9DCA5D7B@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <01e401cef86e$f628c0c0$e27a4240$@gmail.com> Thanks for this Adam, it does begin to lay out some of the issues that will need to be addressed and also to clarify some of the points of disagreement that will equally need to be addressed... but I’m a bit surprised at the way that you’ve taken Rousseff and Chehade’s bold and even visionary initiative and turned it into a mini-pre-IGF. I’m not sure who will find what you are proposing of that much interest apart from those desperate to maintain the status quo, certainly I would have thought, not most in CS, at least those outside of these rather narrow and unrepresentative boundaries, but maybe that’s the point Let me comment inline... -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 10:16 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; George Sadowsky Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Bits Subject: Re: (part 2) [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps carrying on from my last email, sorry for the length... Brazil is a wonderful opportunity, so here are some ideas about how I think it could proceed. [MG>] yes Purpose. A two-day meeting to discuss a limited number of IG issues/challenges. Address how to resolve those issues by creating a number of working groups which will report back to the 2015 IGF in Brazil. The Brazil meeting to charter each working group, charters can be reviewed and if necessary finalized at the 2014 IGF in Istanbul (IGF consultation in May can also be used.) IGF Istanbul and opportunity to check on progress, tweak, and set the WG off to report back the following year (opportunity for review during the typical February and May IGF sessions of 2015.) [MG>] I think that this rather over-privileges the IGF (see comments below) and a more appropriate approach, and one which gives the Brazil event the significance that I believe it could and should warrant would be to develop working groups before the Brazil meeting to develop working papers and even proposals that might be addressed during the session. A possible outcome would then be follow-on working groups or whatever seemed appropriate under the circumstances. I think it is both presumptuous and mistaken to pre-judge the outcomes as you have done here and I’m hoping (and expecting) that the planners for Brazil will take the event rather more seriously then you seem to be doing. The IGF is an established global process with some participation from all stakeholders. Participation must be improved, but it is the best we have for interested parties to discuss as peers. [MG>] I think that one of the necessary elements and subjects for discussion should be the future of the IGF and what if any role it might play in the mechanisms for Internet Governance. From my limited observations while the scope of the IGF discussions have broadened over the years alongside the developing significance of the Internet overall, as others have also noted the range of participation/participants has become narrower and narrower—fewer high level officials, fewer significant participants from LDC’s, little if any extension in the range of content participation, little if any serious social diversity beyond the (useful) tokenism of “interns” or “trainees” or “ambassadors’ (i.e. links into other areas where the Internet is of increasing significance and concern I think that the narrowness in the perspectives and lack of imagination and overall “de-politicization” of the IGF through the deadening hand of a self-reproducing MAG, is, to a very considerable degree responsible for this and if the IGF is to have a serious role these issues will have to be addressed quite directly. I should add that what little experience I’ve had with the national/regional IGF’s strongly suggests that they are a very positive addition within their local Internet ecologies but the evident difficulties in making an appropriate linkage between them and the global IGF would seem to further reinforce my above observations. Brazil is an opportunity to strengthen the IGF, make it more relevant, more useful. And at the same time give the Brazil meeting a means to be more than just another two days of talk. [MG>] Brazil is to my mind a significant opportunity to break out of the fairly rigid and largely trivializing mode that the IGF has fallen into and one can only hope that this opportunity is taken advantage of. Themes. Importance of Bali IGF as a starting point for identifying themes. The Brazil "summit" was an important topic referred to repeatedly during sessions in Bali. The Montevideo Statement attracted almost as much interest and support. [MG>] yes Bali's been the only opportunity we've had to hear a broad spectrum of views on the proposal to meet in Brazil, the only significant gathering of different stakeholders where that meeting and why it was called has been discussed. There were rich discussions in Bali, they are worth building on, we aren't staring from nothing. The chair's summary attempts to cover some topics < http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/Chair's%20Summary%20IGF%202013%20Final.Nov1v1 .pdf>, the transcripts provide a full record < http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-2013-transcripts> A few things I think there's some agreement on: [MG>] agreement among whom, and how is this agreement ascertained apart from within the echo chamber - The Brazil meeting should focus on dialogue, not in itself be a decision making event. [MG>] see above I see no justification for this position to be taken at this time and certainly not by a shadowy group of “those who are in agreement” - Widespread support for the IGF: the Brazil meeting should not in anyway replace/undermine the IGF (and nor should 1net.) [MG>] see above ibid. - Widespread support for the five principles President Rousseff proposed to the UN general assembly (they inspired Fadi Chehadé to meet her and to call for the meeting). [MG>] yes - The Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation is widely supported (also by Brazil govt representatives during the IGF.) [MG>] yes - The multi-stakeholder approach must be strengthened; there is concern about a coming period of multilateral processes. [MG>] I have no idea whether this is true or not, but it seems to me to be a bit odd to “strengthen” something for which there is no agreed upon definition, no clear procedures for its operation, no wide agreement on who the “stakeholders” are, how they might determined, what their possible role and “powers” might be and so on.. The first priority I would have thought would be to get some clarity and consistency in what we mean by “multistakeholder” and then decide whether it should or needs to be “strengthened” - Condemnation of surveillance. [MG>] yes - Agreement that global principles protecting human rights online should be developed and adopted (a close fit with President Rousseff's principles, and also Marco Civil -- the still draft Brazilian bill of online rights.) [MG>] yes More recently the Brazil Steering committee announcement < http://www.nic.br/imprensa/releases/2013/rl-2013-62.htm> refers to President Rousseff's UN speech and to the Montevideo Statement and says of the meeting it should "pursue consensus about universally accepted governance principles and to improve their institutional framework." [MG>] yes I suggest the meeting should focus on universal governance principles (Rousseff) and institutional framework (Montevideo, and noting that parts of statement are complementary with Rousseff's principles.) [MG>] yes I think we can take it that "institutional framework" refers to IANA and ICANN, the original themes of Internet governance. Gives seven main discussion themes for the meeting: President Rousseff (speech to the UN General Assembly), principles and norms to help guide the international operation of the Internet: 1. Freedom of expression, privacy of the individual and respect for human rights. 2. Open, multilateral and democratic governance, carried out with transparency by stimulating collective creativity and the participation of society, governments and the private sector. 3. Universality that ensures the social and human development and the construction of inclusive and non-discriminatory societies. 4. Cultural diversity, without the imposition of beliefs, customs and values. 5. Neutrality of the network, guided only by technical and ethical criteria, rendering it inadmissible to restrict it for political, commercial, religious or any other purposes. [MG>] yes Original issues of Internet governance and from the Montevideo Statement: 6 & 7. The globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing, i.e. development of new institutional framework. [MG>] yes These fall into five main areas: (1) Good work's done on Internet governance principles and cooperation in many organizations and fora, these were well presented in Bali. Bring the different actors together for Brazil, invite them to join a working group and collectively develop a set of principles for global governance, tasks completed by IGF 2015. To address aspects of Rousseff 1-4 and parts of the Montevideo Statement. [MG>] This is a serious trivialization of what Ms. Rousseff articulated. I don’t see how it is possible to follow the process you are proposing i.e. “Bring the different actors together for Brazil, invite them to join a working group and collectively develop a set of principles for global governance, tasks completed by IGF 2015” and have any serious addressing of the issues the President of Brazil identified as for example, the very significant issues involved in achieving #3Universality that ensures the social and human development and the construction of inclusive and non-discriminatory societies. with similar caveats concerning Rousseff’s items #1, 2 and 4 What you have said seems to me to be deeply insulting of the very real concerns regarding the future of the Internet as a fundamental infrastructure for all aspects of daily life, that Ms. Rousseff was articulating and which many around the world responded to with hope and vigour. (2) Global principles for protecting Human Rights online. Work's been done by various parties, from the UN Rapporteur to more recently a group leading international authors, and a collection of U.S. Internet companies. In Bali the Swedish Government presented seven fundamental principles that should apply to maintain respect for human rights when carrying out surveillance of electronic communications -- these were strongly supported, they refer to legality, legitimate aim, necessity and adequacy, proportionality, judicial authority, transparency, and public oversight. And of course there's much more. Brazil is an opportunity to bring these parties together, hear their ideas and set the tasks for a working group to develop appropriate and working principles. [MG>] I would have said exactly the opposite process should be undertaken i.e. have these parties get together in advance of Brazil, develop a common position and work with others during Brazil to identify actionable items towards effective and useful ways forward It is not hard to imagine working groups on these themes producing adoptable outcome [MG>] as I said it will be much more useful to have inputs which can be processed towards actionable outputs rather than anticipate possible outcomes which are most likely to get lost in the vast windiness of the neverneverland IGF (3) President Rousseff's fifth topic, Network Neutrality, might be harder to reach consensus on. But that doesn't mean discussion of different approaches to network neutrality would not be valuable (e.g. proposed regulation in Europe, actual situations elsewhere, the IGF net neutrality coalition reported in Bali, greater consideration of what network neutrality means in developing markets, particularly mobile). If a working group was unable to reach definite recommendations, one still might be established with the task of providing model frameworks, an overview of different approaches and critiques of them. [MG>] see above (4) Institutional Framework for the IANA function. Internet tech community has been making recommendations since 2006, RIRs made proposals for an independent IANA function during the last re-bid of the contract. Civil society actors have made proposals and have strong opinions... so do governments. A multi-stakeholder discussion of IANA, root zone database and Verisign's contract with NTIA, the root operators and whether their work needs more oversight, this is a discussion I think needs to happen. Give a working group 18 months to develop a new institutional framework. [MG>] see above (5) Globalization of ICANN. What would an independent ICANN look like? How would an independent ICANN be globally accountable? An affirmation of commitments between ICANN and us not U.S. From oversight by one government to no government, or oversight by all? What kind of host country agreement, what protections? And many more questions. A working group might monitor the Accountability and Transparency Review Team process and provide advice on ICANN's internal processes, while also propose new models for independence. [MG>] see above 18 months to get an international framework for IANA into acceptable shape, for principles on good governance and human rights, for some dialogue that may or may not shape some domestic policy on net neutrality, to provide models for an independent ICANN. [MG>] see above Between now and April 2014 various actors invited to make proposals, papers to help shape discussion, and provide ideas as to charters for the working groups. The Brazil meeting discusses issues, the charters and tasks of working groups, sets ground rules for there operation (multi-stakeholder, transparency, etc). [MG>] see above September 2014, IGF in Istanbul can be used to review progress, perhaps recommend changes. Not hard to imagine a role for the high-level/ministerial pre-meeting. Tasks to be complete by IGF of 2015 back in Brazil. The IGF offers check-points along the way: first in May 2014 when the MAG typically meets to finalize the agenda for the year, and two meetings in 2015. The IGF is our only substantive multi-stakeholder process, it's known, it can be a means to carry work forward, so use it. And make the Brazil meeting more than talk. [MG>] see above I must say that your faith in the IGF (a body whose most widely acknowledged, even celebrated, achievement is that it has not achieved anything much at all) as a means of carrying out the quite ambitious tasks being set for it (by you) is either charming, if naïve, or something rather more shall we say, in the form of a deliberate misdirection. M Adam On Dec 12, 2013, at 12:28 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > I find this a refreshing view of civil society representative issues, and I take Mike's point that looking at a model with polar choices may not get at the real issue. > > I understand the concern about being at the table, especially when from a CS point of view, other actors have the potential, and often the intent, to weaken CS goals. > > Mike's comments strengthen the hypothesis that the arguments over representation really represent a proxy dispute for representation issues unsolved within the CS representative community. If that is the case, and CS is attempting to represent a diverse and apparently disparate set of views not bound by rough consensus, that helps to explain why specific representation is believed to be so important. > > Has there been any attempt to do some cluster analysis, quantitative or intuitive. on the divergent views, so that areas of agreement can be more sharply defined, and clusters of areas of disagreement also be identified? I suspect that these are difficult topics to discuss, in part because of believing that a united front provides more strength vis-à-vis other stakeholder groups, and exposing differences within the group could be regarded by some as an indication of weakness or disarray. > > Thanks for this analysis, Mike! > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > On Dec 11, 2013, at 8:38 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> I think the issues are rather different from the polarity Milton (and George) are posing It isn’t just an issue of representation or substance but rather representation and substance or rather representation being necessary for substance Even though there appears to be some issues with recognizing this in our current context. >> >> I’m also copying this to BestBits and by implication the “steering committee” (or whatever it is currently being called) >> >> So far, I have yet to see any specific recognition or more importantly accommodation to the quite evident differences as between various groupings within Civil Society as to the nature of the substantive inputs that will be given into any framework for which nominations are/will/should be solicited. >> >> There are I believe, quite significant differences with respect to how matters of Internet Governance could/should be addressed/resolved within (IG based) CS (as there is of course, in the larger CS and non-CS world >> >> These differences apart from the cartoonish mis-characterizations pro-offered by certain irresponsible elements are serious and reflect different perspectives (and broad societally based interests) on how an overall balance towards a democratic, just and inclusive Internet can be achieved. >> >> Either these differences are reflected first within whatever approach to selection is entered into and then in the range of nominees themselves; or the selection process will be illegitimate, have done CS overall a major disservice, and any illusions of a common CS front will be impossible. And one can expect that the resulting parallel strategies for representation will be pursued with the utmost vigour including through whatever means of public visibility might be available. >> >> The usual process within CS of opting for “identity” based modes of “representivity” i.e. gender, region, age etc. is clearly insufficient in a context as fundamental and as normatively/substantively divided as the one that we are currently dealing with. >> >> I believe however, that there is within CS a broad underlying agreement on overall values with respect to IG and the future of the internet. I think it would be a serious mistake to not have the principled disagreements on how best to achieve those ultimate goals reflected within whatever representations CS makes in the various venues in the days going forward so that a united CS can move forward towards those goals. >> >> Best, >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller >> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 3:53 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Marilia Maciel >> Subject: RE: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps >> >> Thank you. Marilia's position as stated below reflects exactly my own. >> >> The point is not, as Jeanette mistakenly argues, that there is a "madness" about filling committee positions to the exclusion of substantive debate. No one can fairly accuse me, of all people, of failing to actively formulate positions on the substantive issues. That's what I spend most of my time doing. >> >> The problem is that we were told to provide names, we did a lot of work to do so, and then those names were disregarded. This will have long term consequences regarding other requests by 1net (and we still do not have a statement as to who is actually making decisions on behalf of 1net) for participation in the future. 1net really needs to think carefully about what kind of precedents it is setting and how much trust it is or is not building here. >> >> I have to say I am especially unimpressed with the statements from Mr. Sadowsky. When he says, "concentrate on substance, don't pay any attention to who is represented on committees," it has absolutely no credibility, because it comes from a person who is at least connected to, or more likely is actually one of the people making, decisions behind the scenes. George might do better to keep silent or to just recognize that a mess was made and apologize for it. If it truly doesn't matter who is on these committees, why did ICANN appoint some people to them and not others? And why not tell us who is making decisions for 1net? >> >> Let me make it clear: I attribute most of this problem to disorganization and bad procedure rather than ill intent. But when lame rationalizations are offered for the effects of the disorganization it contributes to ill will. >> >> --MM >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Sat Dec 14 03:09:52 2013 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 10:09:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <52AC1250.5010502@digsys.bg> On 13.12.13 19:25, Kerry Brown wrote: > I think the people in this discussion are failing to distinguish who > “owns” the ccTLD and the process by which the DNS zone for the ccTLD > is inserted into the root. Again, to cite from RFC1591: 3. The Administration of Delegated Domains [...] 2) These designated authorities are trustees for the delegated domain, and have a duty to serve the community. The designated manager is the trustee of the top-level domain for both the nation, in the case of a country code, and the global Internet community. Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are inappropriate. It is appropriate to be concerned about "responsibilities" and "service" to the community. This pretty much sums it all up, in rather condensed language. > I would argue that most ccTLDs would agree that the government of the > country involved “owns" the ccTLD. A government, in any "civilized" country owns nothing. The government is a group of individuals elected to do certain work for the public benefit. When you employ someone, they don't obtain ownership rights to (your) property they are hired to look after. We can of course say, that a ccTLD is assigned to a country/territory (as long as it has the appropriate association in the ISO-3166 list). That pretty much defines the "ownership" of the ccTLD by the country (but not government). Ownership of the ccTLD database, DNS zone file, etc by the ccTLD manager is an completely unrelated issue. In most countries, this is defined as property and transfer of such property from one party to another is considered a property sale. Making that property public, so that it can be managed (not owned) by the government is known as "nationalization". Property transfer is not something IANA has ever claimed to deal with and so RFC1591 leaves that to be resolved as "local matter". > I can’t imagine IANA not changing the delegation after receiving a > legitimate request from a UN recognized government. I can't imagine a reasonable government making such a request in the first place. I have discussed this with our own government officials of the day, who at various times (we operate the registry 22 years already, a lot of governments with different agendas came and went away) desired to re-delegate the ccTLD (without being able to explain why). Their primary problem was finding a way to ask an private foreign entity to do them a favor, and do this publicly. There is no law in my country, and I believe in most countries that permits such activity. The government also cannot pay such an foreign private entity any "membership fees" etc. Yet, our government has tried this several times. Going back to the times where Jon Postel was still around and ICANN was not even a dream. These attempts have always been politely refused. So facts point that IANA has not changed the delegation after receiving a legitimate request from a UN recognized government. What is more important, in recent years the GAC came to the understanding this is not even necessary or desirable. Perhaps because, it was demonstrated few times already how a new government can wreak havoc in an country's economics, yet not influence it's DNS/Internet infrastructure. > The repercussions would be profound. Another point that hasn’t been > brought up is that many ccTLDs do not have any contract with > IANA/ICANN and pay no fees to have their zone in the root. There have never been written contracts. On the other hand, most ccTLD managers take their responsibilities very seriously. I would trust any "old-time" ccTLD manager without contract more, than I would trust any newcomer, be it Government "approved" (contributed to their campaign?) with a contract. But that is me. Anyone else is free to trust contracts more. > > The above not withstanding I have always considered that IANA is under > control of the US government and would accede to any instructions from > the US government regarding delegation. Any change in the DNS root is subject to authorization by the USG. Therefore, the process is a bit different. IANA is pretty much independent in processing the request. It then may, or may not be implemented. I have no knowledge of the USG refusing to approve an IANA root zone change request, but I may be wrong. > I don’t like this but I believe it is the reality. So far to my > knowledge the US government has never intervened but in a time of war > I could certainly imagine that it might happen. I can also imagine a > powerful lobby group (copyright) convincing the US government to alter > a ccTLD zone. Both of these cases would probably be the end of one > root. I would very much like to see the root moved out of US control > but I am at a loss as to how this could be accomplished without > eventually fracturing the root into several forks. I believe the current informal trust relationship suits the US government and they feel no need to intervene. They use the current model to dampen the push of any special interest groups (who often include governments). If ever contracts are enforced on ccTLDs, or more formal procedures are established, the USG will be forced to act and I can see how easy the situation might become ugly. It could be even worse if the final say on root zone changes move out of the US, a situation commonly referred to as "shared irresponsibility". If you will remember 1998, an experiment was made back then to move the IANA out of the US (control)... which only resulted in the creation of ICANN. Daniel > > Kerry Brown > > From: Joanna Kulesza > > Date: Friday, December 13, 2013 at 2:58 AM > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org > " >, Kerry Brown > > > Subject: Re: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the > Internet root, not US > > Thanks for this example Kerry. > > I think it all boils down to the language of the RFC 1591 where in > pt. 4 it states that "4) Significantly interested parties in the > domain should agree that the designated manager is the appropriate > party." Who decides on the scope and legitimacy of the > "significantly interested parties in the domain"? IANA? Is it also > IANA who asseses that there is "agreement"? Or is it "the > community"? Meaning who? > > I believe there is no doubt that states hold no particular role in > assigning the ccTLD manager, even though ccTLDs are perceived by > some as manifestations of nationality. States are to be considered > one of the "significantly interested parties" and seek consensus. > With IANA/ICANN being the judge of the consensus in place. Just > for the record - I am not saying it's a bad thing, just seeking > confirmation on the facts as I see them. Will appreciate any > comments or corrections. > > Thanks, > Joanna > > > > 2013/12/13 Kerry Brown > > > As a current director of CIRA who are delegated to run .ca as > designated by the Canadian government I too find the > discussion fascinating. I was not on CIRA’s board when the > relegation from UBC to CIRA took place. John Demco who had the > original delegation at UBC is on our board and I’ve had many > discussions with him about the process. Here is a link that > outlines the process IRA went through. > > http://www.iana.org/reports/2000/ca-report-01dec00.html > > My understanding of the process for delegation into the > IANA/ICANN root is that the government of the country can > request the delegation be changed to another party. It is then > up to IANA to determine the validity of the request and > providing it is valid the ccTLD will be delegated to the > entity specified by the government. > > Kerry Brown > > From: Joanna Kulesza > > Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org > " > >, Joanna Kulesza > > > Date: Thursday, December 12, 2013 at 3:25 PM > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org > " > > > Subject: Re: [governance] UN controls the country code part of > the Internet root, not US > > Hi everyone, > > as much as this is my very first post on the list, the > discussion is so riveting, I had to chip in, with a > question rather than an opinion really. > > Would the ICANN "power" you were discussing not also be > visible in the delegation/redelegation policy? Not "taking > the country offline" but redelegating the management of > the ccTLD to an entitiy more... willing to colaborate with > ICANN/US? The case that always come to my mind when we > speak about ICANN "power" over the online reflections of > state sovereignty, that is the ccTLDs, is the 2004 Haiti > case: > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/14/haiti_kisses_icann_ring_rewarded/ > or > http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/26/0138212.Just > for the sake of objectivity, here's the IANA take on the > case: http://www.iana.org/reports/2004/ht-report-13jan04.html > > My question to the members of the list, should they choose > to answer it, is simple - was this a stricly technical > decision or would you consider it a politically influenced > one? Does the Haiti case stand out? Are there any other > examples of redelegation decision viewed as controversial, > like this one? Is this a state sovereignty issue? Or not > at all? > > Thank you, > Joanna Kulesza > > > 2013/12/12 George Sadowsky > > > All, > > Adam makes good points. > > I want to add something important that arises from the > case of Palestine. > > As you know, the ISO 3166 list, maintained by the > German National Statistical Organization, takes its > input from the Un Statistical Office (UNSO), which has > the authority to decide when an entry should be > included. I worked in the UNSO from 1973-1986, and at > one point was designing a data base for county > statistics where the underlying country structure was > dynamic and changed over time as countries merged > and/or divided. The issue was how to improve > statistical analysis when the underlying units of > observation changed composition. > > The specific case of Israeli statistics came up, and I > queried why Palestine was not considered to be a > statistical entity so that the statistical profile of > each entity could be more meaningful for analytical > purposes. I was told that the decision of what was or > was not a state of territory was political and not > technical, and was communicated from the political > authorities at the UN. That is why Palestine was > blocked and had to wait until 2000 to be added to the > root as a legitimate territory. > > So there you have it. The UN has the ultimate power > of deciding what 'country codes' go into the root, not > the US, and the UN uses it. > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > On Dec 12, 2013, at 8:22 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > Comment below: > > > > On Dec 10, 2013, at 6:20 AM, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > > > >> Here are a few comments in line with JK > >> > >> So what you are saying is that the UN could tell > the US to stop > >> serving the records for a ccTLD and the US could > then tell VRSN (by > >> court order?) to delete that ccTLD? > >> > > > > > > This potential of the U.S. deleting a ccTLD has been > worried over since the earliest days of WSIS. But > there have been wars and ccTLDs haven't been touched > (.iq/Iraq). North Korea .KP works ok > . Palestine, .PS > delegated in 2000 and redelegated 2004. U.S. hasn't > edited them out of the root zone, so it seems we > shouldn't worry too much. However, whatever we think > the U.S. might do or not do, this issue is unlikely to > go away. It might be helpful to codify what looks > like de facto policy, something like: 'The U.S. > government will not unilaterally remove any TLD from > the root.' (Write that up in nice language). > > > > This could be one of the topics for the meeting in > Brazil next April, discussions that might kick-off a > process to develop and agree a policy statement on > root operations. Not going to agree anything much in > two days, but might be able to agree on a charter of a > working group to come up proposals/recommendations. A > working group that reports progress and outcomes > within the IGF process: first in Istanbul a few months > later, then back to Brazil for the IGF in 2015 where > any agreement might be reviewed by a broader > community. Might make it part of a larger effort > looking at the Internationalization of the IANA, if > that's a topic for Brazil next year -- and I think it > should be one of the topics. More on this in another > email. > > > > Adam > > > > > >> JK: Sanctions cannot be adopted without the US > support. Any action under UN Chapter VII, including > sanctions, must be agreed by the all 5 permanent > members of the Security Council > (http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml). > >> > >> > >> If that is the case, and VRSN complied (which I > think they would fight > >> BTW) then it would be a UN "power" and the US would > just be an agent > >> of the UN? > >> > >> JK: If the USA, like any other state, adopts > certain UN convention or policy, it has obligation to > implement it. If the USA supports decision on > sanctions against certain country, it should implement > the sanction regime. > >> > >> > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Joanna Kulesza > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > Joanna Kulesza > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Dec 14 05:36:27 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 19:36:27 +0900 Subject: [governance] press release about meeting of the high level panel Message-ID: <723F73B1-F8BE-42F5-A373-2C7E0FFD3210@glocom.ac.jp> http://www.telegraphindia.com/pressrelease/prnw/en33449.html -- High-Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms Convenes in London PR Newswire LONDON, Dec. 13, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- The Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms -- a diverse group of global stakeholders from government, civil society, the private sector, the technical community and international organizations -- held their first meeting in London to discuss global Internet cooperation and governance mechanisms. The Panel expressed strong support for a multistakeholder approach to the future of Internet governance. The conversations held at the London meeting were facilitated by a team of Internet governance experts. The discussion will be taken online in the coming days at 1Net.org. "The world relies on the Internet for economic, social, and political progress. It is imperative to ensure emerging issues are properly addressed in a global context, without individual governments or intergovernmental organizations developing their own solutions," said Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves and chair of the Panel. "The success of the Internet is rooted in a distributed and bottom-up model, with openness and collaboration at its core," said Vint Cerf, vice-chair of the Panel. "The inaugural meeting of the Panel brought together a diverse set of perspectives on the future of the Internet, and through this diversity I'm confident we can chart a course to protect the core of the current ecosystem, while evolving its methods, accessibility, and universality to meet the opportunities and challenges of the future." In keeping with its mission, the first meeting of the Panel addressed desirable properties for global Internet cooperation, administration and governance. The Panel will conduct two additional meetings in the coming months. The next meeting, scheduled for late February 2014 in Rancho Mirage, California, will be hosted by The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands. Sunnylands is partnering with the Panel in its substantive work. Following this meeting, a high-level draft report will then be released for open consultation. A final meeting will be hosted by the World Economic Forum in May 2014 in Dubai. During this meeting, the Panel will consider community feedback and discussions at forums including the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in Braziland the Freedom Online Coalition's conference in Tallinn, Estonia. A high-level report will be published at the conclusion of the May meeting, and is expected to cover the following areas: • A brief overview of the current Internet governance ecosystem • Opportunities and challenges facing the current ecosystem • Desirable ecosystem properties including: • Ecosystem legitimacy • Effective and inclusive multi-interest and consensus-based system • Ensuring global participation including from the developing world • Co-existence with other governance systems (national and multi-lateral) ensuring a stable system that is not prone to attack, mismanagement, and manipulation Panel members are working in their personal capacity. Members consist of: • Mohamed Al Ghanim, Founder and Director General of the UAE Telecommunications Regulatory Authority; former Vice-Chair, UAE Information and Communications Technology Fund; Chairman of WCIT-12 • Virgilio Fernandes Almeida, Member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Chair of Internet Steering Committee; National Secretary for Information Technology Policies • Dorothy Attwood, Senior Vice President of Global Public Policy, Walt Disney Company • Mitchell Baker, Chair, Mozilla Foundation; Chair and former CEO, Mozilla Corporation • Francesco Caio, CEO of Avio; former CEO, Cable and Wireless and Vodafone Italia; Founder of Netscalibur; broadband advisor in UK and Italy; Government Commissioner for Digital Agenda • Vint Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist for Google; former Chairman, ICANN; Co-Founder of the Internet Society • Fadi Chehade, CEO and President of ICANN; Founder of Rosetta Net; technology executive • Nitin Desai, Indian economist and diplomat; former UN Undersecretary General; convener of Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) • Byron Holland, President and CEO of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority • Toomas Hendrik Ilves, President of Estonia; former diplomat and journalist; former Minister of Foreign Affairs; former Member of the European Parliament • Ivo Ivanovski, Minister of Information Society and Administration, Macedonia; Commissioner to the UN Broadband Commission for Digital Development • Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe; former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Norway • Omobola Johnson, Minister of Communication Technology of Nigeria • Olaf Kolkman, Director of NLnet Labs; "Evangineer" of the Open Internet; former Chair of the Internet Architecture Board • Frank La Rue, labor and human rights lawyer; UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression; Founder, Center for Legal Action for Human Rights (CALDH) • Robert M. McDowell, former U.S. Federal Communications Commissioner; Visiting Fellow, Hudson Institute's Center for Economics of the Internet • Andile Ngcaba, Chairman and Founder, Convergence Partners; Executive Chairman, Dimension Data Middle East and Africa; former South African Government Director General of Communications • Liu Qingfeng, CEO and President of iFLYTEK; Director of National Speech & Language Engineering Laboratory of China; Member of Interactive Technology Standards working group • Lynn St. Amour, President and CEO of the Internet Society; telecoms and IT executive • Jimmy Wales, Founder and Promoter of Wikipedia; Member of the Board of Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation • Won-Pyo Hong, President, Media Solution Center, Samsung Electronics London Panel Agenda December 13 09:00 -- 11:00 Backgrounder Expert presentations on Internet Cooperation and Governance to cover: -- History of Internet cooperation and overview of current ecosystem Speaker: Vint Cerf -- Nature and scope of global Internet governance Speaker: William Drake -- Current system opportunities and challenges: ( this includes legitimacy and mandate challenges, challenges for global participation and inclusion) Speaker: David Gross & Bertrand de la Chapelle 11:00 -- 11:15 Break 11:15 -- 12:00 Backgrounder Q&A Session 12:00 -- 13:00 Lunch 13:00 -- 14:30 Developing Desirable System Properties Panel is split into the following four proposed tracks, each moderated by an Internet Governance expert: -- Desirable properties for ecosystem legitimacy Moderator: David Gross -- Desirable properties for an effective and inclusive multi-interest & consensus-based system Moderator: Sally Wentworth -- Desirable properties to ensure global participation including from developing world Moderator: William Drake -- Desirable properties for co-existence with other governance systems (national and multi-lateral) ensuring a stable system that is not prone to attack, mismanagement, and manipulation. Moderator: Wolfgang Kleinwachter 14:30 -- 14:45 Break 14:45 -- 17:30 Joint Observations Panel members, moderated by experts, coalesce around a set of overall joint observations on the desirable system properties 17:30 -- 17:45 Break 17:45 -- 18:30 Wrap-up Panel members discuss next steps, timelines/dates, communication rules and modus operandi for panel About The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands The Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands, which operates The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands in Rancho Mirage, California, is an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit operating entity. The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands hosts high-level retreats that address serious issues facing the nation and the world, including the recent official meeting between President Obama and President Xi of the People's Republic of China. In addition, Sunnylands offers programs through the Sunnylands Center & Gardens to educate the public about the history of Sunnylands, its architecture, art collections, cultural significance, and sustainable practices. About ICANN The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an internationally organised, non-profit corporation that has responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server system management functions. As a private-public partnership, ICANN is dedicated to preserving the operational stability of the Internet; to promoting competition; to achieving broad representation of global Internet communities; and to developing policy appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, consensus-based processes. For more information please visit:http://www.icann.org/. About The World Economic Forum The World Economic Forum is an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world by engaging leaders in partnerships to shape global, regional and industry agendas. Incorporated as a foundation in 1971 and headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the World Economic Forum is impartial and not-for-profit; it is tied to no political, partisan or national interests (http://www.weforum.org/). Editor's Note: The Panel was previously referred to as the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Dec 14 05:43:23 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 05:43:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] press release about meeting of the high level panel In-Reply-To: <723F73B1-F8BE-42F5-A373-2C7E0FFD3210@glocom.ac.jp> References: <723F73B1-F8BE-42F5-A373-2C7E0FFD3210@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: any reports back from that meeting already? On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > http://www.telegraphindia.com/pressrelease/prnw/en33449.html > -- > > High-Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms > Convenes in London > > PR Newswire > > LONDON, Dec. 13, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- The Panel on Global Internet > Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms -- a diverse group of global > stakeholders from government, civil society, the private sector, the > technical community and international organizations -- held their first > meeting in London to discuss global Internet cooperation and governance > mechanisms. The Panel expressed strong support for a multistakeholder > approach to the future of Internet governance. The conversations held at > the London meeting were facilitated by a team of Internet governance > experts. The discussion will be taken online in the coming days at 1Net.org. > > "The world relies on the Internet for economic, social, and political > progress. It is imperative to ensure emerging issues are properly addressed > in a global context, without individual governments or intergovernmental > organizations developing their own solutions," said Estonian President > Toomas Hendrik Ilves and chair of the Panel. > > "The success of the Internet is rooted in a distributed and bottom-up > model, with openness and collaboration at its core," said Vint Cerf, > vice-chair of the Panel. "The inaugural meeting of the Panel brought > together a diverse set of perspectives on the future of the Internet, and > through this diversity I'm confident we can chart a course to protect the > core of the current ecosystem, while evolving its methods, accessibility, > and universality to meet the opportunities and challenges of the future." > > In keeping with its mission, the first meeting of the Panel addressed > desirable properties for global Internet cooperation, administration and > governance. The Panel will conduct two additional meetings in the coming > months. The next meeting, scheduled for late February 2014 in Rancho > Mirage, California, will be hosted by The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands. > Sunnylands is partnering with the Panel in its substantive work. Following > this meeting, a high-level draft report will then be released for open > consultation. A final meeting will be hosted by the World Economic Forum in > May 2014 in Dubai. During this meeting, the Panel will consider community > feedback and discussions at forums including the Global Multistakeholder > Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in Braziland the Freedom > Online Coalition's conference in Tallinn, Estonia. A high-level report will > be published at the conclusion of the May meeting, and is expected to cover > the following areas: > > • A brief overview of the current Internet governance ecosystem > • Opportunities and challenges facing the current ecosystem > • Desirable ecosystem properties including: > • Ecosystem legitimacy > • Effective and inclusive multi-interest and > consensus-based system > • Ensuring global participation including from the > developing world > • Co-existence with other governance systems (national and > multi-lateral) ensuring a stable system that is not prone to attack, > mismanagement, and manipulation > Panel members are working in their personal capacity. Members consist of: > > • Mohamed Al Ghanim, Founder and Director General of the UAE > Telecommunications Regulatory Authority; former Vice-Chair, UAE Information > and Communications Technology Fund; Chairman of WCIT-12 > • Virgilio Fernandes Almeida, Member of the Brazilian Academy of > Sciences; Chair of Internet Steering Committee; National Secretary for > Information Technology Policies > • Dorothy Attwood, Senior Vice President of Global Public Policy, > Walt Disney Company > • Mitchell Baker, Chair, Mozilla Foundation; Chair and former CEO, > Mozilla Corporation > • Francesco Caio, CEO of Avio; former CEO, Cable and Wireless and > Vodafone Italia; Founder of Netscalibur; broadband advisor in UK and Italy; > Government Commissioner for Digital Agenda > • Vint Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist for > Google; former Chairman, ICANN; Co-Founder of the Internet Society > • Fadi Chehade, CEO and President of ICANN; Founder of Rosetta > Net; technology executive > • Nitin Desai, Indian economist and diplomat; former UN > Undersecretary General; convener of Working Group on Internet Governance > (WGIG) > • Byron Holland, President and CEO of the Canadian Internet > Registration Authority > • Toomas Hendrik Ilves, President of Estonia; former diplomat and > journalist; former Minister of Foreign Affairs; former Member of the > European Parliament > • Ivo Ivanovski, Minister of Information Society and > Administration, Macedonia; Commissioner to the UN Broadband Commission for > Digital Development > • Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe; > former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Norway > • Omobola Johnson, Minister of Communication Technology of Nigeria > • Olaf Kolkman, Director of NLnet Labs; "Evangineer" of the Open > Internet; former Chair of the Internet Architecture Board > • Frank La Rue, labor and human rights lawyer; UN Special > Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of > Opinion and Expression; Founder, Center for Legal Action for Human Rights > (CALDH) > • Robert M. McDowell, former U.S. Federal Communications > Commissioner; Visiting Fellow, Hudson Institute's Center for Economics of > the Internet > • Andile Ngcaba, Chairman and Founder, Convergence Partners; > Executive Chairman, Dimension Data Middle East and Africa; former South > African Government Director General of Communications > • Liu Qingfeng, CEO and President of iFLYTEK; Director of National > Speech & Language Engineering Laboratory of China; Member of Interactive > Technology Standards working group > • Lynn St. Amour, President and CEO of the Internet Society; > telecoms and IT executive > • Jimmy Wales, Founder and Promoter of Wikipedia; Member of the > Board of Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation > • Won-Pyo Hong, President, Media Solution Center, Samsung > Electronics > > > London Panel Agenda > > December 13 > > 09:00 -- 11:00 > > Backgrounder > > Expert presentations on Internet Cooperation and > Governance to cover: > > -- History of Internet cooperation and overview of > current ecosystem > > Speaker: Vint Cerf > > -- Nature and scope of global Internet governance > > Speaker: William Drake > > -- Current system opportunities and challenges: > ( this includes legitimacy and mandate challenges, > challenges for global participation and inclusion) > > Speaker: David Gross & Bertrand de la Chapelle > > 11:00 -- 11:15 > > Break > > 11:15 -- 12:00 > > Backgrounder Q&A Session > > 12:00 -- 13:00 > > Lunch > > 13:00 -- 14:30 > > Developing Desirable System Properties > > Panel is split into the following four proposed tracks, > each moderated by an Internet Governance expert: > > > -- Desirable properties for ecosystem legitimacy > > Moderator: David Gross > > -- Desirable properties for an effective and inclusive > multi-interest & consensus-based system > > Moderator: Sally Wentworth > > -- Desirable properties to ensure global participation > including from developing world > > Moderator: William Drake > > -- Desirable properties for co-existence with other > governance systems (national and multi-lateral) > ensuring a stable system that is not prone to attack, > mismanagement, and manipulation. > > Moderator: Wolfgang Kleinwachter > > 14:30 -- 14:45 > > Break > > 14:45 -- 17:30 > > Joint Observations > > Panel members, moderated by experts, coalesce > around a set of overall joint observations on the > desirable system properties > > 17:30 -- 17:45 > > Break > > 17:45 -- 18:30 > > Wrap-up > > > Panel members discuss next steps, timelines/dates, > communication rules and modus operandi for panel > > About The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands > The Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands, which operates The Annenberg > Retreat at Sunnylands in Rancho Mirage, California, is an independent > 501(c)(3) nonprofit operating entity. The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands > hosts high-level retreats that address serious issues facing the nation and > the world, including the recent official meeting between President Obama > and President Xi of the People's Republic of China. In addition, Sunnylands > offers programs through the Sunnylands Center & Gardens to educate the > public about the history of Sunnylands, its architecture, art collections, > cultural significance, and sustainable practices. > > About ICANN > The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an > internationally organised, non-profit corporation that has responsibility > for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier > assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name > system management, and root server system management functions. As a > private-public partnership, ICANN is dedicated to preserving the > operational stability of the Internet; to promoting competition; to > achieving broad representation of global Internet communities; and to > developing policy appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, > consensus-based processes. For more information please visit: > http://www.icann.org/. > > About The World Economic Forum > The World Economic Forum is an independent international organization > committed to improving the state of the world by engaging leaders in > partnerships to shape global, regional and industry agendas. > > Incorporated as a foundation in 1971 and headquartered in Geneva, > Switzerland, the World Economic Forum is impartial and not-for-profit; it > is tied to no political, partisan or national interests ( > http://www.weforum.org/). > > Editor's Note: The Panel was previously referred to as the Panel on the > Future of Global Internet Cooperation. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *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 william.drake at uzh.ch Sat Dec 14 06:28:40 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 11:28:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] press release about meeting of the high level panel In-Reply-To: References: <723F73B1-F8BE-42F5-A373-2C7E0FFD3210@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <9CFBF54D-89FD-439A-B066-57F907ABBAA1@uzh.ch> Hi Carolina The press release pretty much covers what was discussed, who was there, and the next steps. I was happy we got agreement to open things up by having online discussions per theme, and that they have invited Anriette to join the group. In terms of ideas discussed, one that seems to have some traction is to do something to help foster the development of multistakeholder processes at the national level, inter alia in the hope that this will strengthen the diversity of engagement at the global level. It is currently expected that the final report will be brief, under ten pages, and will be revised in light of the feedback from Sao Paulo and elsewhere. The tweets are at #InternetPanel but there’s not so much given the Chatham rule. Cheers Bill On Dec 14, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > any reports back from that meeting already? > > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > http://www.telegraphindia.com/pressrelease/prnw/en33449.html > -- > > High-Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms Convenes in London > > PR Newswire > > LONDON, Dec. 13, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- The Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms -- a diverse group of global stakeholders from government, civil society, the private sector, the technical community and international organizations -- held their first meeting in London to discuss global Internet cooperation and governance mechanisms. The Panel expressed strong support for a multistakeholder approach to the future of Internet governance. The conversations held at the London meeting were facilitated by a team of Internet governance experts. The discussion will be taken online in the coming days at 1Net.org. > > "The world relies on the Internet for economic, social, and political progress. It is imperative to ensure emerging issues are properly addressed in a global context, without individual governments or intergovernmental organizations developing their own solutions," said Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves and chair of the Panel. > > "The success of the Internet is rooted in a distributed and bottom-up model, with openness and collaboration at its core," said Vint Cerf, vice-chair of the Panel. "The inaugural meeting of the Panel brought together a diverse set of perspectives on the future of the Internet, and through this diversity I'm confident we can chart a course to protect the core of the current ecosystem, while evolving its methods, accessibility, and universality to meet the opportunities and challenges of the future." > > In keeping with its mission, the first meeting of the Panel addressed desirable properties for global Internet cooperation, administration and governance. The Panel will conduct two additional meetings in the coming months. The next meeting, scheduled for late February 2014 in Rancho Mirage, California, will be hosted by The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands. Sunnylands is partnering with the Panel in its substantive work. Following this meeting, a high-level draft report will then be released for open consultation. A final meeting will be hosted by the World Economic Forum in May 2014 in Dubai. During this meeting, the Panel will consider community feedback and discussions at forums including the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in Braziland the Freedom Online Coalition's conference in Tallinn, Estonia. A high-level report will be published at the conclusion of the May meeting, and is expected to cover the following areas: > > • A brief overview of the current Internet governance ecosystem > • Opportunities and challenges facing the current ecosystem > • Desirable ecosystem properties including: > • Ecosystem legitimacy > • Effective and inclusive multi-interest and consensus-based system > • Ensuring global participation including from the developing world > • Co-existence with other governance systems (national and multi-lateral) ensuring a stable system that is not prone to attack, mismanagement, and manipulation > Panel members are working in their personal capacity. Members consist of: > > • Mohamed Al Ghanim, Founder and Director General of the UAE Telecommunications Regulatory Authority; former Vice-Chair, UAE Information and Communications Technology Fund; Chairman of WCIT-12 > • Virgilio Fernandes Almeida, Member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Chair of Internet Steering Committee; National Secretary for Information Technology Policies > • Dorothy Attwood, Senior Vice President of Global Public Policy, Walt Disney Company > • Mitchell Baker, Chair, Mozilla Foundation; Chair and former CEO, Mozilla Corporation > • Francesco Caio, CEO of Avio; former CEO, Cable and Wireless and Vodafone Italia; Founder of Netscalibur; broadband advisor in UK and Italy; Government Commissioner for Digital Agenda > • Vint Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist for Google; former Chairman, ICANN; Co-Founder of the Internet Society > • Fadi Chehade, CEO and President of ICANN; Founder of Rosetta Net; technology executive > • Nitin Desai, Indian economist and diplomat; former UN Undersecretary General; convener of Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) > • Byron Holland, President and CEO of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority > • Toomas Hendrik Ilves, President of Estonia; former diplomat and journalist; former Minister of Foreign Affairs; former Member of the European Parliament > • Ivo Ivanovski, Minister of Information Society and Administration, Macedonia; Commissioner to the UN Broadband Commission for Digital Development > • Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe; former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Norway > • Omobola Johnson, Minister of Communication Technology of Nigeria > • Olaf Kolkman, Director of NLnet Labs; "Evangineer" of the Open Internet; former Chair of the Internet Architecture Board > • Frank La Rue, labor and human rights lawyer; UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression; Founder, Center for Legal Action for Human Rights (CALDH) > • Robert M. McDowell, former U.S. Federal Communications Commissioner; Visiting Fellow, Hudson Institute's Center for Economics of the Internet > • Andile Ngcaba, Chairman and Founder, Convergence Partners; Executive Chairman, Dimension Data Middle East and Africa; former South African Government Director General of Communications > • Liu Qingfeng, CEO and President of iFLYTEK; Director of National Speech & Language Engineering Laboratory of China; Member of Interactive Technology Standards working group > • Lynn St. Amour, President and CEO of the Internet Society; telecoms and IT executive > • Jimmy Wales, Founder and Promoter of Wikipedia; Member of the Board of Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation > • Won-Pyo Hong, President, Media Solution Center, Samsung Electronics > > > London Panel Agenda > > December 13 > > 09:00 -- 11:00 > > Backgrounder > > Expert presentations on Internet Cooperation and > Governance to cover: > > -- History of Internet cooperation and overview of > current ecosystem > > Speaker: Vint Cerf > > -- Nature and scope of global Internet governance > > Speaker: William Drake > > -- Current system opportunities and challenges: > ( this includes legitimacy and mandate challenges, > challenges for global participation and inclusion) > > Speaker: David Gross & Bertrand de la Chapelle > > 11:00 -- 11:15 > > Break > > 11:15 -- 12:00 > > Backgrounder Q&A Session > > 12:00 -- 13:00 > > Lunch > > 13:00 -- 14:30 > > Developing Desirable System Properties > > Panel is split into the following four proposed tracks, > each moderated by an Internet Governance expert: > > > -- Desirable properties for ecosystem legitimacy > > Moderator: David Gross > > -- Desirable properties for an effective and inclusive > multi-interest & consensus-based system > > Moderator: Sally Wentworth > > -- Desirable properties to ensure global participation > including from developing world > > Moderator: William Drake > > -- Desirable properties for co-existence with other > governance systems (national and multi-lateral) > ensuring a stable system that is not prone to attack, > mismanagement, and manipulation. > > Moderator: Wolfgang Kleinwachter > > 14:30 -- 14:45 > > Break > > 14:45 -- 17:30 > > Joint Observations > > Panel members, moderated by experts, coalesce > around a set of overall joint observations on the > desirable system properties > > 17:30 -- 17:45 > > Break > > 17:45 -- 18:30 > > Wrap-up > > > Panel members discuss next steps, timelines/dates, > communication rules and modus operandi for panel > > About The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands > The Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands, which operates The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands in Rancho Mirage, California, is an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit operating entity. The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands hosts high-level retreats that address serious issues facing the nation and the world, including the recent official meeting between President Obama and President Xi of the People's Republic of China. In addition, Sunnylands offers programs through the Sunnylands Center & Gardens to educate the public about the history of Sunnylands, its architecture, art collections, cultural significance, and sustainable practices. > > About ICANN > The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an internationally organised, non-profit corporation that has responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server system management functions. As a private-public partnership, ICANN is dedicated to preserving the operational stability of the Internet; to promoting competition; to achieving broad representation of global Internet communities; and to developing policy appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, consensus-based processes. For more information please visit:http://www.icann.org/. > > About The World Economic Forum > The World Economic Forum is an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world by engaging leaders in partnerships to shape global, regional and industry agendas. > > Incorporated as a foundation in 1971 and headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the World Economic Forum is impartial and not-for-profit; it is tied to no political, partisan or national interests (http://www.weforum.org/). > > Editor's Note: The Panel was previously referred to as the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > -- > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Dec 14 09:58:44 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 16:58:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] press release about meeting of the high level panel In-Reply-To: <9CFBF54D-89FD-439A-B066-57F907ABBAA1@uzh.ch> References: <723F73B1-F8BE-42F5-A373-2C7E0FFD3210@glocom.ac.jp> <9CFBF54D-89FD-439A-B066-57F907ABBAA1@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <937290A5-D04D-442F-8F58-7D90CD4198D5@gmail.com> Thank you Bill and glad that Anriette has joined as well. Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 14, 2013, at 1:28 PM, William Drake wrote: > > Hi Carolina > > The press release pretty much covers what was discussed, who was there, and the next steps. I was happy we got agreement to open things up by having online discussions per theme, and that they have invited Anriette to join the group. In terms of ideas discussed, one that seems to have some traction is to do something to help foster the development of multistakeholder processes at the national level, inter alia in the hope that this will strengthen the diversity of engagement at the global level. > > It is currently expected that the final report will be brief, under ten pages, and will be revised in light of the feedback from Sao Paulo and elsewhere. > > The tweets are at #InternetPanel but there’s not so much given the Chatham rule. > > Cheers > > Bill > >> On Dec 14, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> >> any reports back from that meeting already? >> >> >>> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> http://www.telegraphindia.com/pressrelease/prnw/en33449.html >>> -- >>> >>> High-Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms Convenes in London >>> >>> PR Newswire >>> >>> LONDON, Dec. 13, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- The Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms -- a diverse group of global stakeholders from government, civil society, the private sector, the technical community and international organizations -- held their first meeting in London to discuss global Internet cooperation and governance mechanisms. The Panel expressed strong support for a multistakeholder approach to the future of Internet governance. The conversations held at the London meeting were facilitated by a team of Internet governance experts. The discussion will be taken online in the coming days at 1Net.org. >>> >>> "The world relies on the Internet for economic, social, and political progress. It is imperative to ensure emerging issues are properly addressed in a global context, without individual governments or intergovernmental organizations developing their own solutions," said Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves and chair of the Panel. >>> >>> "The success of the Internet is rooted in a distributed and bottom-up model, with openness and collaboration at its core," said Vint Cerf, vice-chair of the Panel. "The inaugural meeting of the Panel brought together a diverse set of perspectives on the future of the Internet, and through this diversity I'm confident we can chart a course to protect the core of the current ecosystem, while evolving its methods, accessibility, and universality to meet the opportunities and challenges of the future." >>> >>> In keeping with its mission, the first meeting of the Panel addressed desirable properties for global Internet cooperation, administration and governance. The Panel will conduct two additional meetings in the coming months. The next meeting, scheduled for late February 2014 in Rancho Mirage, California, will be hosted by The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands. Sunnylands is partnering with the Panel in its substantive work. Following this meeting, a high-level draft report will then be released for open consultation. A final meeting will be hosted by the World Economic Forum in May 2014 in Dubai. During this meeting, the Panel will consider community feedback and discussions at forums including the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in Braziland the Freedom Online Coalition's conference in Tallinn, Estonia. A high-level report will be published at the conclusion of the May meeting, and is expected to cover the following areas: >>> >>> • A brief overview of the current Internet governance ecosystem >>> • Opportunities and challenges facing the current ecosystem >>> • Desirable ecosystem properties including: >>> • Ecosystem legitimacy >>> • Effective and inclusive multi-interest and consensus-based system >>> • Ensuring global participation including from the developing world >>> • Co-existence with other governance systems (national and multi-lateral) ensuring a stable system that is not prone to attack, mismanagement, and manipulation >>> Panel members are working in their personal capacity. Members consist of: >>> >>> • Mohamed Al Ghanim, Founder and Director General of the UAE Telecommunications Regulatory Authority; former Vice-Chair, UAE Information and Communications Technology Fund; Chairman of WCIT-12 >>> • Virgilio Fernandes Almeida, Member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Chair of Internet Steering Committee; National Secretary for Information Technology Policies >>> • Dorothy Attwood, Senior Vice President of Global Public Policy, Walt Disney Company >>> • Mitchell Baker, Chair, Mozilla Foundation; Chair and former CEO, Mozilla Corporation >>> • Francesco Caio, CEO of Avio; former CEO, Cable and Wireless and Vodafone Italia; Founder of Netscalibur; broadband advisor in UK and Italy; Government Commissioner for Digital Agenda >>> • Vint Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist for Google; former Chairman, ICANN; Co-Founder of the Internet Society >>> • Fadi Chehade, CEO and President of ICANN; Founder of Rosetta Net; technology executive >>> • Nitin Desai, Indian economist and diplomat; former UN Undersecretary General; convener of Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) >>> • Byron Holland, President and CEO of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority >>> • Toomas Hendrik Ilves, President of Estonia; former diplomat and journalist; former Minister of Foreign Affairs; former Member of the European Parliament >>> • Ivo Ivanovski, Minister of Information Society and Administration, Macedonia; Commissioner to the UN Broadband Commission for Digital Development >>> • Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe; former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Norway >>> • Omobola Johnson, Minister of Communication Technology of Nigeria >>> • Olaf Kolkman, Director of NLnet Labs; "Evangineer" of the Open Internet; former Chair of the Internet Architecture Board >>> • Frank La Rue, labor and human rights lawyer; UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression; Founder, Center for Legal Action for Human Rights (CALDH) >>> • Robert M. McDowell, former U.S. Federal Communications Commissioner; Visiting Fellow, Hudson Institute's Center for Economics of the Internet >>> • Andile Ngcaba, Chairman and Founder, Convergence Partners; Executive Chairman, Dimension Data Middle East and Africa; former South African Government Director General of Communications >>> • Liu Qingfeng, CEO and President of iFLYTEK; Director of National Speech & Language Engineering Laboratory of China; Member of Interactive Technology Standards working group >>> • Lynn St. Amour, President and CEO of the Internet Society; telecoms and IT executive >>> • Jimmy Wales, Founder and Promoter of Wikipedia; Member of the Board of Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation >>> • Won-Pyo Hong, President, Media Solution Center, Samsung Electronics >>> >>> >>> London Panel Agenda >>> >>> December 13 >>> >>> 09:00 -- 11:00 >>> >>> Backgrounder >>> >>> Expert presentations on Internet Cooperation and >>> Governance to cover: >>> >>> -- History of Internet cooperation and overview of >>> current ecosystem >>> >>> Speaker: Vint Cerf >>> >>> -- Nature and scope of global Internet governance >>> >>> Speaker: William Drake >>> >>> -- Current system opportunities and challenges: >>> ( this includes legitimacy and mandate challenges, >>> challenges for global participation and inclusion) >>> >>> Speaker: David Gross & Bertrand de la Chapelle >>> >>> 11:00 -- 11:15 >>> >>> Break >>> >>> 11:15 -- 12:00 >>> >>> Backgrounder Q&A Session >>> >>> 12:00 -- 13:00 >>> >>> Lunch >>> >>> 13:00 -- 14:30 >>> >>> Developing Desirable System Properties >>> >>> Panel is split into the following four proposed tracks, >>> each moderated by an Internet Governance expert: >>> >>> >>> -- Desirable properties for ecosystem legitimacy >>> >>> Moderator: David Gross >>> >>> -- Desirable properties for an effective and inclusive >>> multi-interest & consensus-based system >>> >>> Moderator: Sally Wentworth >>> >>> -- Desirable properties to ensure global participation >>> including from developing world >>> >>> Moderator: William Drake >>> >>> -- Desirable properties for co-existence with other >>> governance systems (national and multi-lateral) >>> ensuring a stable system that is not prone to attack, >>> mismanagement, and manipulation. >>> >>> Moderator: Wolfgang Kleinwachter >>> >>> 14:30 -- 14:45 >>> >>> Break >>> >>> 14:45 -- 17:30 >>> >>> Joint Observations >>> >>> Panel members, moderated by experts, coalesce >>> around a set of overall joint observations on the >>> desirable system properties >>> >>> 17:30 -- 17:45 >>> >>> Break >>> >>> 17:45 -- 18:30 >>> >>> Wrap-up >>> >>> >>> Panel members discuss next steps, timelines/dates, >>> communication rules and modus operandi for panel >>> >>> About The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands >>> The Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands, which operates The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands in Rancho Mirage, California, is an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit operating entity. The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands hosts high-level retreats that address serious issues facing the nation and the world, including the recent official meeting between President Obama and President Xi of the People's Republic of China. In addition, Sunnylands offers programs through the Sunnylands Center & Gardens to educate the public about the history of Sunnylands, its architecture, art collections, cultural significance, and sustainable practices. >>> >>> About ICANN >>> The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an internationally organised, non-profit corporation that has responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server system management functions. As a private-public partnership, ICANN is dedicated to preserving the operational stability of the Internet; to promoting competition; to achieving broad representation of global Internet communities; and to developing policy appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, consensus-based processes. For more information please visit:http://www.icann.org/. >>> >>> About The World Economic Forum >>> The World Economic Forum is an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world by engaging leaders in partnerships to shape global, regional and industry agendas. >>> >>> Incorporated as a foundation in 1971 and headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the World Economic Forum is impartial and not-for-profit; it is tied to no political, partisan or national interests (http://www.weforum.org/). >>> >>> Editor's Note: The Panel was previously referred to as the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation. >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 14 21:16:24 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 03:16:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] HLLM in LOndon - CS reps In-Reply-To: References: <52A73296.1040309@internetundgesellschaft.de> <52A73347.3010807@wzb.eu> <39F5446A-7F85-4E20-9165-6CF77666E5C5@gmail.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BDBF2@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <7199908E-ED13-4FBE-9414-7FB3A1D28891@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hope this is okay? Lets be focus at the priority of IGC. Regards Sonigitu Ekpe Mobile +234 805 0232 469 Office + 234 802 751 0179 "LIFE is all about love and thanksgiving" On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Have just received advice that Anriette Esterhuysen has been added to this > panel now and next meeting will be in February. Anriette was chosen over > Milton Mueller "for reasons of diversity". This has apparently been > discussed with panel and accepted. > > Be interesting in due course to get reports from our various > observers/experts on what (if anything) of significance happened in London. > > > > Ian Peter > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Sun Dec 15 00:17:04 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 22:17:04 -0700 Subject: [governance] GAC ccTLD Principles In-Reply-To: <52AB8858.7040901@gmail.com> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> <52AAD932.7020003@digsys.bg> <52AAE40C.2030505@g> <1E4046AA-9A5B-408D-A311-3F507929777E@virtualized.org> <52AB8858.7040901@gm ail.com> Message-ID: Joanna, On Dec 13, 2013, at 3:21 PM, Joanna Kulesza wrote: > Taking the argument made a step further one might ask why we have a .eu and not .ax, .cp, .dg, .ea, .ic etc. One might still consider that there is some flexibility left to IANA in including elements of the reserve list into the ccTLD catalogue. .AX (Åland) was delegated some time back. As for the others, the entities responsible for those territories haven't requested the delegations (to my knowledge). > I suppose that would be the argument of the "folks who believe IANA should only use the green ("allocated") codes. I think the argument is along the lines that only the official assigned codes are assured to be free of complications and that the exceptionally reserved codes may not be delegatable, thereby creating odd exceptions. > I'm not saying it's ICANN's job to fix it - I'm just saying there is no simple, solely "technical" transition of the political UN decision on statehood into the IANA ccTLD root. I agree (I think). In my experience the intersection of politics and anything having to do with technical matters is never simple... Regards, -drc -------------- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sun Dec 15 04:04:55 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 16:04:55 +0700 Subject: [governance] Alternet: Powerful Intelligence World on the Verge of the Ability to Make People Digitally Disappear Message-ID: <00bf01cef974$bb10dc50$313294f0$@gmail.com> http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/how-powerful-intelligence-world-verg e-ability-make-people-digitally-disappear How the Powerful Intelligence World Is on the Verge of the Ability to Make People Digitally Disappear December 6, 2013 | To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here. [3] What if Edward Snowden was made to disappear? No, I’m not suggesting some future CIA rendition effort or a who-killed-Snowden conspiracy theory of a disappearance, but a more ominous kind. What if everything a whistleblower had ever exposed could simply be made to go away? What if every National Security Agency (NSA) document Snowden released, every interview he gave, every documented trace of a national security state careening out of control could be made to disappear in real-time? What if the very posting of such revelations could be turned into a fruitless, record-less endeavor? Am I suggesting the plot for a novel by some twenty-first century George Orwell? Hardly. As we edge toward a fully digital world, such things may soon be possible, not in science fiction but in our world—and at the push of a button. In fact, the earliest prototypes of a new kind of “disappearance” are already being tested. We are closer to a shocking, dystopian reality that might once have been the stuff of futuristic novels than we imagine. Welcome to the memory hole. Even if some future government stepped over one of the last remaining red lines in our world and simply assassinated whistleblowers as they surfaced, others would always emerge. Back in 1948, in his eerie novel 1984 [4], however, Orwell suggested a far more diabolical solution to the problem. He conjured up a technological device for the world of Big Brother that he called "the memory hole [5]." In his dark future, armies of bureaucrats, working in what he sardonically dubbed the Ministry of Truth, spent their lives erasing or altering documents, newspapers, books, and the like in order to create an acceptable version of history. When a person fell out of favor, the Ministry of Truth sent him and all the documentation relating to him down the memory hole. Every story or report in which his life was in any way noted or recorded would be edited to eradicate all traces of him. In Orwell's pre-digital world, the memory hole was a vacuum tube into which old documents were physically disappeared forever. Alterations to existing documents and the deep-sixing of others ensured that even the sudden switching of global enemies and alliances would never prove a problem for the guardians of Big Brother. In the world he imagined, thanks to those armies of bureaucrats, the present was what had always been—and there were those altered documents to prove it and nothing but faltering memories to say otherwise. Anyone who expressed doubts about the truth of the present would, under the rubric of “thoughtcrime [6],” be marginalized or eliminated. Government and Corporate Digital Censorship Increasingly, most of us now get our news, books, music, TV, movies, and communications of every sort electronically. These days, Google earns more advertising revenue [7] than all U.S. print media combined. Even the venerable Newsweek no longer publishes a paper edition [8]. And in that digital world, a certain kind of “simplification” is being explored. The Chinese [9], Iranians [10], and others are, for instance, already implementing web-filtering strategies to block access to sites and online material of which their governments don’t approve. The U.S. government similarly (if somewhat fruitlessly) blocks its employees from viewing [11] Wikileaks and Edward Snowden material (as well as websites like TomDispatch [12]) on their work computers—though not of course at home. Yet. Great Britain, however, will soon take a significant step toward deciding what a private citizen can see on the web even while at home. Before the end of the year, almost all Internet users there will be “opted-in” to a system designed to filter out [13] pornography. By default, the controls will also block access to "violent material," "extremist and terrorist related content," "anorexia and eating disorder websites," and "suicide related websites." In addition, the new settings will censor sites mentioning alcohol or smoking. The filter will also block "esoteric material," though a UK-based rights group says the government has yet to make clear what that category will include. And government-sponsored forms of Internet censorship are being privatized. New, off-the-shelf commercial products guarantee that an organization does not need to be the NSA to block content. For example, the Internet security company Blue Coat [14] is a domestic leader in the field and a major exporter of such technology. It can easily set up a system to monitor and filter all Internet usage, blocking web sites by their address, by keywords, or even by the content they contain. Among others, Blue Coat software is used by the U.S. Army to control [15] what its soldiers see while deployed abroad, and by the repressive governments in Syria [16], Saudi Arabia, and Burma [15] to block outside political ideas. Google Search... In a sense, Google Search already “disappears” material. Right now Google is the good guy vis-à-vis whistleblowers. A quick Google search (0.22 seconds) turns up more than 48 million hits on Edward Snowden, most of them referencing his leaked NSA documents. Some of the websites display the documents themselves, still labeled “Top Secret.” Less than half a year ago, you had to be one of a very limited group in the government or contractually connected to it to see such things. Now, they are splayed across the web. Google—and since Google is the planet’s number one search engine, I'll use it here as a shorthand for every search engine, even those yet to be invented—is in this way amazing and looks like a massive machine for spreading, not suppressing, news. Put just about anything on the web and Google is likely to find it quickly and add it into search results worldwide, sometimes within seconds. Since most people rarely scroll past the first few search results displayed, however, being disappeared already has a new meaning online. It’s no longer enough just to get Google to notice you. Getting it to place what you post high enough on its search results page to be noticed is what matters now. If your work is number 47,999,999 on the Snowden results, you’re as good as dead, as good as disappeared. Think of that as a starting point for the more significant forms of disappearance that undoubtedly lie in our future. Hiding something from users by reprogramming search engines is one dark step to come. Another is actually deleting content, a process as simple as transforming the computer coding behind the search process into something predatory. And if Google refuses to implement the change-over to “negative searches,” the NSA, which already appears to be able to reach inside Google [17], can implant its own version of malicious code as it has already done in at least 50,000 [18] instances. But never mind the future: here's how a negative search strategy is already working, even if today its focus—largely on pedophiles—is easy enough to accept. Google recently introduced software that makes it harder for users to locate child abuse material. As company head Eric Schmidt [19] put it, Google Search has been “fine-tuned [20]” to clean up results for more than 100,000 terms used by pedophiles to look for child pornography. Now, for instance, when users type in queries that may be related to child sexual abuse, they will find no results [21] that link to illegal content. Instead, Google will redirect them to help and counseling sites. “We will soon roll out these changes in more than 150 languages, so the impact will be truly global,” Schmidt wrote. While Google is redirecting searches for kiddie porn to counseling sites, the NSA has developed a similar ability. The agency already controls a set of servers codenamed Quantum [22] that sit on the Internet’s backbone. Their job is to redirect “targets” away from their intended destinations to websites of the NSA's choice. The idea is: you type in the website you want and end up somewhere less disturbing to the agency. While at present this technology may be aimed at sending would-be online jihadis to more moderate Islamic material, in the future it could, for instance, be repurposed to redirect people seeking news to an Al-Jazeera lookalike site with altered content that fits the government's version of events. ...and Destroy However, blocking and redirecting technologies, which are bound to grow more sophisticated, will undoubtedly be the least of it in the future. Google is already taking things to the next level in the service of a cause that just about anyone would applaud. They are implementing picture-detection technology to identify child abuse photographs whenever they appear on their systems, as well as testing technology that would remove illegal videos. Google's actions against child porn may be well intentioned indeed, but the technology being developed in the service of such anti-child-porn actions should chill us all. Imagine if, back in 1971, the Pentagon Papers [23], the first glimpse most Americans had of the lies behind the Vietnam War, had been deletable. Who believes that the Nixon White House wouldn’t have disappeared those documents and that history wouldn’t have taken a different, far grimmer course? Or consider an example that’s already with us. In 2009, many Kindle owners discovered that Amazon had reached into their devices overnight and remotely deleted [24] copies of Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984(no irony intended). The company explained that the books, mistakenly “published” on its machines, were actually bootlegged copies of the novels. Similarly, in 2012, Amazon erased the contents [25] of a customer's Kindle without warning, claiming her account was "directly related to another which has been previously closed for abuse of our policies." Using the same technology, Amazon now has the ability to replace books [26] on your device with “updated” versions, the content altered. Whether you are notified or not is up to Amazon. In addition to your Kindle, remote control over your other devices is already a reality. Much of the software on your computer communicates in the background with its home servers, and so is open to “updates” that can alter content [27]. The NSA uses malware—malicious software remotely implanted into a computer—to change the way [22] the machine works. The Stuxnet [28] code that likely damaged 1,000 centrifuges the Iranians were using to enrich uranium is one example of how this sort of thing can operate. These days, every iPhone checks back with headquarters to announce what apps you've purchased; in the tiny print of a disclaimer routinely clicked through, Apple reserves the right to disappear any app [29] for any reason. In 2004, TiVo sued Dish Network for giving customers set-top boxes that TiVo said infringed on its software patents. Though the case was settled in return for a large payout, as an initial remedy, the judge ordered Dish to electronically disable [30] the 192,000 devices it had already installed in people's homes. In the future, there will be ever more ways to invade and control computers, alter or disappear what you're reading, and shunt you to sites weren't looking for. Snowden's revelations of what the NSA does to gather information and control technology, which have riveted the planet since June, are only part of the equation. How the government will enhance its surveillance and control powers in the future is a story still to be told. Imagine coupling tools to hide, alter, or delete content with smear campaigns to discredit or dissuade whistleblowers, and the power potentially available to both governments and corporations becomes clearer. The ability to move beyond altering content into altering how people act is obviously on governmental and corporate agendas as well. The NSA has already gathered blackmail data [31] from the digital porn viewing habits of “radical” Muslims. The NSA sought to wiretap a Congressman [32] without a warrant. The ability to collect information on Federal judges, government leaders, and presidential candidates makes J. Edgar Hoover's 1950s blackmail schemes [33] as quaint as the bobby socks and poodle skirts of that era. The wonders of the Internet regularly stun us. The dystopian, Orwellian possibilities of the Internet have, until recently, not caught our attention in the same way. They should. Read This Now, Before It’s Deleted The future for whistleblowers is grim. At a time not so far distant, when just about everything is digital, when much of the world's Internet traffic flows directly through the United States or allied countries, or through the infrastructure of American companies abroad, when search engines can find just about anything online in fractions of a second, when the Patriot Act [34] and secret rulings by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court [35] make Google and similar tech giants tools [36] of the national security state (assuming organizations like the NSA don't simply take over the search business directly), and when the sophisticated technology can either block, alter, or delete digital material at the push of a button, the memory hole is no longer fiction. Leaked revelations will be as pointless as dusty old books in some attic if no one knows about them. Go ahead and publish whatever you want. The First Amendment allows you to do that. But what's the point if no one will be able to read it? You might more profitably stand on a street corner and shout at passers by. In at least one easy-enough-to-imagine future, a set of Snowden-like revelations will be blocked or deleted as fast as anyone can (re)post them. The ever-developing technology of search, turned 180 degrees, will be able to disappear things in a major way. The Internet is a vast place, but not infinite. It is increasingly being centralized in the hands of a few companies under the control of a few governments, with the U.S. sitting on the major transit routes across the Internet’s backbone. About now you should feel a chill. We’re watching, in real time, as 1984 turns from a futuristic fantasy long past into an instructional manual. There will be no need to kill a future Edward Snowden. He will already be dead. Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook [37] or Tumblr [38]. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Ann Jones’sThey Were Soldiers: How the Wounded Return From America ’s Wars — The Untold Story [39]. Predictions can be very difficult—especially about the future. — Niels Bohr Quoted in H. Rosovsky, The University: An Owners Manual (1991), Bohr always attributed the saying to Robert Storm Petersen (1882-1949), a well-known Danish artist and writer. However, the saying did NOT originate from Petersen. It may have been said in the Danish Parliament between 1935 and 1939 [Professor Erik Rüdinger, Niels Bohr Archive, Copenhagen]. __._,_.___ Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group Yahoo! Groups Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback . __,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Sun Dec 15 05:45:38 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 11:45:38 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Alternet: Powerful Intelligence World on the Verge of the Ability to Make People Digitally Disappear In-Reply-To: <00bf01cef974$bb10dc50$313294f0$@gmail.com> References: <00bf01cef974$bb10dc50$313294f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <669862870.3839.1387104338518.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d32> Thanks Michael for this article which sheds interesting light on the manipulation of ICT Would be nice to see its very theme on the agenda of the coming WSIS Forum (May, in Geneva) and, more particularly, on that of the so-called WSIS+10 High Level Event (April, Sharm-el-Sheikh). Let's see if there is at least one CS organization for raising the point and for asking it to be on one or both the Forum agenda(s) during the second preparatory meeting (18-17 December, ITU Geneva). Friendly regards Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 15/12/13 10:06 > De : "michael gurstein" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] Alternet: Powerful Intelligence World on the Verge of the Ability to Make People Digitally Disappear > > http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/how-powerful-intelligence-world-verge-ability-make-people-digitally-disappear How the Powerful Intelligence World Is on the Verge of the Ability to Make People Digitally Disappear > December 6, 2013 | > To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here. [3] > What if Edward Snowden was made to disappear? No, I’m not suggesting some future CIA rendition effort or a who-killed-Snowden conspiracy theory of a disappearance, but a more ominous kind. > What if everything a whistleblower had ever exposed could simply be made to go away? What if every National Security Agency (NSA) document Snowden released, every interview he gave, every documented trace of a national security state careening out of control could be made to disappear in real-time? What if the very posting of such revelations could be turned into a fruitless, record-less endeavor? > Am I suggesting the plot for a novel by some twenty-first century George Orwell? Hardly. As we edge toward a fully digital world, such things may soon be possible, not in science fiction but in our world—and at the push of a button. In fact, the earliest prototypes of a new kind of “disappearance” are already being tested. We are closer to a shocking, dystopian reality that might once have been the stuff of futuristic novels than we imagine. Welcome to the memory hole. > Even if some future government stepped over one of the last remaining red lines in our world and simply assassinated whistleblowers as they surfaced, others would always emerge. Back in 1948, in his eerie novel 1984 [4], however, Orwell suggested a far more diabolical solution to the problem. He conjured up a technological device for the world of Big Brother that he called "the memory hole [5]." In his dark future, armies of bureaucrats, working in what he sardonically dubbed the Ministry of Truth, spent their lives erasing or altering documents, newspapers, books, and the like in order to create an acceptable version of history. When a person fell out of favor, the Ministry of Truth sent him and all the documentation relating to him down the memory hole. Every story or report in which his life was in any way noted or recorded would be edited to eradicate all traces of him. > In Orwell's pre-digital world, the memory hole was a vacuum tube into which old documents were physically disappeared forever. Alterations to existing documents and the deep-sixing of others ensured that even the sudden switching of global enemies and alliances would never prove a problem for the guardians of Big Brother. In the world he imagined, thanks to those armies of bureaucrats, the present was what had always been—and there were those altered documents to prove it and nothing but faltering memories to say otherwise. Anyone who expressed doubts about the truth of the present would, under the rubric of “thoughtcrime [6],” be marginalized or eliminated. > Government and Corporate Digital Censorship > Increasingly, most of us now get our news, books, music, TV, movies, and communications of every sort electronically. These days, Google earns more advertising revenue [7] than all U.S. print media combined. Even the venerable Newsweek no longer publishes a paper edition [8]. And in that digital world, a certain kind of “simplification” is being explored. The Chinese [9], Iranians [10], and others are, for instance, already implementing web-filtering strategies to block access to sites and online material of which their governments don’t approve. The U.S. government similarly (if somewhat fruitlessly) blocks its employees from viewing [11] Wikileaks and Edward Snowden material (as well as websites like TomDispatch [12]) on their work computers—though not of course at home. Yet. > Great Britain, however, will soon take a significant step toward deciding what a private citizen can see on the web even while at home. Before the end of the year, almost all Internet users there will be “opted-in” to a system designed to filter out [13] pornography. By default, the controls will also block access to "violent material," "extremist and terrorist related content," "anorexia and eating disorder websites," and "suicide related websites." In addition, the new settings will censor sites mentioning alcohol or smoking. The filter will also block "esoteric material," though a UK-based rights group says the government has yet to make clear what that category will include. > And government-sponsored forms of Internet censorship are being privatized. New, off-the-shelf commercial products guarantee that an organization does not need to be the NSA to block content. For example, the Internet security company Blue Coat [14] is a domestic leader in the field and a major exporter of such technology. It can easily set up a system to monitor and filter all Internet usage, blocking web sites by their address, by keywords, or even by the content they contain. Among others, Blue Coat software is used by the U.S. Army to control [15] what its soldiers see while deployed abroad, and by the repressive governments in Syria [16], Saudi Arabia, and Burma [15] to block outside political ideas. > Google Search... > In a sense, Google Search already “disappears” material. Right now Google is the good guy vis-à-vis whistleblowers. A quick Google search (0.22 seconds) turns up more than 48 million hits on Edward Snowden, most of them referencing his leaked NSA documents. Some of the websites display the documents themselves, still labeled “Top Secret.” Less than half a year ago, you had to be one of a very limited group in the government or contractually connected to it to see such things. Now, they are splayed across the web. > Google—and since Google is the planet’s number one search engine, I'll use it here as a shorthand for every search engine, even those yet to be invented—is in this way amazing and looks like a massive machine for spreading, not suppressing, news. Put just about anything on the web and Google is likely to find it quickly and add it into search results worldwide, sometimes within seconds. Since most people rarely scroll past the first few search results displayed, however, being disappeared already has a new meaning online. It’s no longer enough just to get Google to notice you. Getting it to place what you post high enough on its search results page to be noticed is what matters now. If your work is number 47,999,999 on the Snowden results, you’re as good as dead, as good as disappeared. Think of that as a starting point for the more significant forms of disappearance that undoubtedly lie in our future. > Hiding something from users by reprogramming search engines is one dark step to come. Another is actually deleting content, a process as simple as transforming the computer coding behind the search process into something predatory. And if Google refuses to implement the change-over to “negative searches,” the NSA, which already appears to be able to reach inside Google [17], can implant its own version of malicious code as it has already done in at least 50,000 [18] instances. > But never mind the future: here's how a negative search strategy is already working, even if today its focus—largely on pedophiles—is easy enough to accept. Google recently introduced software that makes it harder for users to locate child abuse material. As company head Eric Schmidt [19] put it, Google Search has been “fine-tuned [20]” to clean up results for more than 100,000 terms used by pedophiles to look for child pornography. Now, for instance, when users type in queries that may be related to child sexual abuse, they will find no results [21] that link to illegal content. Instead, Google will redirect them to help and counseling sites. “We will soon roll out these changes in more than 150 languages, so the impact will be truly global,” Schmidt wrote. > While Google is redirecting searches for kiddie porn to counseling sites, the NSA has developed a similar ability. The agency already controls a set of servers codenamed Quantum [22] that sit on the Internet’s backbone. Their job is to redirect “targets” away from their intended destinations to websites of the NSA's choice. The idea is: you type in the website you want and end up somewhere less disturbing to the agency. While at present this technology may be aimed at sending would-be online jihadis to more moderate Islamic material, in the future it could, for instance, be repurposed to redirect people seeking news to an Al-Jazeera lookalike site with altered content that fits the government's version of events. > ...and Destroy > However, blocking and redirecting technologies, which are bound to grow more sophisticated, will undoubtedly be the least of it in the future. Google is already taking things to the next level in the service of a cause that just about anyone would applaud. They are implementing picture-detection technology to identify child abuse photographs whenever they appear on their systems, as well as testing technology that would remove illegal videos. Google's actions against child porn may be well intentioned indeed, but the technology being developed in the service of such anti-child-porn actions should chill us all. Imagine if, back in 1971, the Pentagon Papers [23], the first glimpse most Americans had of the lies behind the Vietnam War, had been deletable. Who believes that the Nixon White House wouldn’t have disappeared those documents and that history wouldn’t have taken a different, far grimmer course? > Or consider an example that’s already with us. In 2009, many Kindle owners discovered that Amazon had reached into their devices overnight and remotely deleted [24] copies of Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984(no irony intended). The company explained that the books, mistakenly “published” on its machines, were actually bootlegged copies of the novels. Similarly, in 2012, Amazon erased the contents [25] of a customer's Kindle without warning, claiming her account was "directly related to another which has been previously closed for abuse of our policies." Using the same technology, Amazon now has the ability to replace books [26] on your device with “updated” versions, the content altered. Whether you are notified or not is up to Amazon. > In addition to your Kindle, remote control over your other devices is already a reality. Much of the software on your computer communicates in the background with its home servers, and so is open to “updates” that can alter content [27]. The NSA uses malware—malicious software remotely implanted into a computer—to change the way [22] the machine works. The Stuxnet [28] code that likely damaged 1,000 centrifuges the Iranians were using to enrich uranium is one example of how this sort of thing can operate. > These days, every iPhone checks back with headquarters to announce what apps you've purchased; in the tiny print of a disclaimer routinely clicked through, Apple reserves the right to disappear any app [29] for any reason. In 2004, TiVo sued Dish Network for giving customers set-top boxes that TiVo said infringed on its software patents. Though the case was settled in return for a large payout, as an initial remedy, the judge ordered Dish to electronically disable [30] the 192,000 devices it had already installed in people's homes. In the future, there will be ever more ways to invade and control computers, alter or disappear what you're reading, and shunt you to sites weren't looking for. > Snowden's revelations of what the NSA does to gather information and control technology, which have riveted the planet since June, are only part of the equation. How the government will enhance its surveillance and control powers in the future is a story still to be told. Imagine coupling tools to hide, alter, or delete content with smear campaigns to discredit or dissuade whistleblowers, and the power potentially available to both governments and corporations becomes clearer. > The ability to move beyond altering content into altering how people act is obviously on governmental and corporate agendas as well. The NSA has already gathered blackmail data [31] from the digital porn viewing habits of “radical” Muslims. The NSA sought to wiretap a Congressman [32] without a warrant. The ability to collect information on Federal judges, government leaders, and presidential candidates makes J. Edgar Hoover's 1950s blackmail schemes [33] as quaint as the bobby socks and poodle skirts of that era. The wonders of the Internet regularly stun us. The dystopian, Orwellian possibilities of the Internet have, until recently, not caught our attention in the same way. They should. > Read This Now, Before It’s Deleted > The future for whistleblowers is grim. At a time not so far distant, when just about everything is digital, when much of the world's Internet traffic flows directly through the United States or allied countries, or through the infrastructure of American companies abroad, when search engines can find just about anything online in fractions of a second, when the Patriot Act [34] and secret rulings by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court [35] make Google and similar tech giants tools [36] of the national security state (assuming organizations like the NSA don't simply take over the search business directly), and when the sophisticated technology can either block, alter, or delete digital material at the push of a button, the memory hole is no longer fiction. > Leaked revelations will be as pointless as dusty old books in some attic if no one knows about them. Go ahead and publish whatever you want. The First Amendment allows you to do that. But what's the point if no one will be able to read it? You might more profitably stand on a street corner and shout at passers by. In at least one easy-enough-to-imagine future, a set of Snowden-like revelations will be blocked or deleted as fast as anyone can (re)post them. > The ever-developing technology of search, turned 180 degrees, will be able to disappear things in a major way. The Internet is a vast place, but not infinite. It is increasingly being centralized in the hands of a few companies under the control of a few governments, with the U.S. sitting on the major transit routes across the Internet’s backbone. > About now you should feel a chill. We’re watching, in real time, as 1984 turns from a futuristic fantasy long past into an instructional manual. There will be no need to kill a future Edward Snowden. He will already be dead. > Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook [37] or Tumblr [38]. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Ann Jones’sThey Were Soldiers: How the Wounded Return From America’s Wars — The Untold Story [39]. Predictions can be very difficult—especially about the future. > — Niels Bohr > Quoted in H. Rosovsky, The University: An Owners Manual (1991), Bohr always attributed the saying to Robert Storm Petersen (1882-1949), a well-known Danish artist and writer. However, the saying did NOT originate from Petersen. It may have been said in the Danish Parliament between 1935 and 1939 [Professor Erik Rüdinger, Niels Bohr Archive, Copenhagen]. > > > __._,_.___ Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback . __,_._,___ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Dec 15 19:43:44 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 05:43:44 +0500 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] press release about meeting of the high level panel In-Reply-To: <937290A5-D04D-442F-8F58-7D90CD4198D5@gmail.com> References: <723F73B1-F8BE-42F5-A373-2C7E0FFD3210@glocom.ac.jp> <9CFBF54D-89FD-439A-B066-57F907ABBAA1@uzh.ch> <937290A5-D04D-442F-8F58-7D90CD4198D5@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B2D715E-B9DB-46C0-8B38-3B4E3DC32EB9@gmail.com> I had a small question from our colleagues that are participating in the process. Is the panel only going to move forward in its present opening structure or is it open to more stakeholder participation from developing countries'. Any chances of remote participation and input? Best Regards Fouad Bajwa Sent from my mobile device On Dec 14, 2013, at 7:58 PM, Carolina wrote: > Thank you Bill and glad that Anriette has joined as well. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Dec 14, 2013, at 1:28 PM, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi Carolina >> >> The press release pretty much covers what was discussed, who was there, and the next steps. I was happy we got agreement to open things up by having online discussions per theme, and that they have invited Anriette to join the group. In terms of ideas discussed, one that seems to have some traction is to do something to help foster the development of multistakeholder processes at the national level, inter alia in the hope that this will strengthen the diversity of engagement at the global level. >> >> It is currently expected that the final report will be brief, under ten pages, and will be revised in light of the feedback from Sao Paulo and elsewhere. >> >> The tweets are at #InternetPanel but there’s not so much given the Chatham rule. >> >> Cheers >> >> Bill >> >> On Dec 14, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> >>> any reports back from that meeting already? >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> http://www.telegraphindia.com/pressrelease/prnw/en33449.html >>> -- >>> >>> High-Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms Convenes in London >>> >>> PR Newswire >>> >>> LONDON, Dec. 13, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- The Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms -- a diverse group of global stakeholders from government, civil society, the private sector, the technical community and international organizations -- held their first meeting in London to discuss global Internet cooperation and governance mechanisms. The Panel expressed strong support for a multistakeholder approach to the future of Internet governance. The conversations held at the London meeting were facilitated by a team of Internet governance experts. The discussion will be taken online in the coming days at 1Net.org. >>> >>> "The world relies on the Internet for economic, social, and political progress. It is imperative to ensure emerging issues are properly addressed in a global context, without individual governments or intergovernmental organizations developing their own solutions," said Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves and chair of the Panel. >>> >>> "The success of the Internet is rooted in a distributed and bottom-up model, with openness and collaboration at its core," said Vint Cerf, vice-chair of the Panel. "The inaugural meeting of the Panel brought together a diverse set of perspectives on the future of the Internet, and through this diversity I'm confident we can chart a course to protect the core of the current ecosystem, while evolving its methods, accessibility, and universality to meet the opportunities and challenges of the future." >>> >>> In keeping with its mission, the first meeting of the Panel addressed desirable properties for global Internet cooperation, administration and governance. The Panel will conduct two additional meetings in the coming months. The next meeting, scheduled for late February 2014 in Rancho Mirage, California, will be hosted by The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands. Sunnylands is partnering with the Panel in its substantive work. Following this meeting, a high-level draft report will then be released for open consultation. A final meeting will be hosted by the World Economic Forum in May 2014 in Dubai. During this meeting, the Panel will consider community feedback and discussions at forums including the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in Braziland the Freedom Online Coalition's conference in Tallinn, Estonia. A high-level report will be published at the conclusion of the May meeting, and is expected to cover the following areas: >>> >>> • A brief overview of the current Internet governance ecosystem >>> • Opportunities and challenges facing the current ecosystem >>> • Desirable ecosystem properties including: >>> • Ecosystem legitimacy >>> • Effective and inclusive multi-interest and consensus-based system >>> • Ensuring global participation including from the developing world >>> • Co-existence with other governance systems (national and multi-lateral) ensuring a stable system that is not prone to attack, mismanagement, and manipulation >>> Panel members are working in their personal capacity. Members consist of: >>> >>> • Mohamed Al Ghanim, Founder and Director General of the UAE Telecommunications Regulatory Authority; former Vice-Chair, UAE Information and Communications Technology Fund; Chairman of WCIT-12 >>> • Virgilio Fernandes Almeida, Member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Chair of Internet Steering Committee; National Secretary for Information Technology Policies >>> • Dorothy Attwood, Senior Vice President of Global Public Policy, Walt Disney Company >>> • Mitchell Baker, Chair, Mozilla Foundation; Chair and former CEO, Mozilla Corporation >>> • Francesco Caio, CEO of Avio; former CEO, Cable and Wireless and Vodafone Italia; Founder of Netscalibur; broadband advisor in UK and Italy; Government Commissioner for Digital Agenda >>> • Vint Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist for Google; former Chairman, ICANN; Co-Founder of the Internet Society >>> • Fadi Chehade, CEO and President of ICANN; Founder of Rosetta Net; technology executive >>> • Nitin Desai, Indian economist and diplomat; former UN Undersecretary General; convener of Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) >>> • Byron Holland, President and CEO of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority >>> • Toomas Hendrik Ilves, President of Estonia; former diplomat and journalist; former Minister of Foreign Affairs; former Member of the European Parliament >>> • Ivo Ivanovski, Minister of Information Society and Administration, Macedonia; Commissioner to the UN Broadband Commission for Digital Development >>> • Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe; former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Norway >>> • Omobola Johnson, Minister of Communication Technology of Nigeria >>> • Olaf Kolkman, Director of NLnet Labs; "Evangineer" of the Open Internet; former Chair of the Internet Architecture Board >>> • Frank La Rue, labor and human rights lawyer; UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression; Founder, Center for Legal Action for Human Rights (CALDH) >>> • Robert M. McDowell, former U.S. Federal Communications Commissioner; Visiting Fellow, Hudson Institute's Center for Economics of the Internet >>> • Andile Ngcaba, Chairman and Founder, Convergence Partners; Executive Chairman, Dimension Data Middle East and Africa; former South African Government Director General of Communications >>> • Liu Qingfeng, CEO and President of iFLYTEK; Director of National Speech & Language Engineering Laboratory of China; Member of Interactive Technology Standards working group >>> • Lynn St. Amour, President and CEO of the Internet Society; telecoms and IT executive >>> • Jimmy Wales, Founder and Promoter of Wikipedia; Member of the Board of Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation >>> • Won-Pyo Hong, President, Media Solution Center, Samsung Electronics >>> >>> >>> London Panel Agenda >>> >>> December 13 >>> >>> 09:00 -- 11:00 >>> >>> Backgrounder >>> >>> Expert presentations on Internet Cooperation and >>> Governance to cover: >>> >>> -- History of Internet cooperation and overview of >>> current ecosystem >>> >>> Speaker: Vint Cerf >>> >>> -- Nature and scope of global Internet governance >>> >>> Speaker: William Drake >>> >>> -- Current system opportunities and challenges: >>> ( this includes legitimacy and mandate challenges, >>> challenges for global participation and inclusion) >>> >>> Speaker: David Gross & Bertrand de la Chapelle >>> >>> 11:00 -- 11:15 >>> >>> Break >>> >>> 11:15 -- 12:00 >>> >>> Backgrounder Q&A Session >>> >>> 12:00 -- 13:00 >>> >>> Lunch >>> >>> 13:00 -- 14:30 >>> >>> Developing Desirable System Properties >>> >>> Panel is split into the following four proposed tracks, >>> each moderated by an Internet Governance expert: >>> >>> >>> -- Desirable properties for ecosystem legitimacy >>> >>> Moderator: David Gross >>> >>> -- Desirable properties for an effective and inclusive >>> multi-interest & consensus-based system >>> >>> Moderator: Sally Wentworth >>> >>> -- Desirable properties to ensure global participation >>> including from developing world >>> >>> Moderator: William Drake >>> >>> -- Desirable properties for co-existence with other >>> governance systems (national and multi-lateral) >>> ensuring a stable system that is not prone to attack, >>> mismanagement, and manipulation. >>> >>> Moderator: Wolfgang Kleinwachter >>> >>> 14:30 -- 14:45 >>> >>> Break >>> >>> 14:45 -- 17:30 >>> >>> Joint Observations >>> >>> Panel members, moderated by experts, coalesce >>> around a set of overall joint observations on the >>> desirable system properties >>> >>> 17:30 -- 17:45 >>> >>> Break >>> >>> 17:45 -- 18:30 >>> >>> Wrap-up >>> >>> >>> Panel members discuss next steps, timelines/dates, >>> communication rules and modus operandi for panel >>> >>> About The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands >>> The Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands, which operates The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands in Rancho Mirage, California, is an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit operating entity. The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands hosts high-level retreats that address serious issues facing the nation and the world, including the recent official meeting between President Obama and President Xi of the People's Republic of China. In addition, Sunnylands offers programs through the Sunnylands Center & Gardens to educate the public about the history of Sunnylands, its architecture, art collections, cultural significance, and sustainable practices. >>> >>> About ICANN >>> The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an internationally organised, non-profit corporation that has responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server system management functions. As a private-public partnership, ICANN is dedicated to preserving the operational stability of the Internet; to promoting competition; to achieving broad representation of global Internet communities; and to developing policy appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, consensus-based processes. For more information please visit:http://www.icann.org/. >>> >>> About The World Economic Forum >>> The World Economic Forum is an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world by engaging leaders in partnerships to shape global, regional and industry agendas. >>> >>> Incorporated as a foundation in 1971 and headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the World Economic Forum is impartial and not-for-profit; it is tied to no political, partisan or national interests (http://www.weforum.org/). >>> >>> Editor's Note: The Panel was previously referred to as the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation. >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Guru at ITforChange.net Mon Dec 16 02:28:42 2013 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 12:58:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Lawmakers overseeing NSA receive millions from private intelligence contractors In-Reply-To: <52ACE6BE.6060403@gmail.com> References: <52ACE6BE.6060403@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52AEABAA.9070808@ITforChange.net> excerpt “/Amid the NSA scandal, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence — the committees in charge of oversight — denied stricter reform attempts to the NSA programs and instead propelled legislation aimed at restoring their trust/,” John Schoffstall of the Capitol City Project remarked after seeing Shaw’s report. “/The committees are intended to keep waste, fraud and abuse in check given most of these programs are hidden from the general public/,” Schoffstall continued. Despite this, however, “*/Every single member on the committees received campaign contributions from the largest intelligence companies in the US performing services for the government/**,” *he said. end excerpt Conflict of interest is a serious problem especially in the IG space.... greater transparency, including of funding/ mandate etc. would help CS on both legitimacy and effectiveness aspects. regards, Guru Lawmakers overseeing NSA receive millions from private intelligence contractors Published time: December 13, 2013 22:31 Get short URL US President Obama said last week that reforming the NSA in the midst of a major surveillance scandal could restore confidence in the government. Newly revealed connections between Congress and the private sector, however, may not do the same. Officials from the executive and legislative branches have expressed an interest in reforming the NSA, especially in light of the ongoing and highly damaging leaks disclosed to the media by former contractor Edward Snowden. But a recent report has shed light on some ties between those in Washington who watch over the intelligence community and their financial bankers - the likes of which raise questions about just how serious lawmakers in the Senate and House of Representatives are about reigning in the NSA. A study by Donny Shaw at the nonpartisan research organizationMapLight was published this week, and in it he explored the connections between the major industry players that provide the intelligence community with tools and the lawmakers that look over the NSA and other agencies. Seventy percentof the intelligence budget is used to pay private contractors, Shaw acknowledged, and the corporations at the top of that list are among those that have received billions of dollars by the federal government in awards and contracts. At the same time, however, those very companies and the political action committees (PACs) they’ve aligned with have long been padding the pockets of influential members of Congress. According to research published this week by Shaw, PACs and individuals from the top 20 contractors with ties to the Pentagon have all contributed significantly to members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. “/In total, members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have received $3.7 million from top intelligence services contractors since January 1, 2005/,” Shaw reported, suggesting that lawmakers in those offices may be a bit hesitant to scale back the nation’s intelligence operations and, in turn, cut funding to the very contractors that are helping their campaigns. With regards to contractors who have benefited heavily from government opportunities, L-3 Communications has been awarded more than $46 billion in federal funds for an array of jobs they’ve undertaken during the course of their relationship with Washington, according to the USAspending.gov website. But as of last month, L-3 has also handed over around $238,145 to the Senate and House intelligence committees. Even with more than a quarter of a million dollars going directly to the lawmakers in charge of monitoring the intelligence community that relies on L-3’s products and services, the communications firm is hardly the most generous. Lockheed Martin has made contributions to those intelligence committee members in one form or another to the tune of around $798,901, according to Shaw’s research, and Northrup Grumman, Honeywell International, and General Dynamics have each awarded those committee members at least $675k a piece. And how is that money divvied up? The Maplight research reveals that Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Maryland) - the chairman of the House committee who also represents the district containing the NSA headquarters - is the largest recipient of intelligence contractor money, reaping in around $363,600 since 2005. “/Amid the NSA scandal, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence — the committees in charge of oversight — denied stricter reform attempts to the NSA programs and instead propelled legislation aimed at restoring their trust/,” John Schoffstall of the Capitol City Project remarked after seeing Shaw’s report. “/The committees are intended to keep waste, fraud and abuse in check given most of these programs are hidden from the general public/,” Schoffstall continued. Despite this, however, “/Every single member on the committees received campaign contributions from the largest intelligence companies in the US performing services for the government/,” he said. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 16 02:39:39 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 13:09:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] Lawmakers overseeing NSA receive millions from private intelligence contractors Message-ID: You would be hard put to find anywhere in the world where politicians don't receive substantial contributions from industry special interest groups. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Guru गुरु" To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Subject: [governance] Lawmakers overseeing NSA receive millions from private intelligence contractors Date: Mon, Dec 16, 2013 12:58 PM excerpt “/Amid the NSA scandal, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence — the committees in charge of oversight — denied stricter reform attempts to the NSA programs and instead propelled legislation aimed at restoring their trust/,” John Schoffstall of the Capitol City Project remarked after seeing Shaw’s report. “/The committees are intended to keep waste, fraud and abuse in check given most of these programs are hidden from the general public/,” Schoffstall continued. Despite this, however, “*/Every single member on the committees received campaign contributions from the largest intelligence companies in the US performing services for the government/**,” *he said. end excerpt Conflict of interest is a serious problem especially in the IG space.... greater transparency, including of funding/ mandate etc. would help CS on both legitimacy and effectiveness aspects. regards, Guru Lawmakers overseeing NSA receive millions from private intelligence contractors Published time: December 13, 2013 22:31 Get short URL US President Obama said last week that reforming the NSA in the midst of a major surveillance scandal could restore confidence in the government. Newly revealed connections between Congress and the private sector, however, may not do the same. Officials from the executive and legislative branches have expressed an interest in reforming the NSA, especially in light of the ongoing and highly damaging leaks disclosed to the media by former contractor Edward Snowden. But a recent report has shed light on some ties between those in Washington who watch over the intelligence community and their financial bankers - the likes of which raise questions about just how serious lawmakers in the Senate and House of Representatives are about reigning in the NSA. A study by Donny Shaw at the nonpartisan research organizationMapLight was published this week, and in it he explored the connections between the major industry players that provide the intelligence community with tools and the lawmakers that look over the NSA and other agencies. Seventy percentof the intelligence budget is used to pay private contractors, Shaw acknowledged, and the corporations at the top of that list are among those that have received billions of dollars by the federal government in awards and contracts. At the same time, however, those very companies and the political action committees (PACs) they’ve aligned with have long been padding the pockets of influential members of Congress. According to research published this week by Shaw, PACs and individuals from the top 20 contractors with ties to the Pentagon have all contributed significantly to members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. “/In total, members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have received $3.7 million from top intelligence services contractors since January 1, 2005/,” Shaw reported, suggesting that lawmakers in those offices may be a bit hesitant to scale back the nation’s intelligence operations and, in turn, cut funding to the very contractors that are helping their campaigns. With regards to contractors who have benefited heavily from government opportunities, L-3 Communications has been awarded more than $46 billion in federal funds for an array of jobs they’ve undertaken during the course of their relationship with Washington, according to the USAspending.gov website. But as of last month, L-3 has also handed over around $238,145 to the Senate and House intelligence committees. Even with more than a quarter of a million dollars going directly to the lawmakers in charge of monitoring the intelligence community that relies on L-3’s products and services, the communications firm is hardly the most generous. Lockheed Martin has made contributions to those intelligence committee members in one form or another to the tune of around $798,901, according to Shaw’s research, and Northrup Grumman, Honeywell International, and General Dynamics have each awarded those committee members at least $675k a piece. And how is that money divvied up? The Maplight research reveals that Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Maryland) - the chairman of the House committee who also represents the district containing the NSA headquarters - is the largest recipient of intelligence contractor money, reaping in around $363,600 since 2005. “/Amid the NSA scandal, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence — the committees in charge of oversight — denied stricter reform attempts to the NSA programs and instead propelled legislation aimed at restoring their trust/,” John Schoffstall of the Capitol City Project remarked after seeing Shaw’s report. “/The committees are intended to keep waste, fraud and abuse in check given most of these programs are hidden from the general public/,” Schoffstall continued. Despite this, however, “/Every single member on the committees received campaign contributions from the largest intelligence companies in the US performing services for the government/,” he said. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 16 02:44:18 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 13:14:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] Lawmakers overseeing NSA receive millions from private intelligence contractors Message-ID: And having seen casablanca this is remarkably similar to that immortal dialog.. I am shocked, shocked to see that politicians are receiving lobbyists money --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" To: "Guru" , "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Subject: [governance] Lawmakers overseeing NSA receive millions from private intelligence contractors Date: Mon, Dec 16, 2013 1:09 PM You would be hard put to find anywhere in the world where politicians don't receive substantial contributions from industry special interest groups. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Guru गुरु" To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Subject: [governance] Lawmakers overseeing NSA receive millions from private intelligence contractors Date: Mon, Dec 16, 2013 12:58 PM excerpt “/Amid the NSA scandal, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence — the committees in charge of oversight — denied stricter reform attempts to the NSA programs and instead propelled legislation aimed at restoring their trust/,” John Schoffstall of the Capitol City Project remarked after seeing Shaw’s report. “/The committees are intended to keep waste, fraud and abuse in check given most of these programs are hidden from the general public/,” Schoffstall continued. Despite this, however, “*/Every single member on the committees received campaign contributions from the largest intelligence companies in the US performing services for the government/**,” *he said. end excerpt Conflict of interest is a serious problem especially in the IG space.... greater transparency, including of funding/ mandate etc. would help CS on both legitimacy and effectiveness aspects. regards, Guru Lawmakers overseeing NSA receive millions from private intelligence contractors Published time: December 13, 2013 22:31 Get short URL US President Obama said last week that reforming the NSA in the midst of a major surveillance scandal could restore confidence in the government. Newly revealed connections between Congress and the private sector, however, may not do the same. Officials from the executive and legislative branches have expressed an interest in reforming the NSA, especially in light of the ongoing and highly damaging leaks disclosed to the media by former contractor Edward Snowden. But a recent report has shed light on some ties between those in Washington who watch over the intelligence community and their financial bankers - the likes of which raise questions about just how serious lawmakers in the Senate and House of Representatives are about reigning in the NSA. A study by Donny Shaw at the nonpartisan research organizationMapLight was published this week, and in it he explored the connections between the major industry players that provide the intelligence community with tools and the lawmakers that look over the NSA and other agencies. Seventy percentof the intelligence budget is used to pay private contractors, Shaw acknowledged, and the corporations at the top of that list are among those that have received billions of dollars by the federal government in awards and contracts. At the same time, however, those very companies and the political action committees (PACs) they’ve aligned with have long been padding the pockets of influential members of Congress. According to research published this week by Shaw, PACs and individuals from the top 20 contractors with ties to the Pentagon have all contributed significantly to members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. “/In total, members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence have received $3.7 million from top intelligence services contractors since January 1, 2005/,” Shaw reported, suggesting that lawmakers in those offices may be a bit hesitant to scale back the nation’s intelligence operations and, in turn, cut funding to the very contractors that are helping their campaigns. With regards to contractors who have benefited heavily from government opportunities, L-3 Communications has been awarded more than $46 billion in federal funds for an array of jobs they’ve undertaken during the course of their relationship with Washington, according to the USAspending.gov website. But as of last month, L-3 has also handed over around $238,145 to the Senate and House intelligence committees. Even with more than a quarter of a million dollars going directly to the lawmakers in charge of monitoring the intelligence community that relies on L-3’s products and services, the communications firm is hardly the most generous. Lockheed Martin has made contributions to those intelligence committee members in one form or another to the tune of around $798,901, according to Shaw’s research, and Northrup Grumman, Honeywell International, and General Dynamics have each awarded those committee members at least $675k a piece. And how is that money divvied up? The Maplight research reveals that Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Maryland) - the chairman of the House committee who also represents the district containing the NSA headquarters - is the largest recipient of intelligence contractor money, reaping in around $363,600 since 2005. “/Amid the NSA scandal, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence — the committees in charge of oversight — denied stricter reform attempts to the NSA programs and instead propelled legislation aimed at restoring their trust/,” John Schoffstall of the Capitol City Project remarked after seeing Shaw’s report. “/The committees are intended to keep waste, fraud and abuse in check given most of these programs are hidden from the general public/,” Schoffstall continued. Despite this, however, “/Every single member on the committees received campaign contributions from the largest intelligence companies in the US performing services for the government/,” he said. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vladar at diplomacy.edu Mon Dec 16 12:36:33 2013 From: vladar at diplomacy.edu (Vladimir Radunovic) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:36:33 +0100 Subject: Snapshots from ICANN HL Panel in London Re: [governance] [bestbits] press release about meeting of the high level panel Message-ID: Dear colleagues, here are few lines on my impressions of what happened at the High Level Panel meeting in London on Friday. I hope it will help us better understand the intentions and potentials of this (dynamically evolving and self-reshaping) initiative. I was there in status of an observer, representing Diplo who was invited among others by ICANN to provide its expertise and assist the drafting of report by the HL panel. The Panel event was under Chatham House rule, so I will try to bring as many details as possible while still respecting this rule. The views below are my personal, as I saw the discussions and the process. Besides the impressions below, I (and several others) have been extensively tweeting with #InternetPanel (read here) so you can get a pretty good snapshot of key points in discussion through that. Formal Press Release has been published and is available here– it brings more or less all the basic info on topics and participants of the meeting as well as the future timeline. *HL Group and experts* Panel includes 21 members listed in the Press Release; additionally, a final one (Anriette from APC) has been accepted during the meeting in London to reflect loud civil society requests. Panel is dominated by tech and corporate sector, with few yet high level representatives of governments; only now there is a panel member from civil society organisation. It was my impression that initially the entire HL Panel was composed based on “names” rather than on representation of stakeholders; yet it appears that it was acknowledged at the end that the absence of civil society organisations can hurt the process. On the other hand, civil society experts dominate the expert group who is supposed to assist with drafting the final report – as the agenda in press release shows. As an observer (replacing Jovan who was invited as expert but was not able to join in London), I did not have chance to formally raise civil society concerns expressed on this list and elsewhere, but other experts were involved in formal discussion. I hope Anriette’s formal presence in future will extend this direct opportunity. At London meeting there were most of Panel members, the experts, dozen of observers assisting Panel members or as guests, and some ICANN staff – total about 50 people, invited by ICANN. These are likely the people that will gather also in the next phases of the work. I suppose there will be no further changes in composition of the panel. I also got the impression the following two meetings will not be opened for observers rather than those invited directly or related to panel members, nor there will be greater transparency during the meetings; instead, it seems public consultations (primarily on 1Net) will be the public inputs into the work of the panel. *Task* The Panel has decided to be titled “Panel on global Internet cooperation and governance mechanisms”. Their goal is to prepare a blueprint document – a report – as described in press release. The focus of London discussions was on mapping the ecosystem and needs, discussing the “desirable properties” of future system, and agreeing on next steps. While there were interesting discussions, my impression was that there were very few new aspects on the table yet. It is my hope that the panel (and especially the experts who do have extensive knowledge of already-discussed issues in and various fora in previous years) will reflect to valuable outputs of previous IGF and other meetings rather than reinventing the wheel. It was confirmed that the summary of discussion points will be posted to 1Net.org soon asking for community reflections. The final draft of the report should be ready during second HL meeting in US end February; then it should be formally submitted as contribution to Sao Paolo meeting and Freedom Online conference in Tallinn in April, and offered for public consultations towards the next draft (not sure if only through 1Net, but probably will not be limited to that). It is supposed the draft report will find its place in the Sao Paolo meeting as well. The outputs of this and public discussions will be fed into the final report to be wrapped up during the third meeting in Dubai in early May. It should then be fed into various processes incl. ICANN meeting in London in June, IGF in September, etc. It is important to mention that the relevance and legitimacy of IGF was mentioned several times in discussions, and I had a feeling that the panel and experts are aware that this process should contribute to (and possibly strengthen) the IGF rather than undermine it. *Other components* My impression was that there was distancing by ICANN and the HL panel from the Sao Paolo meeting. Brazil meeting was mentioned only once at the end as a place where the report may be discussed – and was mentioned as only one such opportunity. There was no feeling that Sao Paolo conference is part of this initiative. At the same time the news was spread that Brazilian president Rousseff met French President Holland and that France might support Sao Paolo meeting (I found no direct confirmation for this in news yet however – pointers welcomed if anyone has). On the other hand 1Net was mentioned several times as the place in which public contributions on the draft report should be provided. It was of course only the reference to 1Net with regards to the HL Panel work, but it is possible that 1Net was envisaged with a broader goal; there was no further info however on how 1Net will proceed, nor on its Steering Committees or further steps. *Timeline* The timeline of meetings was presented in the press release as well. Yet let me combine it here with the updated info on other relevant 2014 events mentioned and not mentioned in London: 22-25 January, Davos: Side-meeting of the HL Panel during WEF annual meeting 27-28 February, US: 2nd HL meeting 31 March, Dubai (rather than Sharm): ITU WTDC 23-24 April, Sao Paolo: Brazil conference 28-29 April, Tallinn: Freedom Online Conference 3-4 May, Dubai: 3rd (final) HL meeting I hope this shed bit more light on what this whole new initiative will be about. It is slightly clearer to me now, though I still have lots of questions about 1Net. It is my belief that we should try to, whatever the initial idea behind 1Net was (and also the HL Panel), explore its potentials to strengthen the IGF and improve communications among professional (and stakeholder) silos. Best! Vlada PS Sorry for a rather long email.. I decided to be detailed in this case, and mention as much as possible. On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 1:43 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > I had a small question from our colleagues that are participating in the > process. Is the panel only going to move forward in its present opening > structure or is it open to more stakeholder participation from developing > countries'. Any chances of remote participation and input? > > Best Regards > Fouad Bajwa > > Sent from my mobile device > > On Dec 14, 2013, at 7:58 PM, Carolina wrote: > > Thank you Bill and glad that Anriette has joined as well. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Dec 14, 2013, at 1:28 PM, William Drake wrote: > > Hi Carolina > > The press release pretty much covers what was discussed, who was there, > and the next steps. I was happy we got agreement to open things up by > having online discussions per theme, and that they have invited Anriette to > join the group. In terms of ideas discussed, one that seems to have some > traction is to do something to help foster the development of > multistakeholder processes at the national level, inter alia in the hope > that this will strengthen the diversity of engagement at the global level. > > It is currently expected that the final report will be brief, under ten > pages, and will be revised in light of the feedback from Sao Paulo and > elsewhere. > > The tweets are at #InternetPanel but there’s not so much given the Chatham > rule. > > Cheers > > Bill > > On Dec 14, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Carolina Rossini > wrote: > > any reports back from that meeting already? > > > On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> http://www.telegraphindia.com/pressrelease/prnw/en33449.html >> -- >> >> High-Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms >> Convenes in London >> >> PR Newswire >> >> LONDON, Dec. 13, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- The Panel on Global Internet >> Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms -- a diverse group of global >> stakeholders from government, civil society, the private sector, the >> technical community and international organizations -- held their first >> meeting in London to discuss global Internet cooperation and governance >> mechanisms. The Panel expressed strong support for a multistakeholder >> approach to the future of Internet governance. The conversations held at >> the London meeting were facilitated by a team of Internet governance >> experts. The discussion will be taken online in the coming days at >> 1Net.org. >> >> "The world relies on the Internet for economic, social, and political >> progress. It is imperative to ensure emerging issues are properly addressed >> in a global context, without individual governments or intergovernmental >> organizations developing their own solutions," said Estonian President >> Toomas Hendrik Ilves and chair of the Panel. >> >> "The success of the Internet is rooted in a distributed and bottom-up >> model, with openness and collaboration at its core," said Vint Cerf, >> vice-chair of the Panel. "The inaugural meeting of the Panel brought >> together a diverse set of perspectives on the future of the Internet, and >> through this diversity I'm confident we can chart a course to protect the >> core of the current ecosystem, while evolving its methods, accessibility, >> and universality to meet the opportunities and challenges of the future." >> >> In keeping with its mission, the first meeting of the Panel addressed >> desirable properties for global Internet cooperation, administration and >> governance. The Panel will conduct two additional meetings in the coming >> months. The next meeting, scheduled for late February 2014 in Rancho >> Mirage, California, will be hosted by The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands. >> Sunnylands is partnering with the Panel in its substantive work. Following >> this meeting, a high-level draft report will then be released for open >> consultation. A final meeting will be hosted by the World Economic Forum in >> May 2014 in Dubai. During this meeting, the Panel will consider community >> feedback and discussions at forums including the Global Multistakeholder >> Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in Braziland the Freedom >> Online Coalition's conference in Tallinn, Estonia. A high-level report will >> be published at the conclusion of the May meeting, and is expected to cover >> the following areas: >> >> • A brief overview of the current Internet governance ecosystem >> • Opportunities and challenges facing the current ecosystem >> • Desirable ecosystem properties including: >> • Ecosystem legitimacy >> • Effective and inclusive multi-interest and >> consensus-based system >> • Ensuring global participation including from the >> developing world >> • Co-existence with other governance systems (national >> and multi-lateral) ensuring a stable system that is not prone to attack, >> mismanagement, and manipulation >> Panel members are working in their personal capacity. Members consist of: >> >> • Mohamed Al Ghanim, Founder and Director General of the UAE >> Telecommunications Regulatory Authority; former Vice-Chair, UAE Information >> and Communications Technology Fund; Chairman of WCIT-12 >> • Virgilio Fernandes Almeida, Member of the Brazilian Academy of >> Sciences; Chair of Internet Steering Committee; National Secretary for >> Information Technology Policies >> • Dorothy Attwood, Senior Vice President of Global Public Policy, >> Walt Disney Company >> • Mitchell Baker, Chair, Mozilla Foundation; Chair and former >> CEO, Mozilla Corporation >> • Francesco Caio, CEO of Avio; former CEO, Cable and Wireless and >> Vodafone Italia; Founder of Netscalibur; broadband advisor in UK and Italy; >> Government Commissioner for Digital Agenda >> • Vint Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist for >> Google; former Chairman, ICANN; Co-Founder of the Internet Society >> • Fadi Chehade, CEO and President of ICANN; Founder of Rosetta >> Net; technology executive >> • Nitin Desai, Indian economist and diplomat; former UN >> Undersecretary General; convener of Working Group on Internet Governance >> (WGIG) >> • Byron Holland, President and CEO of the Canadian Internet >> Registration Authority >> • Toomas Hendrik Ilves, President of Estonia; former diplomat and >> journalist; former Minister of Foreign Affairs; former Member of the >> European Parliament >> • Ivo Ivanovski, Minister of Information Society and >> Administration, Macedonia; Commissioner to the UN Broadband Commission for >> Digital Development >> • Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe; >> former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Norway >> • Omobola Johnson, Minister of Communication Technology of Nigeria >> • Olaf Kolkman, Director of NLnet Labs; "Evangineer" of the Open >> Internet; former Chair of the Internet Architecture Board >> • Frank La Rue, labor and human rights lawyer; UN Special >> Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of >> Opinion and Expression; Founder, Center for Legal Action for Human Rights >> (CALDH) >> • Robert M. McDowell, former U.S. Federal Communications >> Commissioner; Visiting Fellow, Hudson Institute's Center for Economics of >> the Internet >> • Andile Ngcaba, Chairman and Founder, Convergence Partners; >> Executive Chairman, Dimension Data Middle East and Africa; former South >> African Government Director General of Communications >> • Liu Qingfeng, CEO and President of iFLYTEK; Director of >> National Speech & Language Engineering Laboratory of China; Member of >> Interactive Technology Standards working group >> • Lynn St. Amour, President and CEO of the Internet Society; >> telecoms and IT executive >> • Jimmy Wales, Founder and Promoter of Wikipedia; Member of the >> Board of Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation >> • Won-Pyo Hong, President, Media Solution Center, Samsung >> Electronics >> >> >> London Panel Agenda >> >> December 13 >> >> 09:00 -- 11:00 >> >> Backgrounder >> >> Expert presentations on Internet Cooperation and >> Governance to cover: >> >> -- History of Internet cooperation and overview of >> current ecosystem >> >> Speaker: Vint Cerf >> >> -- Nature and scope of global Internet governance >> >> Speaker: William Drake >> >> -- Current system opportunities and challenges: >> ( this includes legitimacy and mandate challenges, >> challenges for global participation and inclusion) >> >> Speaker: David Gross & Bertrand de la Chapelle >> >> 11:00 -- 11:15 >> >> Break >> >> 11:15 -- 12:00 >> >> Backgrounder Q&A Session >> >> 12:00 -- 13:00 >> >> Lunch >> >> 13:00 -- 14:30 >> >> Developing Desirable System Properties >> >> Panel is split into the following four proposed tracks, >> each moderated by an Internet Governance expert: >> >> >> -- Desirable properties for ecosystem legitimacy >> >> Moderator: David Gross >> >> -- Desirable properties for an effective and inclusive >> multi-interest & consensus-based system >> >> Moderator: Sally Wentworth >> >> -- Desirable properties to ensure global participation >> including from developing world >> >> Moderator: William Drake >> >> -- Desirable properties for co-existence with other >> governance systems (national and multi-lateral) >> ensuring a stable system that is not prone to attack, >> mismanagement, and manipulation. >> >> Moderator: Wolfgang Kleinwachter >> >> 14:30 -- 14:45 >> >> Break >> >> 14:45 -- 17:30 >> >> Joint Observations >> >> Panel members, moderated by experts, coalesce >> around a set of overall joint observations on the >> desirable system properties >> >> 17:30 -- 17:45 >> >> Break >> >> 17:45 -- 18:30 >> >> Wrap-up >> >> >> Panel members discuss next steps, timelines/dates, >> communication rules and modus operandi for panel >> >> About The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands >> The Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands, which operates The >> Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands in Rancho Mirage, California, is an >> independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit operating entity. The Annenberg Retreat at >> Sunnylands hosts high-level retreats that address serious issues facing the >> nation and the world, including the recent official meeting between >> President Obama and President Xi of the People's Republic of China. In >> addition, Sunnylands offers programs through the Sunnylands Center & >> Gardens to educate the public about the history of Sunnylands, its >> architecture, art collections, cultural significance, and sustainable >> practices. >> >> About ICANN >> The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an >> internationally organised, non-profit corporation that has responsibility >> for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier >> assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name >> system management, and root server system management functions. As a >> private-public partnership, ICANN is dedicated to preserving the >> operational stability of the Internet; to promoting competition; to >> achieving broad representation of global Internet communities; and to >> developing policy appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, >> consensus-based processes. For more information please visit: >> http://www.icann.org/. >> >> About The World Economic Forum >> The World Economic Forum is an independent international organization >> committed to improving the state of the world by engaging leaders in >> partnerships to shape global, regional and industry agendas. >> >> Incorporated as a foundation in 1971 and headquartered in Geneva, >> Switzerland, the World Economic Forum is impartial and not-for-profit; it >> is tied to no political, partisan or national interests ( >> http://www.weforum.org/). >> >> Editor's Note: The Panel was previously referred to as the Panel on the >> Future of Global Internet Cooperation. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > > > -- > *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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 14:07:56 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 19:07:56 +0000 Subject: Snapshots from ICANN HL Panel in London Re: [governance] [bestbits] press release about meeting of the high level panel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Vlada, for this detailed and very informative account of what transpired at the HLP meeting in London. Mawaki -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- *Mawaki Chango, PhD* Founder & Principal, DIGILEXIS http://www.digilexis.com m.chango at digilexis.com Mobile: +225 4448 7764 twitter.com/digilexis twitter.com/dig_mawaki Skype: digilexis On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Vladimir Radunovic wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > > > here are few lines on my impressions of what happened at the High Level > Panel meeting in London on Friday. I hope it will help us better understand > the intentions and potentials of this (dynamically evolving and > self-reshaping) initiative. > > > > I was there in status of an observer, representing Diplo who was invited > among others by ICANN to provide its expertise and assist the drafting of > report by the HL panel. The Panel event was under Chatham House rule, so I > will try to bring as many details as possible while still respecting this > rule. The views below are my personal, as I saw the discussions and the > process. Besides the impressions below, I (and several others) have been > extensively tweeting with #InternetPanel (read here) > so you can get a pretty good snapshot of key points in discussion through > that. Formal Press Release has been published and is available here– it brings more or less all the basic info on topics and participants of > the meeting as well as the future timeline. > > > > *HL Group and experts* > > > > Panel includes 21 members listed in the Press Release; additionally, a > final one (Anriette from APC) has been accepted during the meeting in > London to reflect loud civil society requests. Panel is dominated by tech > and corporate sector, with few yet high level representatives of > governments; only now there is a panel member from civil society > organisation. > > > > It was my impression that initially the entire HL Panel was composed based > on “names” rather than on representation of stakeholders; yet it appears > that it was acknowledged at the end that the absence of civil society > organisations can hurt the process. On the other hand, civil society > experts dominate the expert group who is supposed to assist with drafting > the final report – as the agenda in press release shows. As an observer > (replacing Jovan who was invited as expert but was not able to join in > London), I did not have chance to formally raise civil society concerns > expressed on this list and elsewhere, but other experts were involved in > formal discussion. I hope Anriette’s formal presence in future will extend > this direct opportunity. > > > > At London meeting there were most of Panel members, the experts, dozen of > observers assisting Panel members or as guests, and some ICANN staff – > total about 50 people, invited by ICANN. These are likely the people that > will gather also in the next phases of the work. I suppose there will be no > further changes in composition of the panel. I also got the impression the > following two meetings will not be opened for observers rather than those > invited directly or related to panel members, nor there will be greater > transparency during the meetings; instead, it seems public consultations > (primarily on 1Net) will be the public inputs into the work of the panel. > > > > *Task* > > > > The Panel has decided to be titled “Panel on global Internet cooperation > and governance mechanisms”. Their goal is to prepare a blueprint document – > a report – as described in press release. The focus of London discussions > was on mapping the ecosystem and needs, discussing the “desirable > properties” of future system, and agreeing on next steps. While there were > interesting discussions, my impression was that there were very few new > aspects on the table yet. It is my hope that the panel (and especially the > experts who do have extensive knowledge of already-discussed issues in and > various fora in previous years) will reflect to valuable outputs of > previous IGF and other meetings rather than reinventing the wheel. It was > confirmed that the summary of discussion points will be posted to 1Net.org > soon asking for community reflections. > > > > The final draft of the report should be ready during second HL meeting in > US end February; then it should be formally submitted as contribution to > Sao Paolo meeting and Freedom Online conference in Tallinn in April, and > offered for public consultations towards the next draft (not sure if only > through 1Net, but probably will not be limited to that). It is supposed the > draft report will find its place in the Sao Paolo meeting as well. The > outputs of this and public discussions will be fed into the final report to > be wrapped up during the third meeting in Dubai in early May. It should > then be fed into various processes incl. ICANN meeting in London in June, > IGF in September, etc. It is important to mention that the relevance and > legitimacy of IGF was mentioned several times in discussions, and I had a > feeling that the panel and experts are aware that this process should > contribute to (and possibly strengthen) the IGF rather than undermine it. > > > > *Other components* > > > > My impression was that there was distancing by ICANN and the HL panel from > the Sao Paolo meeting. Brazil meeting was mentioned only once at the end as > a place where the report may be discussed – and was mentioned as only one > such opportunity. There was no feeling that Sao Paolo conference is part of > this initiative. At the same time the news was spread that Brazilian > president Rousseff met French President Holland and that France might > support Sao Paolo meeting (I found no direct confirmation for this in news > yet however – pointers welcomed if anyone has). > > > > On the other hand 1Net was mentioned several times as the place in which > public contributions on the draft report should be provided. It was of > course only the reference to 1Net with regards to the HL Panel work, but it > is possible that 1Net was envisaged with a broader goal; there was no > further info however on how 1Net will proceed, nor on its Steering > Committees or further steps. > > > > *Timeline* > > > > The timeline of meetings was presented in the press release as well. Yet > let me combine it here with the updated info on other relevant 2014 events > mentioned and not mentioned in London: > > 22-25 January, Davos: Side-meeting of the HL Panel during WEF annual > meeting > > 27-28 February, US: 2nd HL meeting > > 31 March, Dubai (rather than Sharm): ITU WTDC > > 23-24 April, Sao Paolo: Brazil conference > > 28-29 April, Tallinn: Freedom Online Conference > > 3-4 May, Dubai: 3rd (final) HL meeting > > > > > > I hope this shed bit more light on what this whole new initiative will be > about. It is slightly clearer to me now, though I still have lots of > questions about 1Net. It is my belief that we should try to, whatever the > initial idea behind 1Net was (and also the HL Panel), explore its > potentials to strengthen the IGF and improve communications among > professional (and stakeholder) silos. > > > > Best! > > > > Vlada > > > > PS Sorry for a rather long email.. I decided to be detailed in this case, > and mention as much as possible. > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolinaaguerre at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 15:59:10 2013 From: carolinaaguerre at gmail.com (Carolina Aguerre) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:59:10 -0200 Subject: Snapshots from ICANN HL Panel in London Re: [governance] [bestbits] press release about meeting of the high level panel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: +1, thank you Vlada. Very useful and informative Best Carolina 2013/12/16 Mawaki Chango > Thanks, Vlada, for this detailed and very informative account of what > transpired at the HLP meeting in London. > Mawaki > > -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- > *Mawaki Chango, PhD* > Founder & Principal, DIGILEXIS > http://www.digilexis.com > m.chango at digilexis.com > Mobile: +225 4448 7764 > twitter.com/digilexis > twitter.com/dig_mawaki > Skype: digilexis > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Vladimir Radunovic wrote: > >> Dear colleagues, >> >> >> >> here are few lines on my impressions of what happened at the High Level >> Panel meeting in London on Friday. I hope it will help us better understand >> the intentions and potentials of this (dynamically evolving and >> self-reshaping) initiative. >> >> >> >> I was there in status of an observer, representing Diplo who was invited >> among others by ICANN to provide its expertise and assist the drafting of >> report by the HL panel. The Panel event was under Chatham House rule, so I >> will try to bring as many details as possible while still respecting this >> rule. The views below are my personal, as I saw the discussions and the >> process. Besides the impressions below, I (and several others) have been >> extensively tweeting with #InternetPanel (read here) >> so you can get a pretty good snapshot of key points in discussion through >> that. Formal Press Release has been published and is available here– it brings more or less all the basic info on topics and participants of >> the meeting as well as the future timeline. >> >> >> >> *HL Group and experts* >> >> >> >> Panel includes 21 members listed in the Press Release; additionally, a >> final one (Anriette from APC) has been accepted during the meeting in >> London to reflect loud civil society requests. Panel is dominated by tech >> and corporate sector, with few yet high level representatives of >> governments; only now there is a panel member from civil society >> organisation. >> >> >> >> It was my impression that initially the entire HL Panel was composed >> based on “names” rather than on representation of stakeholders; yet it >> appears that it was acknowledged at the end that the absence of civil >> society organisations can hurt the process. On the other hand, civil >> society experts dominate the expert group who is supposed to assist with >> drafting the final report – as the agenda in press release shows. As an >> observer (replacing Jovan who was invited as expert but was not able to >> join in London), I did not have chance to formally raise civil society >> concerns expressed on this list and elsewhere, but other experts were >> involved in formal discussion. I hope Anriette’s formal presence in future >> will extend this direct opportunity. >> >> >> >> At London meeting there were most of Panel members, the experts, dozen of >> observers assisting Panel members or as guests, and some ICANN staff – >> total about 50 people, invited by ICANN. These are likely the people that >> will gather also in the next phases of the work. I suppose there will be no >> further changes in composition of the panel. I also got the impression the >> following two meetings will not be opened for observers rather than those >> invited directly or related to panel members, nor there will be greater >> transparency during the meetings; instead, it seems public consultations >> (primarily on 1Net) will be the public inputs into the work of the panel. >> >> >> >> *Task* >> >> >> >> The Panel has decided to be titled “Panel on global Internet cooperation >> and governance mechanisms”. Their goal is to prepare a blueprint document – >> a report – as described in press release. The focus of London discussions >> was on mapping the ecosystem and needs, discussing the “desirable >> properties” of future system, and agreeing on next steps. While there were >> interesting discussions, my impression was that there were very few new >> aspects on the table yet. It is my hope that the panel (and especially the >> experts who do have extensive knowledge of already-discussed issues in and >> various fora in previous years) will reflect to valuable outputs of >> previous IGF and other meetings rather than reinventing the wheel. It was >> confirmed that the summary of discussion points will be posted to 1Net.org >> soon asking for community reflections. >> >> >> >> The final draft of the report should be ready during second HL meeting in >> US end February; then it should be formally submitted as contribution to >> Sao Paolo meeting and Freedom Online conference in Tallinn in April, and >> offered for public consultations towards the next draft (not sure if only >> through 1Net, but probably will not be limited to that). It is supposed the >> draft report will find its place in the Sao Paolo meeting as well. The >> outputs of this and public discussions will be fed into the final report to >> be wrapped up during the third meeting in Dubai in early May. It should >> then be fed into various processes incl. ICANN meeting in London in June, >> IGF in September, etc. It is important to mention that the relevance and >> legitimacy of IGF was mentioned several times in discussions, and I had a >> feeling that the panel and experts are aware that this process should >> contribute to (and possibly strengthen) the IGF rather than undermine it. >> >> >> >> *Other components* >> >> >> >> My impression was that there was distancing by ICANN and the HL panel >> from the Sao Paolo meeting. Brazil meeting was mentioned only once at the >> end as a place where the report may be discussed – and was mentioned as >> only one such opportunity. There was no feeling that Sao Paolo conference >> is part of this initiative. At the same time the news was spread that >> Brazilian president Rousseff met French President Holland and that France >> might support Sao Paolo meeting (I found no direct confirmation for this in >> news yet however – pointers welcomed if anyone has). >> >> >> >> On the other hand 1Net was mentioned several times as the place in which >> public contributions on the draft report should be provided. It was of >> course only the reference to 1Net with regards to the HL Panel work, but it >> is possible that 1Net was envisaged with a broader goal; there was no >> further info however on how 1Net will proceed, nor on its Steering >> Committees or further steps. >> >> >> >> *Timeline* >> >> >> >> The timeline of meetings was presented in the press release as well. Yet >> let me combine it here with the updated info on other relevant 2014 events >> mentioned and not mentioned in London: >> >> 22-25 January, Davos: Side-meeting of the HL Panel during WEF annual >> meeting >> >> 27-28 February, US: 2nd HL meeting >> >> 31 March, Dubai (rather than Sharm): ITU WTDC >> >> 23-24 April, Sao Paolo: Brazil conference >> >> 28-29 April, Tallinn: Freedom Online Conference >> >> 3-4 May, Dubai: 3rd (final) HL meeting >> >> >> >> >> >> I hope this shed bit more light on what this whole new initiative will be >> about. It is slightly clearer to me now, though I still have lots of >> questions about 1Net. It is my belief that we should try to, whatever the >> initial idea behind 1Net was (and also the HL Panel), explore its >> potentials to strengthen the IGF and improve communications among >> professional (and stakeholder) silos. >> >> >> >> Best! >> >> >> >> Vlada >> >> >> >> PS Sorry for a rather long email.. I decided to be detailed in this case, >> and mention as much as possible. >> >> >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 16 16:06:30 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 10:06:30 +1300 Subject: Snapshots from ICANN HL Panel in London Re: [governance] [bestbits] press release about meeting of the high level panel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3A477EE5-C81C-4416-866F-CBB3F54CD798@gmail.com> Dear Vlada, Many thanks for this informative account and for keeping us updated whilst respecting Chatham rules. Best Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad > On Dec 17, 2013, at 6:36 AM, Vladimir Radunovic wrote: > > Dear colleagues, > > > > here are few lines on my impressions of what happened at the High Level Panel meeting in London on Friday. I hope it will help us better understand the intentions and potentials of this (dynamically evolving and self-reshaping) initiative. > > > > I was there in status of an observer, representing Diplo who was invited among others by ICANN to provide its expertise and assist the drafting of report by the HL panel. The Panel event was under Chatham House rule, so I will try to bring as many details as possible while still respecting this rule. The views below are my personal, as I saw the discussions and the process. Besides the impressions below, I (and several others) have been extensively tweeting with #InternetPanel (read here) so you can get a pretty good snapshot of key points in discussion through that. Formal Press Release has been published and is available here – it brings more or less all the basic info on topics and participants of the meeting as well as the future timeline. > > > > HL Group and experts > > > > Panel includes 21 members listed in the Press Release; additionally, a final one (Anriette from APC) has been accepted during the meeting in London to reflect loud civil society requests. Panel is dominated by tech and corporate sector, with few yet high level representatives of governments; only now there is a panel member from civil society organisation. > > > > It was my impression that initially the entire HL Panel was composed based on “names” rather than on representation of stakeholders; yet it appears that it was acknowledged at the end that the absence of civil society organisations can hurt the process. On the other hand, civil society experts dominate the expert group who is supposed to assist with drafting the final report – as the agenda in press release shows. As an observer (replacing Jovan who was invited as expert but was not able to join in London), I did not have chance to formally raise civil society concerns expressed on this list and elsewhere, but other experts were involved in formal discussion. I hope Anriette’s formal presence in future will extend this direct opportunity. > > > > At London meeting there were most of Panel members, the experts, dozen of observers assisting Panel members or as guests, and some ICANN staff – total about 50 people, invited by ICANN. These are likely the people that will gather also in the next phases of the work. I suppose there will be no further changes in composition of the panel. I also got the impression the following two meetings will not be opened for observers rather than those invited directly or related to panel members, nor there will be greater transparency during the meetings; instead, it seems public consultations (primarily on 1Net) will be the public inputs into the work of the panel. > > > > Task > > > > The Panel has decided to be titled “Panel on global Internet cooperation and governance mechanisms”. Their goal is to prepare a blueprint document – a report – as described in press release. The focus of London discussions was on mapping the ecosystem and needs, discussing the “desirable properties” of future system, and agreeing on next steps. While there were interesting discussions, my impression was that there were very few new aspects on the table yet. It is my hope that the panel (and especially the experts who do have extensive knowledge of already-discussed issues in and various fora in previous years) will reflect to valuable outputs of previous IGF and other meetings rather than reinventing the wheel. It was confirmed that the summary of discussion points will be posted to 1Net.org soon asking for community reflections. > > > > The final draft of the report should be ready during second HL meeting in US end February; then it should be formally submitted as contribution to Sao Paolo meeting and Freedom Online conference in Tallinn in April, and offered for public consultations towards the next draft (not sure if only through 1Net, but probably will not be limited to that). It is supposed the draft report will find its place in the Sao Paolo meeting as well. The outputs of this and public discussions will be fed into the final report to be wrapped up during the third meeting in Dubai in early May. It should then be fed into various processes incl. ICANN meeting in London in June, IGF in September, etc. It is important to mention that the relevance and legitimacy of IGF was mentioned several times in discussions, and I had a feeling that the panel and experts are aware that this process should contribute to (and possibly strengthen) the IGF rather than undermine it. > > > > Other components > > > > My impression was that there was distancing by ICANN and the HL panel from the Sao Paolo meeting. Brazil meeting was mentioned only once at the end as a place where the report may be discussed – and was mentioned as only one such opportunity. There was no feeling that Sao Paolo conference is part of this initiative. At the same time the news was spread that Brazilian president Rousseff met French President Holland and that France might support Sao Paolo meeting (I found no direct confirmation for this in news yet however – pointers welcomed if anyone has). > > > > On the other hand 1Net was mentioned several times as the place in which public contributions on the draft report should be provided. It was of course only the reference to 1Net with regards to the HL Panel work, but it is possible that 1Net was envisaged with a broader goal; there was no further info however on how 1Net will proceed, nor on its Steering Committees or further steps. > > > > Timeline > > > > The timeline of meetings was presented in the press release as well. Yet let me combine it here with the updated info on other relevant 2014 events mentioned and not mentioned in London: > > 22-25 January, Davos: Side-meeting of the HL Panel during WEF annual meeting > > 27-28 February, US: 2nd HL meeting > > 31 March, Dubai (rather than Sharm): ITU WTDC > > 23-24 April, Sao Paolo: Brazil conference > > 28-29 April, Tallinn: Freedom Online Conference > > 3-4 May, Dubai: 3rd (final) HL meeting > > > > > > I hope this shed bit more light on what this whole new initiative will be about. It is slightly clearer to me now, though I still have lots of questions about 1Net. It is my belief that we should try to, whatever the initial idea behind 1Net was (and also the HL Panel), explore its potentials to strengthen the IGF and improve communications among professional (and stakeholder) silos. > > > > Best! > > > > Vlada > > > > > > PS Sorry for a rather long email.. I decided to be detailed in this case, and mention as much as possible. > > > > > >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 1:43 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> I had a small question from our colleagues that are participating in the process. Is the panel only going to move forward in its present opening structure or is it open to more stakeholder participation from developing countries'. Any chances of remote participation and input? >> >> Best Regards >> Fouad Bajwa >> >> Sent from my mobile device >> >> On Dec 14, 2013, at 7:58 PM, Carolina wrote: >> >>> Thank you Bill and glad that Anriette has joined as well. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Dec 14, 2013, at 1:28 PM, William Drake wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Carolina >>>> >>>> The press release pretty much covers what was discussed, who was there, and the next steps. I was happy we got agreement to open things up by having online discussions per theme, and that they have invited Anriette to join the group. In terms of ideas discussed, one that seems to have some traction is to do something to help foster the development of multistakeholder processes at the national level, inter alia in the hope that this will strengthen the diversity of engagement at the global level. >>>> >>>> It is currently expected that the final report will be brief, under ten pages, and will be revised in light of the feedback from Sao Paulo and elsewhere. >>>> >>>> The tweets are at #InternetPanel but there’s not so much given the Chatham rule. >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>>> On Dec 14, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >>>>> >>>>> any reports back from that meeting already? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>>> http://www.telegraphindia.com/pressrelease/prnw/en33449.html >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> High-Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms Convenes in London >>>>>> >>>>>> PR Newswire >>>>>> >>>>>> LONDON, Dec. 13, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- The Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms -- a diverse group of global stakeholders from government, civil society, the private sector, the technical community and international organizations -- held their first meeting in London to discuss global Internet cooperation and governance mechanisms. The Panel expressed strong support for a multistakeholder approach to the future of Internet governance. The conversations held at the London meeting were facilitated by a team of Internet governance experts. The discussion will be taken online in the coming days at 1Net.org. >>>>>> >>>>>> "The world relies on the Internet for economic, social, and political progress. It is imperative to ensure emerging issues are properly addressed in a global context, without individual governments or intergovernmental organizations developing their own solutions," said Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves and chair of the Panel. >>>>>> >>>>>> "The success of the Internet is rooted in a distributed and bottom-up model, with openness and collaboration at its core," said Vint Cerf, vice-chair of the Panel. "The inaugural meeting of the Panel brought together a diverse set of perspectives on the future of the Internet, and through this diversity I'm confident we can chart a course to protect the core of the current ecosystem, while evolving its methods, accessibility, and universality to meet the opportunities and challenges of the future." >>>>>> >>>>>> In keeping with its mission, the first meeting of the Panel addressed desirable properties for global Internet cooperation, administration and governance. The Panel will conduct two additional meetings in the coming months. The next meeting, scheduled for late February 2014 in Rancho Mirage, California, will be hosted by The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands. Sunnylands is partnering with the Panel in its substantive work. Following this meeting, a high-level draft report will then be released for open consultation. A final meeting will be hosted by the World Economic Forum in May 2014 in Dubai. During this meeting, the Panel will consider community feedback and discussions at forums including the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in Braziland the Freedom Online Coalition's conference in Tallinn, Estonia. A high-level report will be published at the conclusion of the May meeting, and is expected to cover the following areas: >>>>>> >>>>>> • A brief overview of the current Internet governance ecosystem >>>>>> • Opportunities and challenges facing the current ecosystem >>>>>> • Desirable ecosystem properties including: >>>>>> • Ecosystem legitimacy >>>>>> • Effective and inclusive multi-interest and consensus-based system >>>>>> • Ensuring global participation including from the developing world >>>>>> • Co-existence with other governance systems (national and multi-lateral) ensuring a stable system that is not prone to attack, mismanagement, and manipulation >>>>>> Panel members are working in their personal capacity. Members consist of: >>>>>> >>>>>> • Mohamed Al Ghanim, Founder and Director General of the UAE Telecommunications Regulatory Authority; former Vice-Chair, UAE Information and Communications Technology Fund; Chairman of WCIT-12 >>>>>> • Virgilio Fernandes Almeida, Member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Chair of Internet Steering Committee; National Secretary for Information Technology Policies >>>>>> • Dorothy Attwood, Senior Vice President of Global Public Policy, Walt Disney Company >>>>>> • Mitchell Baker, Chair, Mozilla Foundation; Chair and former CEO, Mozilla Corporation >>>>>> • Francesco Caio, CEO of Avio; former CEO, Cable and Wireless and Vodafone Italia; Founder of Netscalibur; broadband advisor in UK and Italy; Government Commissioner for Digital Agenda >>>>>> • Vint Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist for Google; former Chairman, ICANN; Co-Founder of the Internet Society >>>>>> • Fadi Chehade, CEO and President of ICANN; Founder of Rosetta Net; technology executive >>>>>> • Nitin Desai, Indian economist and diplomat; former UN Undersecretary General; convener of Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) >>>>>> • Byron Holland, President and CEO of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority >>>>>> • Toomas Hendrik Ilves, President of Estonia; former diplomat and journalist; former Minister of Foreign Affairs; former Member of the European Parliament >>>>>> • Ivo Ivanovski, Minister of Information Society and Administration, Macedonia; Commissioner to the UN Broadband Commission for Digital Development >>>>>> • Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe; former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Norway >>>>>> • Omobola Johnson, Minister of Communication Technology of Nigeria >>>>>> • Olaf Kolkman, Director of NLnet Labs; "Evangineer" of the Open Internet; former Chair of the Internet Architecture Board >>>>>> • Frank La Rue, labor and human rights lawyer; UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression; Founder, Center for Legal Action for Human Rights (CALDH) >>>>>> • Robert M. McDowell, former U.S. Federal Communications Commissioner; Visiting Fellow, Hudson Institute's Center for Economics of the Internet >>>>>> • Andile Ngcaba, Chairman and Founder, Convergence Partners; Executive Chairman, Dimension Data Middle East and Africa; former South African Government Director General of Communications >>>>>> • Liu Qingfeng, CEO and President of iFLYTEK; Director of National Speech & Language Engineering Laboratory of China; Member of Interactive Technology Standards working group >>>>>> • Lynn St. Amour, President and CEO of the Internet Society; telecoms and IT executive >>>>>> • Jimmy Wales, Founder and Promoter of Wikipedia; Member of the Board of Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation >>>>>> • Won-Pyo Hong, President, Media Solution Center, Samsung Electronics >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> London Panel Agenda >>>>>> >>>>>> December 13 >>>>>> >>>>>> 09:00 -- 11:00 >>>>>> >>>>>> Backgrounder >>>>>> >>>>>> Expert presentations on Internet Cooperation and >>>>>> Governance to cover: >>>>>> >>>>>> -- History of Internet cooperation and overview of >>>>>> current ecosystem >>>>>> >>>>>> Speaker: Vint Cerf >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Nature and scope of global Internet governance >>>>>> >>>>>> Speaker: William Drake >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Current system opportunities and challenges: >>>>>> ( this includes legitimacy and mandate challenges, >>>>>> challenges for global participation and inclusion) >>>>>> >>>>>> Speaker: David Gross & Bertrand de la Chapelle >>>>>> >>>>>> 11:00 -- 11:15 >>>>>> >>>>>> Break >>>>>> >>>>>> 11:15 -- 12:00 >>>>>> >>>>>> Backgrounder Q&A Session >>>>>> >>>>>> 12:00 -- 13:00 >>>>>> >>>>>> Lunch >>>>>> >>>>>> 13:00 -- 14:30 >>>>>> >>>>>> Developing Desirable System Properties >>>>>> >>>>>> Panel is split into the following four proposed tracks, >>>>>> each moderated by an Internet Governance expert: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Desirable properties for ecosystem legitimacy >>>>>> >>>>>> Moderator: David Gross >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Desirable properties for an effective and inclusive >>>>>> multi-interest & consensus-based system >>>>>> >>>>>> Moderator: Sally Wentworth >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Desirable properties to ensure global participation >>>>>> including from developing world >>>>>> >>>>>> Moderator: William Drake >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Desirable properties for co-existence with other >>>>>> governance systems (national and multi-lateral) >>>>>> ensuring a stable system that is not prone to attack, >>>>>> mismanagement, and manipulation. >>>>>> >>>>>> Moderator: Wolfgang Kleinwachter >>>>>> >>>>>> 14:30 -- 14:45 >>>>>> >>>>>> Break >>>>>> >>>>>> 14:45 -- 17:30 >>>>>> >>>>>> Joint Observations >>>>>> >>>>>> Panel members, moderated by experts, coalesce >>>>>> around a set of overall joint observations on the >>>>>> desirable system properties >>>>>> >>>>>> 17:30 -- 17:45 >>>>>> >>>>>> Break >>>>>> >>>>>> 17:45 -- 18:30 >>>>>> >>>>>> Wrap-up >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Panel members discuss next steps, timelines/dates, >>>>>> communication rules and modus operandi for panel >>>>>> >>>>>> About The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands >>>>>> The Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands, which operates The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands in Rancho Mirage, California, is an independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit operating entity. The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands hosts high-level retreats that address serious issues facing the nation and the world, including the recent official meeting between President Obama and President Xi of the People's Republic of China. In addition, Sunnylands offers programs through the Sunnylands Center & Gardens to educate the public about the history of Sunnylands, its architecture, art collections, cultural significance, and sustainable practices. >>>>>> >>>>>> About ICANN >>>>>> The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an internationally organised, non-profit corporation that has responsibility for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server system management functions. As a private-public partnership, ICANN is dedicated to preserving the operational stability of the Internet; to promoting competition; to achieving broad representation of global Internet communities; and to developing policy appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, consensus-based processes. For more information please visit:http://www.icann.org/. >>>>>> >>>>>> About The World Economic Forum >>>>>> The World Economic Forum is an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world by engaging leaders in partnerships to shape global, regional and industry agendas. >>>>>> >>>>>> Incorporated as a foundation in 1971 and headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the World Economic Forum is impartial and not-for-profit; it is tied to no political, partisan or national interests (http://www.weforum.org/). >>>>>> >>>>>> Editor's Note: The Panel was previously referred to as the Panel on the Future of Global Internet Cooperation. >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 16 17:14:06 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:14:06 -0400 Subject: Snapshots from ICANN HL Panel in London Re: [governance] [bestbits] press release about meeting of the high level panel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Vlada. Very clear. Deirdre On 16 December 2013 13:36, Vladimir Radunovic wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > > > here are few lines on my impressions of what happened at the High Level > Panel meeting in London on Friday. I hope it will help us better understand > the intentions and potentials of this (dynamically evolving and > self-reshaping) initiative. > > > > I was there in status of an observer, representing Diplo who was invited > among others by ICANN to provide its expertise and assist the drafting of > report by the HL panel. The Panel event was under Chatham House rule, so I > will try to bring as many details as possible while still respecting this > rule. The views below are my personal, as I saw the discussions and the > process. Besides the impressions below, I (and several others) have been > extensively tweeting with #InternetPanel (read here) > so you can get a pretty good snapshot of key points in discussion through > that. Formal Press Release has been published and is available here– it brings more or less all the basic info on topics and participants of > the meeting as well as the future timeline. > > > > *HL Group and experts* > > > > Panel includes 21 members listed in the Press Release; additionally, a > final one (Anriette from APC) has been accepted during the meeting in > London to reflect loud civil society requests. Panel is dominated by tech > and corporate sector, with few yet high level representatives of > governments; only now there is a panel member from civil society > organisation. > > > > It was my impression that initially the entire HL Panel was composed based > on “names” rather than on representation of stakeholders; yet it appears > that it was acknowledged at the end that the absence of civil society > organisations can hurt the process. On the other hand, civil society > experts dominate the expert group who is supposed to assist with drafting > the final report – as the agenda in press release shows. As an observer > (replacing Jovan who was invited as expert but was not able to join in > London), I did not have chance to formally raise civil society concerns > expressed on this list and elsewhere, but other experts were involved in > formal discussion. I hope Anriette’s formal presence in future will extend > this direct opportunity. > > > > At London meeting there were most of Panel members, the experts, dozen of > observers assisting Panel members or as guests, and some ICANN staff – > total about 50 people, invited by ICANN. These are likely the people that > will gather also in the next phases of the work. I suppose there will be no > further changes in composition of the panel. I also got the impression the > following two meetings will not be opened for observers rather than those > invited directly or related to panel members, nor there will be greater > transparency during the meetings; instead, it seems public consultations > (primarily on 1Net) will be the public inputs into the work of the panel. > > > > *Task* > > > > The Panel has decided to be titled “Panel on global Internet cooperation > and governance mechanisms”. Their goal is to prepare a blueprint document – > a report – as described in press release. The focus of London discussions > was on mapping the ecosystem and needs, discussing the “desirable > properties” of future system, and agreeing on next steps. While there were > interesting discussions, my impression was that there were very few new > aspects on the table yet. It is my hope that the panel (and especially the > experts who do have extensive knowledge of already-discussed issues in and > various fora in previous years) will reflect to valuable outputs of > previous IGF and other meetings rather than reinventing the wheel. It was > confirmed that the summary of discussion points will be posted to 1Net.org > soon asking for community reflections. > > > > The final draft of the report should be ready during second HL meeting in > US end February; then it should be formally submitted as contribution to > Sao Paolo meeting and Freedom Online conference in Tallinn in April, and > offered for public consultations towards the next draft (not sure if only > through 1Net, but probably will not be limited to that). It is supposed the > draft report will find its place in the Sao Paolo meeting as well. The > outputs of this and public discussions will be fed into the final report to > be wrapped up during the third meeting in Dubai in early May. It should > then be fed into various processes incl. ICANN meeting in London in June, > IGF in September, etc. It is important to mention that the relevance and > legitimacy of IGF was mentioned several times in discussions, and I had a > feeling that the panel and experts are aware that this process should > contribute to (and possibly strengthen) the IGF rather than undermine it. > > > > *Other components* > > > > My impression was that there was distancing by ICANN and the HL panel from > the Sao Paolo meeting. Brazil meeting was mentioned only once at the end as > a place where the report may be discussed – and was mentioned as only one > such opportunity. There was no feeling that Sao Paolo conference is part of > this initiative. At the same time the news was spread that Brazilian > president Rousseff met French President Holland and that France might > support Sao Paolo meeting (I found no direct confirmation for this in news > yet however – pointers welcomed if anyone has). > > > > On the other hand 1Net was mentioned several times as the place in which > public contributions on the draft report should be provided. It was of > course only the reference to 1Net with regards to the HL Panel work, but it > is possible that 1Net was envisaged with a broader goal; there was no > further info however on how 1Net will proceed, nor on its Steering > Committees or further steps. > > > > *Timeline* > > > > The timeline of meetings was presented in the press release as well. Yet > let me combine it here with the updated info on other relevant 2014 events > mentioned and not mentioned in London: > > 22-25 January, Davos: Side-meeting of the HL Panel during WEF annual > meeting > > 27-28 February, US: 2nd HL meeting > > 31 March, Dubai (rather than Sharm): ITU WTDC > > 23-24 April, Sao Paolo: Brazil conference > > 28-29 April, Tallinn: Freedom Online Conference > > 3-4 May, Dubai: 3rd (final) HL meeting > > > > > > I hope this shed bit more light on what this whole new initiative will be > about. It is slightly clearer to me now, though I still have lots of > questions about 1Net. It is my belief that we should try to, whatever the > initial idea behind 1Net was (and also the HL Panel), explore its > potentials to strengthen the IGF and improve communications among > professional (and stakeholder) silos. > > > > Best! > > > > Vlada > > > > PS Sorry for a rather long email.. I decided to be detailed in this case, > and mention as much as possible. > > > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 1:43 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> I had a small question from our colleagues that are participating in the >> process. Is the panel only going to move forward in its present opening >> structure or is it open to more stakeholder participation from developing >> countries'. Any chances of remote participation and input? >> >> Best Regards >> Fouad Bajwa >> >> Sent from my mobile device >> >> On Dec 14, 2013, at 7:58 PM, Carolina wrote: >> >> Thank you Bill and glad that Anriette has joined as well. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Dec 14, 2013, at 1:28 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >> Hi Carolina >> >> The press release pretty much covers what was discussed, who was there, >> and the next steps. I was happy we got agreement to open things up by >> having online discussions per theme, and that they have invited Anriette to >> join the group. In terms of ideas discussed, one that seems to have some >> traction is to do something to help foster the development of >> multistakeholder processes at the national level, inter alia in the hope >> that this will strengthen the diversity of engagement at the global level. >> >> It is currently expected that the final report will be brief, under ten >> pages, and will be revised in light of the feedback from Sao Paulo and >> elsewhere. >> >> The tweets are at #InternetPanel but there’s not so much given the >> Chatham rule. >> >> Cheers >> >> Bill >> >> On Dec 14, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Carolina Rossini < >> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> any reports back from that meeting already? >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> http://www.telegraphindia.com/pressrelease/prnw/en33449.html >>> -- >>> >>> High-Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance >>> Mechanisms Convenes in London >>> >>> PR Newswire >>> >>> LONDON, Dec. 13, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- The Panel on Global Internet >>> Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms -- a diverse group of global >>> stakeholders from government, civil society, the private sector, the >>> technical community and international organizations -- held their first >>> meeting in London to discuss global Internet cooperation and governance >>> mechanisms. The Panel expressed strong support for a multistakeholder >>> approach to the future of Internet governance. The conversations held at >>> the London meeting were facilitated by a team of Internet governance >>> experts. The discussion will be taken online in the coming days at >>> 1Net.org. >>> >>> "The world relies on the Internet for economic, social, and political >>> progress. It is imperative to ensure emerging issues are properly addressed >>> in a global context, without individual governments or intergovernmental >>> organizations developing their own solutions," said Estonian President >>> Toomas Hendrik Ilves and chair of the Panel. >>> >>> "The success of the Internet is rooted in a distributed and bottom-up >>> model, with openness and collaboration at its core," said Vint Cerf, >>> vice-chair of the Panel. "The inaugural meeting of the Panel brought >>> together a diverse set of perspectives on the future of the Internet, and >>> through this diversity I'm confident we can chart a course to protect the >>> core of the current ecosystem, while evolving its methods, accessibility, >>> and universality to meet the opportunities and challenges of the future." >>> >>> In keeping with its mission, the first meeting of the Panel addressed >>> desirable properties for global Internet cooperation, administration and >>> governance. The Panel will conduct two additional meetings in the coming >>> months. The next meeting, scheduled for late February 2014 in Rancho >>> Mirage, California, will be hosted by The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands. >>> Sunnylands is partnering with the Panel in its substantive work. Following >>> this meeting, a high-level draft report will then be released for open >>> consultation. A final meeting will be hosted by the World Economic Forum in >>> May 2014 in Dubai. During this meeting, the Panel will consider community >>> feedback and discussions at forums including the Global Multistakeholder >>> Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in Braziland the Freedom >>> Online Coalition's conference in Tallinn, Estonia. A high-level report will >>> be published at the conclusion of the May meeting, and is expected to cover >>> the following areas: >>> >>> • A brief overview of the current Internet governance ecosystem >>> • Opportunities and challenges facing the current ecosystem >>> • Desirable ecosystem properties including: >>> • Ecosystem legitimacy >>> • Effective and inclusive multi-interest and >>> consensus-based system >>> • Ensuring global participation including from the >>> developing world >>> • Co-existence with other governance systems (national >>> and multi-lateral) ensuring a stable system that is not prone to attack, >>> mismanagement, and manipulation >>> Panel members are working in their personal capacity. Members consist of: >>> >>> • Mohamed Al Ghanim, Founder and Director General of the UAE >>> Telecommunications Regulatory Authority; former Vice-Chair, UAE Information >>> and Communications Technology Fund; Chairman of WCIT-12 >>> • Virgilio Fernandes Almeida, Member of the Brazilian Academy of >>> Sciences; Chair of Internet Steering Committee; National Secretary for >>> Information Technology Policies >>> • Dorothy Attwood, Senior Vice President of Global Public >>> Policy, Walt Disney Company >>> • Mitchell Baker, Chair, Mozilla Foundation; Chair and former >>> CEO, Mozilla Corporation >>> • Francesco Caio, CEO of Avio; former CEO, Cable and Wireless >>> and Vodafone Italia; Founder of Netscalibur; broadband advisor in UK and >>> Italy; Government Commissioner for Digital Agenda >>> • Vint Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist for >>> Google; former Chairman, ICANN; Co-Founder of the Internet Society >>> • Fadi Chehade, CEO and President of ICANN; Founder of Rosetta >>> Net; technology executive >>> • Nitin Desai, Indian economist and diplomat; former UN >>> Undersecretary General; convener of Working Group on Internet Governance >>> (WGIG) >>> • Byron Holland, President and CEO of the Canadian Internet >>> Registration Authority >>> • Toomas Hendrik Ilves, President of Estonia; former diplomat >>> and journalist; former Minister of Foreign Affairs; former Member of the >>> European Parliament >>> • Ivo Ivanovski, Minister of Information Society and >>> Administration, Macedonia; Commissioner to the UN Broadband Commission for >>> Digital Development >>> • Thorbjørn Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of >>> Europe; former Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Norway >>> • Omobola Johnson, Minister of Communication Technology of >>> Nigeria >>> • Olaf Kolkman, Director of NLnet Labs; "Evangineer" of the Open >>> Internet; former Chair of the Internet Architecture Board >>> • Frank La Rue, labor and human rights lawyer; UN Special >>> Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of >>> Opinion and Expression; Founder, Center for Legal Action for Human Rights >>> (CALDH) >>> • Robert M. McDowell, former U.S. Federal Communications >>> Commissioner; Visiting Fellow, Hudson Institute's Center for Economics of >>> the Internet >>> • Andile Ngcaba, Chairman and Founder, Convergence Partners; >>> Executive Chairman, Dimension Data Middle East and Africa; former South >>> African Government Director General of Communications >>> • Liu Qingfeng, CEO and President of iFLYTEK; Director of >>> National Speech & Language Engineering Laboratory of China; Member of >>> Interactive Technology Standards working group >>> • Lynn St. Amour, President and CEO of the Internet Society; >>> telecoms and IT executive >>> • Jimmy Wales, Founder and Promoter of Wikipedia; Member of the >>> Board of Trustees of Wikimedia Foundation >>> • Won-Pyo Hong, President, Media Solution Center, Samsung >>> Electronics >>> >>> >>> London Panel Agenda >>> >>> December 13 >>> >>> 09:00 -- 11:00 >>> >>> Backgrounder >>> >>> Expert presentations on Internet Cooperation and >>> Governance to cover: >>> >>> -- History of Internet cooperation and overview of >>> current ecosystem >>> >>> Speaker: Vint Cerf >>> >>> -- Nature and scope of global Internet governance >>> >>> Speaker: William Drake >>> >>> -- Current system opportunities and challenges: >>> ( this includes legitimacy and mandate challenges, >>> challenges for global participation and inclusion) >>> >>> Speaker: David Gross & Bertrand de la Chapelle >>> >>> 11:00 -- 11:15 >>> >>> Break >>> >>> 11:15 -- 12:00 >>> >>> Backgrounder Q&A Session >>> >>> 12:00 -- 13:00 >>> >>> Lunch >>> >>> 13:00 -- 14:30 >>> >>> Developing Desirable System Properties >>> >>> Panel is split into the following four proposed tracks, >>> each moderated by an Internet Governance expert: >>> >>> >>> -- Desirable properties for ecosystem legitimacy >>> >>> Moderator: David Gross >>> >>> -- Desirable properties for an effective and inclusive >>> multi-interest & consensus-based system >>> >>> Moderator: Sally Wentworth >>> >>> -- Desirable properties to ensure global participation >>> including from developing world >>> >>> Moderator: William Drake >>> >>> -- Desirable properties for co-existence with other >>> governance systems (national and multi-lateral) >>> ensuring a stable system that is not prone to attack, >>> mismanagement, and manipulation. >>> >>> Moderator: Wolfgang Kleinwachter >>> >>> 14:30 -- 14:45 >>> >>> Break >>> >>> 14:45 -- 17:30 >>> >>> Joint Observations >>> >>> Panel members, moderated by experts, coalesce >>> around a set of overall joint observations on the >>> desirable system properties >>> >>> 17:30 -- 17:45 >>> >>> Break >>> >>> 17:45 -- 18:30 >>> >>> Wrap-up >>> >>> >>> Panel members discuss next steps, timelines/dates, >>> communication rules and modus operandi for panel >>> >>> About The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands >>> The Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands, which operates The >>> Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands in Rancho Mirage, California, is an >>> independent 501(c)(3) nonprofit operating entity. The Annenberg Retreat at >>> Sunnylands hosts high-level retreats that address serious issues facing the >>> nation and the world, including the recent official meeting between >>> President Obama and President Xi of the People's Republic of China. In >>> addition, Sunnylands offers programs through the Sunnylands Center & >>> Gardens to educate the public about the history of Sunnylands, its >>> architecture, art collections, cultural significance, and sustainable >>> practices. >>> >>> About ICANN >>> The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an >>> internationally organised, non-profit corporation that has responsibility >>> for Internet Protocol (IP) address space allocation, protocol identifier >>> assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name >>> system management, and root server system management functions. As a >>> private-public partnership, ICANN is dedicated to preserving the >>> operational stability of the Internet; to promoting competition; to >>> achieving broad representation of global Internet communities; and to >>> developing policy appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, >>> consensus-based processes. For more information please visit: >>> http://www.icann.org/. >>> >>> About The World Economic Forum >>> The World Economic Forum is an independent international organization >>> committed to improving the state of the world by engaging leaders in >>> partnerships to shape global, regional and industry agendas. >>> >>> Incorporated as a foundation in 1971 and headquartered in Geneva, >>> Switzerland, the World Economic Forum is impartial and not-for-profit; it >>> is tied to no political, partisan or national interests ( >>> http://www.weforum.org/). >>> >>> Editor's Note: The Panel was previously referred to as the Panel on the >>> Future of Global Internet Cooperation. >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> *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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Dec 16 18:50:25 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:50:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: New CSIS iTunes U Course: Cyber Threats & Technology Policy In-Reply-To: <1860549415.4@informz.net> References: <1860549415.4@informz.net> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Andrew Schwartz Date: Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 4:58 PM Subject: New CSIS iTunes U Course: Cyber Threats & Technology Policy To: rossini at newamerica.net To ensure receipt of our email, please add us to your safe senders list Dear Colleague, CSIS always seeks to foster and inform the dialogue surrounding today’s most important domestic and global issues. Technology has a prominent place in our lives and with revelations of spying from both government and non-government actors it is clear that these will be persistent concerns. To address these critical topics, and to coincide with last week's "Hour of Code," CSIS' newly named *Strategic Technologies Program *and CSIS' *Project on Cybersecurity *, both led by my colleague Jim Lewis, have created a new course for iTunesU: "Cyber Threats and Technology Policy." The course provides comprehensive insight and fascinating discussions on cyber-security, internet governance, drone warfare, the political and security dimensions of space, U.S. preparedness for cyber attacks, the impact of cyber espionage, and more. It features events and interviews from some of the top minds in the country ranging from Director of the NSA Keith Alexander and former Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano to CEOs of fortune 500 companies, journalists and representatives from USAID and the UN. Below is a direct link to this material on iTunes U. I hope that you find it an informative and thought-provoking source for understanding some of today’s most pressing challenges. Access Cyber Threats and Technology Policy on iTunes U As always, I welcome your feedback. Sincerely, H. Andrew Schwartz Senior Vice President for External Relations Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) www.csis.org To unsubscribe from all CSIS emails, please click here . [image: Informz for iMIS] -- *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 iza at anr.org Mon Dec 16 21:29:17 2013 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 11:29:17 +0900 Subject: Snapshots from ICANN HL Panel in London Re: [governance] [bestbits] press release about meeting of the high level panel In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Many thanks Vlada for your clear reporting. izumi 2013/12/17 Carolina Aguerre > +1, thank you Vlada. Very useful and informative > Best > Carolina > > > 2013/12/16 Mawaki Chango > >> Thanks, Vlada, for this detailed and very informative account of what >> transpired at the HLP meeting in London. >> Mawaki >> >> -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- >> *Mawaki Chango, PhD* >> Founder & Principal, DIGILEXIS >> http://www.digilexis.com >> m.chango at digilexis.com >> Mobile: +225 4448 7764 >> twitter.com/digilexis >> twitter.com/dig_mawaki >> Skype: digilexis >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Vladimir Radunovic > > wrote: >> >>> Dear colleagues, >>> >>> >>> >>> here are few lines on my impressions of what happened at the High Level >>> Panel meeting in London on Friday. I hope it will help us better understand >>> the intentions and potentials of this (dynamically evolving and >>> self-reshaping) initiative. >>> >>> >>> >>> I was there in status of an observer, representing Diplo who was invited >>> among others by ICANN to provide its expertise and assist the drafting of >>> report by the HL panel. The Panel event was under Chatham House rule, so I >>> will try to bring as many details as possible while still respecting this >>> rule. The views below are my personal, as I saw the discussions and the >>> process. Besides the impressions below, I (and several others) have been >>> extensively tweeting with #InternetPanel (read here) >>> so you can get a pretty good snapshot of key points in discussion through >>> that. Formal Press Release has been published and is available here– it brings more or less all the basic info on topics and participants of >>> the meeting as well as the future timeline. >>> >>> >>> >>> *HL Group and experts* >>> >>> >>> >>> Panel includes 21 members listed in the Press Release; additionally, a >>> final one (Anriette from APC) has been accepted during the meeting in >>> London to reflect loud civil society requests. Panel is dominated by tech >>> and corporate sector, with few yet high level representatives of >>> governments; only now there is a panel member from civil society >>> organisation. >>> >>> >>> >>> It was my impression that initially the entire HL Panel was composed >>> based on “names” rather than on representation of stakeholders; yet it >>> appears that it was acknowledged at the end that the absence of civil >>> society organisations can hurt the process. On the other hand, civil >>> society experts dominate the expert group who is supposed to assist with >>> drafting the final report – as the agenda in press release shows. As an >>> observer (replacing Jovan who was invited as expert but was not able to >>> join in London), I did not have chance to formally raise civil society >>> concerns expressed on this list and elsewhere, but other experts were >>> involved in formal discussion. I hope Anriette’s formal presence in future >>> will extend this direct opportunity. >>> >>> >>> >>> At London meeting there were most of Panel members, the experts, dozen >>> of observers assisting Panel members or as guests, and some ICANN staff – >>> total about 50 people, invited by ICANN. These are likely the people that >>> will gather also in the next phases of the work. I suppose there will be no >>> further changes in composition of the panel. I also got the impression the >>> following two meetings will not be opened for observers rather than those >>> invited directly or related to panel members, nor there will be greater >>> transparency during the meetings; instead, it seems public consultations >>> (primarily on 1Net) will be the public inputs into the work of the panel. >>> >>> >>> >>> *Task* >>> >>> >>> >>> The Panel has decided to be titled “Panel on global Internet cooperation >>> and governance mechanisms”. Their goal is to prepare a blueprint document – >>> a report – as described in press release. The focus of London discussions >>> was on mapping the ecosystem and needs, discussing the “desirable >>> properties” of future system, and agreeing on next steps. While there were >>> interesting discussions, my impression was that there were very few new >>> aspects on the table yet. It is my hope that the panel (and especially the >>> experts who do have extensive knowledge of already-discussed issues in and >>> various fora in previous years) will reflect to valuable outputs of >>> previous IGF and other meetings rather than reinventing the wheel. It was >>> confirmed that the summary of discussion points will be posted to 1Net.org >>> soon asking for community reflections. >>> >>> >>> >>> The final draft of the report should be ready during second HL meeting >>> in US end February; then it should be formally submitted as contribution to >>> Sao Paolo meeting and Freedom Online conference in Tallinn in April, and >>> offered for public consultations towards the next draft (not sure if only >>> through 1Net, but probably will not be limited to that). It is supposed the >>> draft report will find its place in the Sao Paolo meeting as well. The >>> outputs of this and public discussions will be fed into the final report to >>> be wrapped up during the third meeting in Dubai in early May. It should >>> then be fed into various processes incl. ICANN meeting in London in June, >>> IGF in September, etc. It is important to mention that the relevance and >>> legitimacy of IGF was mentioned several times in discussions, and I had a >>> feeling that the panel and experts are aware that this process should >>> contribute to (and possibly strengthen) the IGF rather than undermine it. >>> >>> >>> >>> *Other components* >>> >>> >>> >>> My impression was that there was distancing by ICANN and the HL panel >>> from the Sao Paolo meeting. Brazil meeting was mentioned only once at the >>> end as a place where the report may be discussed – and was mentioned as >>> only one such opportunity. There was no feeling that Sao Paolo conference >>> is part of this initiative. At the same time the news was spread that >>> Brazilian president Rousseff met French President Holland and that France >>> might support Sao Paolo meeting (I found no direct confirmation for this in >>> news yet however – pointers welcomed if anyone has). >>> >>> >>> >>> On the other hand 1Net was mentioned several times as the place in which >>> public contributions on the draft report should be provided. It was of >>> course only the reference to 1Net with regards to the HL Panel work, but it >>> is possible that 1Net was envisaged with a broader goal; there was no >>> further info however on how 1Net will proceed, nor on its Steering >>> Committees or further steps. >>> >>> >>> >>> *Timeline* >>> >>> >>> >>> The timeline of meetings was presented in the press release as well. Yet >>> let me combine it here with the updated info on other relevant 2014 events >>> mentioned and not mentioned in London: >>> >>> 22-25 January, Davos: Side-meeting of the HL Panel during WEF annual >>> meeting >>> >>> 27-28 February, US: 2nd HL meeting >>> >>> 31 March, Dubai (rather than Sharm): ITU WTDC >>> >>> 23-24 April, Sao Paolo: Brazil conference >>> >>> 28-29 April, Tallinn: Freedom Online Conference >>> >>> 3-4 May, Dubai: 3rd (final) HL meeting >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I hope this shed bit more light on what this whole new initiative will >>> be about. It is slightly clearer to me now, though I still have lots of >>> questions about 1Net. It is my belief that we should try to, whatever the >>> initial idea behind 1Net was (and also the HL Panel), explore its >>> potentials to strengthen the IGF and improve communications among >>> professional (and stakeholder) silos. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best! >>> >>> >>> >>> Vlada >>> >>> >>> >>> PS Sorry for a rather long email.. I decided to be detailed in this >>> case, and mention as much as possible. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Dec 17 09:54:31 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 14:54:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] Call for Experts on the Global Governance of Cyberspace Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25944CD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Dear Colleagues: If you want an opportunity to investigate the reform of Internet governance in collaboration with other academics and professionals, I encourage you to look at this "Call for Experts on the Global Governance of Cyberspace" from the Hague Institute for Global Justice. The participants will be required to prepare a 4,000-6,000 word paper in response to one of five questions relating to the governance of cyberspace. The 16 experts selected will get supported travel to The Hague in May 2014 for a 3-day conference. The authors of the best papers will also be sent to a conference in New Delhi, India. They are not only soliciting academics but also people from business, international organizations, civil society and national governments. The deadline for submission of applications is 31 January. I am an advisor to the Institute on this project and am helping them to solicit and review applications. Feel free to forward this note to any other lists you think would be appropriate. The complete call, including the 5 research questions, is here: http://thehagueinstituteforglobaljustice.org/index.php?page=News-News_Articles-Recent_News-Call_for_Experts:__The_Global_Governance_of_Cyberspace&pid=138&id=161 Regards, Dr. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Dec 17 13:59:17 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 13:59:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: <341E7F20-D20F-4E81-94C0-1A64EE0645E1@gmail.com> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20131210102833.6d19a9e8@quill> <20131210155159.47914fc0@quill> <20131210171740.GA10589@hserus.net> <84F53CF4-FED9-4ED7-A091-2C1CDDB64219@gmail.com> <341E7F20-D20F-4E81-94C0-1A64EE0645E1@gmail.com> Message-ID: <903F2A8C-9539-4F81-B923-5A8C9CEAECEB@gmail.com> Jean-Christophe, I believe that one week ago you offered to post the transcript of what you found so interesting regarding Alejandro's remarks. I would very much appreciate it if you would follow through. It's unfair to Alejandro to be maligned to the group without knowing what he actually said. Members of the group might agree, or they might not. Thanks, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Dec 11, 2013, at 12:15 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: > Hi Tim, > > Big words again. 'Outrageous'... héhé > > I leave it to anyone listening to the full session to appreciate the value of what was said. I think I brought to the list interesting (if not shocking) few facts, and thoughts that show the way someone with a few responsibilities in the IG fora is thinking, addressing issues, and recommending to stop the 'counter-revolutionaries' he sees coming against the good 'revolutionaries'. Bas les masques! > > Any debate, specially when it comes to governance, should have in mind the idea of 'convergence', at least to find consensus, and ability to work together. The 'not-a-single-thing-of-everything' theory seems to me pretty crypto ideologic, and that is a personal opinion (am I allowed to have one?). > > When George is speaking about a terminology issue - good point to look at-, do we imagine that we can solve this terminology issue by getting more definitions for each single concept, wording, expression ("let blossom the flowers of a thousand definition" says AP)? Is that the way you think a democratic venue should try to move forward, by maintaining a high level of confusion? That in my view is outrageous. > > Would Postel, which signature is respectfully and constantly backing your signature, rejoice in a multi-definitions systematic approach for a single word/concept so to keep a never ending debate. Postel was against the waste of time, the waste of bytes, the waste of , and presumably against smoke and fog. The major challenge out of the RFC was to bring clarity for a common culture and common values to emerge. All of what AP says is entirely in opposition to that. I think the IG debate deserves clarity, not walls of blabla to be construct and deconstruct every two seconds. > > JC > > NB >> it is difficult to imagine that he did >> it from his own initiative > > Yes indeed, it is difficult to imagine. Any problem with that? Was this an uninformed accusation? Well, I will not debate your definition of what is an uninformed accusation but I still believe it is difficult to imagine... > > > > Le 10 déc. 2013 à 23:50, McTim a écrit : > >> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias >> wrote: >>> Hi Georges, >>> >>> I do not think anyone has a problem with the Alejandro classification, nor himself. With his resume, his grade, his whatever. Nothing of these. >>> >>> The issue is about his statements during ICANN48. So let's talk about that. What does these statements mean to the CS >> >> They are just one input that we can embrace or reject. I think they >> are quite reasonable (separating ICANN issues from surveillance, >> rejecting a single definition of IG, pushing forward on evolution of >> the unilateral role of the US). >> >> >> >> , to the IG debate, its potential objectives and tangible results of a >> 2014-discussion. >> >> If anything it pushes us forward to tangible results. >> >> Even though someone like Alejandro has put all these big words >> (orders/advises) in his mouth, it is difficult to imagine that he did >> it from his own initiative. >> >> Now that is outrageous. Why would you make such an uninformed >> accusation? You have zero basis for such a claim! >> >> >> All what he said is shocking to any honest participant to the IG debate. >> >> >> There was nothing shocking there. Are there any of us that accept the >> WGIG definition as the ONLY definition of IG? >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Tue Dec 17 13:29:42 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 18:29:42 +0000 Subject: [governance] Call for Experts on the Global Governance of Cyberspace In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25944CD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25944CD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, Thanks for sharing this information. All, please note that the research questions only appear in the application form (at the end). Best, -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- *Mawaki Chango, PhD* Founder & Principal, DIGILEXIS Consulting http://www.digilexis.com m.chango at digilexis.com Mobile: +225 4448 7764 twitter.com/digilexis twitter.com/dig_mawaki Skype: digilexis On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Dear Colleagues: > > > If you want an opportunity to investigate the reform of Internet > governance in collaboration with other academics and professionals, I > encourage you to look at this "Call for Experts on the Global Governance of > Cyberspace" from the Hague Institute for Global Justice. The participants > will be required to prepare a 4,000-6,000 word paper in response to one of > five questions relating to the governance of cyberspace. The 16 experts > selected will get supported travel to The Hague in May 2014 for a 3-day > conference. The authors of the best papers will also be sent to a > conference in New Delhi, India. > > > They are not only soliciting academics but also people from business, > international organizations, civil society and national governments. The > deadline for submission of applications is 31 January. > > > I am an advisor to the Institute on this project and am helping them to > solicit and review applications. Feel free to forward this note to any > other lists you think would be appropriate. > > > The complete call, including the 5 research questions, is here: > > > > http://thehagueinstituteforglobaljustice.org/index.php?page=News-News_Articles-Recent_News-Call_for_Experts:__The_Global_Governance_of_Cyberspace&pid=138&id=161 > > > Regards, > > > Dr. Milton Mueller > > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 17 16:13:40 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 02:43:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: <903F2A8C-9539-4F81-B923-5A8C9CEAECEB@gmail.com> References: <060601cef2cd$1c427d20$54c77760$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD257856C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2BBF0B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <20131210102833.6d19a9e8@quill> <20131210155159.47914fc0@quill> <20131210171740.GA10589@hserus.net> <84F53CF4-FED9-4ED7-A091-2C1CDDB64219@gmail.com> <341E7F20-D20F-4E81-94C0-1A64EE0645E1@gmail.com> <903F2A8C-9539-4F81-B923-5A8C9CEAECEB@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5D9D4E84-0844-44FE-809A-D3BD922E2A0A@hserus.net> I do agree. A few details would be appropriate after all this noisy innuendo. --srs (iPad) > On 18-Dec-2013, at 0:29, George Sadowsky wrote: > > Jean-Christophe, > > I believe that one week ago you offered to post the transcript of what you found so interesting regarding Alejandro's remarks. > > I would very much appreciate it if you would follow through. It's unfair to Alejandro to be maligned to the group without knowing what he actually said. Members of the group might agree, or they might not. > > Thanks, > > George > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> On Dec 11, 2013, at 12:15 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: >> >> Hi Tim, >> >> Big words again. 'Outrageous'... héhé >> >> I leave it to anyone listening to the full session to appreciate the value of what was said. I think I brought to the list interesting (if not shocking) few facts, and thoughts that show the way someone with a few responsibilities in the IG fora is thinking, addressing issues, and recommending to stop the 'counter-revolutionaries' he sees coming against the good 'revolutionaries'. Bas les masques! >> >> Any debate, specially when it comes to governance, should have in mind the idea of 'convergence', at least to find consensus, and ability to work together. The 'not-a-single-thing-of-everything' theory seems to me pretty crypto ideologic, and that is a personal opinion (am I allowed to have one?). >> >> When George is speaking about a terminology issue - good point to look at-, do we imagine that we can solve this terminology issue by getting more definitions for each single concept, wording, expression ("let blossom the flowers of a thousand definition" says AP)? Is that the way you think a democratic venue should try to move forward, by maintaining a high level of confusion? That in my view is outrageous. >> >> Would Postel, which signature is respectfully and constantly backing your signature, rejoice in a multi-definitions systematic approach for a single word/concept so to keep a never ending debate. Postel was against the waste of time, the waste of bytes, the waste of , and presumably against smoke and fog. The major challenge out of the RFC was to bring clarity for a common culture and common values to emerge. All of what AP says is entirely in opposition to that. I think the IG debate deserves clarity, not walls of blabla to be construct and deconstruct every two seconds. >> >> JC >> >> NB >>> it is difficult to imagine that he did >>> it from his own initiative >> >> Yes indeed, it is difficult to imagine. Any problem with that? Was this an uninformed accusation? Well, I will not debate your definition of what is an uninformed accusation but I still believe it is difficult to imagine... >> >> >> >>> Le 10 déc. 2013 à 23:50, McTim a écrit : >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias >>> wrote: >>>> Hi Georges, >>>> >>>> I do not think anyone has a problem with the Alejandro classification, nor himself. With his resume, his grade, his whatever. Nothing of these. >>>> >>>> The issue is about his statements during ICANN48. So let's talk about that. What does these statements mean to the CS >>> >>> They are just one input that we can embrace or reject. I think they >>> are quite reasonable (separating ICANN issues from surveillance, >>> rejecting a single definition of IG, pushing forward on evolution of >>> the unilateral role of the US). >>> >>> >>> >>> , to the IG debate, its potential objectives and tangible results of a >>> 2014-discussion. >>> >>> If anything it pushes us forward to tangible results. >>> >>> Even though someone like Alejandro has put all these big words >>> (orders/advises) in his mouth, it is difficult to imagine that he did >>> it from his own initiative. >>> >>> Now that is outrageous. Why would you make such an uninformed >>> accusation? You have zero basis for such a claim! >>> >>> >>> All what he said is shocking to any honest participant to the IG debate. >>> >>> >>> There was nothing shocking there. Are there any of us that accept the >>> WGIG definition as the ONLY definition of IG? >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers, >>> >>> McTim >>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >>> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Tue Dec 17 16:35:05 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 16:35:05 -0500 Subject: Fwd: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) References: Message-ID: Very sorry to hear of it. Begin forwarded message: > From: Jean-Christophe Nothias > Date: December 17, 2013 2:45:56 PM EST > To: George Sadowsky > Subject: Re: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) > > My father passed away a few days ago. Funerals tomorrow. Alejandro can wait. Anyway it's all in the video > > Envoyé de mon iPhone > > Le 17 déc. 2013 à 19:59, George Sadowsky a écrit : > >> Jean-Christophe, >> >> I believe that one week ago you offered to post the transcript of what you found so interesting regarding Alejandro's remarks. >> >> I would very much appreciate it if you would follow through. It's unfair to Alejandro to be maligned to the group without knowing what he actually said. Members of the group might agree, or they might not. >> >> Thanks, >> >> George >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> On Dec 11, 2013, at 12:15 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: >> >>> Hi Tim, >>> >>> Big words again. 'Outrageous'... héhé >>> >>> I leave it to anyone listening to the full session to appreciate the value of what was said. I think I brought to the list interesting (if not shocking) few facts, and thoughts that show the way someone with a few responsibilities in the IG fora is thinking, addressing issues, and recommending to stop the 'counter-revolutionaries' he sees coming against the good 'revolutionaries'. Bas les masques! >>> >>> Any debate, specially when it comes to governance, should have in mind the idea of 'convergence', at least to find consensus, and ability to work together. The 'not-a-single-thing-of-everything' theory seems to me pretty crypto ideologic, and that is a personal opinion (am I allowed to have one?). >>> >>> When George is speaking about a terminology issue - good point to look at-, do we imagine that we can solve this terminology issue by getting more definitions for each single concept, wording, expression ("let blossom the flowers of a thousand definition" says AP)? Is that the way you think a democratic venue should try to move forward, by maintaining a high level of confusion? That in my view is outrageous. >>> >>> Would Postel, which signature is respectfully and constantly backing your signature, rejoice in a multi-definitions systematic approach for a single word/concept so to keep a never ending debate. Postel was against the waste of time, the waste of bytes, the waste of , and presumably against smoke and fog. The major challenge out of the RFC was to bring clarity for a common culture and common values to emerge. All of what AP says is entirely in opposition to that. I think the IG debate deserves clarity, not walls of blabla to be construct and deconstruct every two seconds. >>> >>> JC >>> >>> NB >>>> it is difficult to imagine that he did >>>> it from his own initiative >>> >>> Yes indeed, it is difficult to imagine. Any problem with that? Was this an uninformed accusation? Well, I will not debate your definition of what is an uninformed accusation but I still believe it is difficult to imagine... >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 10 déc. 2013 à 23:50, McTim a écrit : >>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hi Georges, >>>>> >>>>> I do not think anyone has a problem with the Alejandro classification, nor himself. With his resume, his grade, his whatever. Nothing of these. >>>>> >>>>> The issue is about his statements during ICANN48. So let's talk about that. What does these statements mean to the CS >>>> >>>> They are just one input that we can embrace or reject. I think they >>>> are quite reasonable (separating ICANN issues from surveillance, >>>> rejecting a single definition of IG, pushing forward on evolution of >>>> the unilateral role of the US). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> , to the IG debate, its potential objectives and tangible results of a >>>> 2014-discussion. >>>> >>>> If anything it pushes us forward to tangible results. >>>> >>>> Even though someone like Alejandro has put all these big words >>>> (orders/advises) in his mouth, it is difficult to imagine that he did >>>> it from his own initiative. >>>> >>>> Now that is outrageous. Why would you make such an uninformed >>>> accusation? You have zero basis for such a claim! >>>> >>>> >>>> All what he said is shocking to any honest participant to the IG debate. >>>> >>>> >>>> There was nothing shocking there. Are there any of us that accept the >>>> WGIG definition as the ONLY definition of IG? >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> McTim >>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >>>> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ginger at paque.net Tue Dec 17 14:54:54 2013 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 13:54:54 -0600 Subject: [governance] Call for Experts on the Global Governance of Cyberspace In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25944CD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25944CD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Is it possible for the research to be carried out and presented in a research paper in another language than English, in particular, in Spanish? Thanks, gp On 17 December 2013 08:54, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Dear Colleagues: > > > If you want an opportunity to investigate the reform of Internet > governance in collaboration with other academics and professionals, I > encourage you to look at this "Call for Experts on the Global Governance of > Cyberspace" from the Hague Institute for Global Justice. The participants > will be required to prepare a 4,000-6,000 word paper in response to one of > five questions relating to the governance of cyberspace. The 16 experts > selected will get supported travel to The Hague in May 2014 for a 3-day > conference. The authors of the best papers will also be sent to a > conference in New Delhi, India. > > > They are not only soliciting academics but also people from business, > international organizations, civil society and national governments. The > deadline for submission of applications is 31 January. > > > I am an advisor to the Institute on this project and am helping them to > solicit and review applications. Feel free to forward this note to any > other lists you think would be appropriate. > > > The complete call, including the 5 research questions, is here: > > > > http://thehagueinstituteforglobaljustice.org/index.php?page=News-News_Articles-Recent_News-Call_for_Experts:__The_Global_Governance_of_Cyberspace&pid=138&id=161 > > > Regards, > > > Dr. Milton Mueller > > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cveraq at gmail.com Tue Dec 17 20:29:36 2013 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 20:29:36 -0500 Subject: [governance] Call for Experts on the Global Governance of Cyberspace In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25944CD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25944CD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Yo MM what about language? Carlos Vera Quintana 0988141143 Sígueme @cveraq > El 17/12/2013, a las 9:54, Milton L Mueller escribió: > > Dear Colleagues: > > > If you want an opportunity to investigate the reform of Internet governance in collaboration with other academics and professionals, I encourage you to look at this "Call for Experts on the Global Governance of Cyberspace" from the Hague Institute for Global Justice. The participants will be required to prepare a 4,000-6,000 word paper in response to one of five questions relating to the governance of cyberspace. The 16 experts selected will get supported travel to The Hague in May 2014 for a 3-day conference. The authors of the best papers will also be sent to a conference in New Delhi, India. > > > They are not only soliciting academics but also people from business, international organizations, civil society and national governments. The deadline for submission of applications is 31 January. > > > I am an advisor to the Institute on this project and am helping them to solicit and review applications. Feel free to forward this note to any other lists you think would be appropriate. > > > The complete call, including the 5 research questions, is here: > > > http://thehagueinstituteforglobaljustice.org/index.php?page=News-News_Articles-Recent_News-Call_for_Experts:__The_Global_Governance_of_Cyberspace&pid=138&id=161 > > > Regards, > > > Dr. Milton Mueller > > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 17 20:41:24 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 07:11:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) Message-ID: My condolences, jean-pierre --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "George Sadowsky" To: Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) Date: Wed, Dec 18, 2013 3:05 AM Very sorry to hear of it. Begin forwarded message: > From: Jean-Christophe Nothias > Date: December 17, 2013 2:45:56 PM EST > To: George Sadowsky > Subject: Re: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) > > My father passed away a few days ago. Funerals tomorrow. Alejandro can wait. Anyway it's all in the video > > Envoyé de mon iPhone > > Le 17 déc. 2013 à 19:59, George Sadowsky a écrit : > >> Jean-Christophe, >> >> I believe that one week ago you offered to post the transcript of what you found so interesting regarding Alejandro's remarks. >> >> I would very much appreciate it if you would follow through. It's unfair to Alejandro to be maligned to the group without knowing what he actually said. Members of the group might agree, or they might not. >> >> Thanks, >> >> George >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> On Dec 11, 2013, at 12:15 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: >> >>> Hi Tim, >>> >>> Big words again. 'Outrageous'... héhé >>> >>> I leave it to anyone listening to the full session to appreciate the value of what was said. I think I brought to the list interesting (if not shocking) few facts, and thoughts that show the way someone with a few responsibilities in the IG fora is thinking, addressing issues, and recommending to stop the 'counter-revolutionaries' he sees coming against the good 'revolutionaries'. Bas les masques! >>> >>> Any debate, specially when it comes to governance, should have in mind the idea of 'convergence', at least to find consensus, and ability to work together. The 'not-a-single-thing-of-everything' theory seems to me pretty crypto ideologic, and that is a personal opinion (am I allowed to have one?). >>> >>> When George is speaking about a terminology issue - good point to look at-, do we imagine that we can solve this terminology issue by getting more definitions for each single concept, wording, expression ("let blossom the flowers of a thousand definition" says AP)? Is that the way you think a democratic venue should try to move forward, by maintaining a high level of confusion? That in my view is outrageous. >>> >>> Would Postel, which signature is respectfully and constantly backing your signature, rejoice in a multi-definitions systematic approach for a single word/concept so to keep a never ending debate. Postel was against the waste of time, the waste of bytes, the waste of , and presumably against smoke and fog. The major challenge out of the RFC was to bring clarity for a common culture and common values to emerge. All of what AP says is entirely in opposition to that. I think the IG debate deserves clarity, not walls of blabla to be construct and deconstruct every two seconds. >>> >>> JC >>> >>> NB >>>> it is difficult to imagine that he did >>>> it from his own initiative >>> >>> Yes indeed, it is difficult to imagine. Any problem with that? Was this an uninformed accusation? Well, I will not debate your definition of what is an uninformed accusation but I still believe it is difficult to imagine... >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 10 déc. 2013 à 23:50, McTim a écrit : >>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hi Georges, >>>>> >>>>> I do not think anyone has a problem with the Alejandro classification, nor himself. With his resume, his grade, his whatever. Nothing of these. >>>>> >>>>> The issue is about his statements during ICANN48. So let's talk about that. What does these statements mean to the CS >>>> >>>> They are just one input that we can embrace or reject. I think they >>>> are quite reasonable (separating ICANN issues from surveillance, >>>> rejecting a single definition of IG, pushing forward on evolution of >>>> the unilateral role of the US). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> , to the IG debate, its potential objectives and tangible results of a >>>> 2014-discussion. >>>> >>>> If anything it pushes us forward to tangible results. >>>> >>>> Even though someone like Alejandro has put all these big words >>>> (orders/advises) in his mouth, it is difficult to imagine that he did >>>> it from his own initiative. >>>> >>>> Now that is outrageous. Why would you make such an uninformed >>>> accusation? You have zero basis for such a claim! >>>> >>>> >>>> All what he said is shocking to any honest participant to the IG debate. >>>> >>>> >>>> There was nothing shocking there. Are there any of us that accept the >>>> WGIG definition as the ONLY definition of IG? >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> McTim >>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >>>> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 17 20:49:03 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 07:19:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Apologies. I shouldn't send significant email this early in the morning. My condolences, Jean-Christophe. --srs (iPad) > On 18-Dec-2013, at 7:11, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > > My condolences, jean-pierre > > --srs (htc one x) > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "George Sadowsky" > To: > Subject: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) > Date: Wed, Dec 18, 2013 3:05 AM > > Very sorry to hear of it. > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Jean-Christophe Nothias > > Date: December 17, 2013 2:45:56 PM EST > > To: George Sadowsky > > Subject: Re: [governance] All power should be in the hands of the engineers? (was Re: HLLM in LOndon - CS reps) > > > > My father passed away a few days ago. Funerals tomorrow. Alejandro can wait. Anyway it's all in the video > > > > Envoyé de mon iPhone > > > > Le 17 déc. 2013 à 19:59, George Sadowsky a écrit : > > > >> Jean-Christophe, > >> > >> I believe that one week ago you offered to post the transcript of what you found so interesting regarding Alejandro's remarks. > >> > >> I would very much appreciate it if you would follow through. It's unfair to Alejandro to be maligned to the group without knowing what he actually said. Members of the group might agree, or they might not. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> George > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> > >> On Dec 11, 2013, at 12:15 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Tim, > >>> > >>> Big words again. 'Outrageous'... héhé > >>> > >>> I leave it to anyone listening to the full session to appreciate the value of what was said. I think I brought to the list interesting (if not shocking) few facts, and thoughts that show the way someone with a few responsibilities in the IG fora is thinking, addressing issues, and recommending to stop the 'counter-revolutionaries' he sees coming against the good 'revolutionaries'. Bas les masques! > >>> > >>> Any debate, specially when it comes to governance, should have in mind the idea of 'convergence', at least to find consensus, and ability to work together. The 'not-a-single-thing-of-everything' theory seems to me pretty crypto ideologic, and that is a personal opinion (am I allowed to have one?). > >>> > >>> When George is speaking about a terminology issue - good point to look at-, do we imagine that we can solve this terminology issue by getting more definitions for each single concept, wording, expression ("let blossom the flowers of a thousand definition" says AP)? Is that the way you think a democratic venue should try to move forward, by maintaining a high level of confusion? That in my view is outrageous. > >>> > >>> Would Postel, which signature is respectfully and constantly backing your signature, rejoice in a multi-definitions systematic approach for a single word/concept so to keep a never ending debate. Postel was against the waste of time, the waste of bytes, the waste of , and presumably against smoke and fog. The major challenge out of the RFC was to bring clarity for a common culture and common values to emerge. All of what AP says is entirely in opposition to that. I think the IG debate deserves clarity, not walls of blabla to be construct and deconstruct every two seconds. > >>> > >>> JC > >>> > >>> NB > >>>> it is difficult to imagine that he did > >>>> it from his own initiative > >>> > >>> Yes indeed, it is difficult to imagine. Any problem with that? Was this an uninformed accusation? Well, I will not debate your definition of what is an uninformed accusation but I still believe it is difficult to imagine... > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Le 10 déc. 2013 à 23:50, McTim a écrit : > >>> > >>>> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Jean-Christophe Nothias > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> Hi Georges, > >>>>> > >>>>> I do not think anyone has a problem with the Alejandro classification, nor himself. With his resume, his grade, his whatever. Nothing of these. > >>>>> > >>>>> The issue is about his statements during ICANN48. So let's talk about that. What does these statements mean to the CS > >>>> > >>>> They are just one input that we can embrace or reject. I think they > >>>> are quite reasonable (separating ICANN issues from surveillance, > >>>> rejecting a single definition of IG, pushing forward on evolution of > >>>> the unilateral role of the US). > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> , to the IG debate, its potential objectives and tangible results of a > >>>> 2014-discussion. > >>>> > >>>> If anything it pushes us forward to tangible results. > >>>> > >>>> Even though someone like Alejandro has put all these big words > >>>> (orders/advises) in his mouth, it is difficult to imagine that he did > >>>> it from his own initiative. > >>>> > >>>> Now that is outrageous. Why would you make such an uninformed > >>>> accusation? You have zero basis for such a claim! > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> All what he said is shocking to any honest participant to the IG debate. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> There was nothing shocking there. Are there any of us that accept the > >>>> WGIG definition as the ONLY definition of IG? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> 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 gurstein at gmail.com Wed Dec 18 15:42:04 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 03:42:04 +0700 Subject: [governance] "I would rather be without a state than without a voice." Snowden's open letter to the people of Brazil Message-ID: <093f01cefc31$9debb3b0$d9c31b10$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org [mailto:nettime-l-bounces at mail.kein.org] On Behalf Of nettime-l at kein.org Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 6:14 AM To: nettime-l at mx.kein.org Subject: [SPAM] "I would rather be without a state than without a voice." Snowden's open letter to the people of Brazil http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/internacional/en/world/2013/12/1386296-an-open- letter-to-the-people-of-brazil.shtml Six months ago, I stepped out from the shadows of the United States Government's National Security Agency to stand in front of a journalist's camera. I shared with the world evidence proving some governments are building a world-wide surveillance system to secretly track how we live, who we talk to, and what we say. I went in front of that camera with open eyes, knowing that the decision would cost me family and my home, and would risk my life. I was motivated by a belief that the citizens of the world deserve to understand the system in which they live. My greatest fear was that no one would listen to my warning. Never have I been so glad to have been so wrong. The reaction in certain countries has been particularly inspiring to me, and Brazil is certainly one of those. At the NSA, I witnessed with growing alarm the surveillance of whole populations without any suspicion of wrongdoing, and it threatens to become the greatest human rights challenge of our time. The NSA and other spying agencies tell us that for our own "safety" --for Dilma's "safety," for Petrobras' "safety"-- they have revoked our right to privacy and broken into our lives. And they did it without asking the public in any country, even their own. Today, if you carry a cell phone in Sao Paolo, the NSA can and does keep track of your location: they do this 5 billion times a day to people around the world. When someone in Florianopolis visits a website, the NSA keeps a record of when it happened and what you did there. If a mother in Porto Alegre calls her son to wish him luck on his university exam, NSA can keep that call log for five years or more. They even keep track of who is having an affair or looking at pornography, in case they need to damage their target's reputation. American Senators tell us that Brazil should not worry, because this is not "surveillance," it's "data collection." They say it is done to keep you safe. They're wrong. There is a huge difference between legal programs, legitimate spying, legitimate law enforcement --where individuals are targeted based on a reasonable, individualized suspicion - and these programs of dragnet mass surveillance that put entire populations under an all-seeing eye and save copies forever. These programs were never about terrorism: they're about economic spying, social control, and diplomatic manipulation. They're about power. Many Brazilian senators agree, and have asked for my assistance with their investigations of suspected crimes against Brazilian citizens. I have expressed my willingness to assist wherever appropriate and lawful, but unfortunately the United States government has worked very hard to limit my ability to do so --going so far as to force down the Presidential Plane of Evo Morales to prevent me from traveling to Latin America! Until a country grants permanent political asylum, the US government will continue to interfere with my ability to speak. Six months ago, I revealed that the NSA wanted to listen to the whole world. Now, the whole world is listening back, and speaking out, too. And the NSA doesn't like what it's hearing. The culture of indiscriminate worldwide surveillance, exposed to public debates and real investigations on every continent, is collapsing. Only three weeks ago, Brazil led the United Nations Human Rights Committee to recognize for the first time in history that privacy does not stop where the digital network starts, and that the mass surveillance of innocents is a violation of human rights. The tide has turned, and we can finally see a future where we can enjoy security without sacrificing our privacy. Our rights cannot be limited by a secret organization, and American officials should never decide the freedoms of Brazilian citizens. Even the defenders of mass surveillance, those who may not be persuaded that our surveillance technologies have dangerously outpaced democratic controls, now agree that in democracies, surveillance of the public must be debated by the public. My act of conscience began with a statement: "I don't want to live in a world where everything that I say, everything I do, everyone I talk to, every expression of creativity or love or friendship is recorded. That's not something I'm willing to support, it's not something I'm willing to build, and it's not something I'm willing to live under." Days later, I was told my government had made me stateless and wanted to imprison me. The price for my speech was my passport, but I would pay it again: I will not be the one to ignore criminality for the sake of political comfort. I would rather be without a state than without a voice. If Brazil hears only one thing from me, let it be this: when all of us band together against injustices and in defense of privacy and basic human rights, we can defend ourselves from even the most powerful systems. # 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:2676,52b0db4c92532147218733! -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 18 22:45:18 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 10:45:18 +0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [I-coordination] on "identifying principles" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0ad301cefc6c$be830c50$3b8924f0$@gmail.com> Carolina and all, I am attaching a "Declaration of Principles" from the Community Informatics community "An Internet for the Common Good: Engagement, Empowerment, and Justice for All". An earlier version of this was accepted by consensus by the larger Community Informatics community (consisting of both the general email list and specialized lists for Canada , Southern Africa , Older Persons, and Indigenous peoples as well as the Editorial Board of the Journal of Community Informatics ). The current version was produced by a team that included a leading ICT practitioner from Mozambique, a Director of a grassroots Community Informatics initiative in India working with rural women, a practitioner working with marginalized youth in the barrios of Chicago, a leading researcher in the use of ICTs by Indigenous Peoples, a former chair of the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility and two members of the technical community with interests in the community based use of ICTs. We expect a consensus agreement on this version within the next 48 hours along with endorsements. While there is some overlap with the principles that you have documented from other sources we would ask that those that have not elsewhere been identified be added to your listings and including matters of how addressing matters concerning the distribution of benefits of the use ICTs and the Internet. With best wishes, Mike From: i-coordination-bounces at nro.net [mailto:i-coordination-bounces at nro.net] On Behalf Of Carolina Rossini Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 1:28 AM To: Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: I-coordination at nro.net Subject: [I-coordination] on "identifying principles" here I attach some work that can serve as a background regarding the piece of debate around principles (see Bill and Nick below) we classified everything out there we could find from every stakeholder they are in different docs to make it easier to print C On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: To Bill's point in the first instance it would be useful to identify those principles that exist to date and their source and scope. Perhaps 1net could host a wiki environment or the like where those with knowledge of one or more could get a list together? On 17 Dec 2013, at 18:34, William Drake wrote: Hi George On Dec 17, 2013, at 6:24 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: Bill, You say: "Do we really have nothing more important to be doing here at this point than redefining the wheel as just a round thingy? I thought this list was supposed to be for coordination of multistakeholder dialogue on Sao Paulo and beyond, but it seems to alternate between being a troll paradise and the site of a lot of meandering debates on points that are generally being addressed more systematically elsewhere. Or am I alone in this perception?" I agree that we need to address points systematically. Can you provide a list of systematic points (dare we call them issues?) that it would, in your view, be useful to discuss? Well, why not start with the question of principles? The initiators of the SP meeting have been saying from the outset they'd like to have a sort of multistakeholder declaration of principles. Presumably it'd be helpful if 1net participants were to provide some input on this, and presumably we'd like it to be more than just nice fluffy words. Why not discuss the range of options to make this a useful exercise, and see where there's cross-stakeholder consensus and where there's not? It's something concrete that needs to be done, and they want input by 1 March. Cheers Bill _______________________________________________ -- 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Internet for the Common Good v 2 (4).doc Type: application/msword Size: 29696 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Thu Dec 19 11:42:53 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 16:42:53 +0000 Subject: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> , Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD259DD0F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> This has been a useful and interesting discussion. Just for the record, however, the header of this thread is completely wrong. The UN does NOT control the "country code part" of the DNS root. A UN agency makes up two-letter alphabetic character strings and uniquely assigns them to geographic entities (which are not necessarily "countries" by the way). When or how those codes get into the DNS root and matched to an IP address is entirely in the hands of ICANN/IANA, which means that it ultimately has to be approved by the US government. Furthermore, there is no such thing as a "country code part of the Internet root." There is a DNS root, full stop. A country code is a top level domain just like any other, in technical terms. ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Kerry Brown [kerry at kdbsystems.com] Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 2:12 PM To: McTim; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US > -----Original Message----- > > I think the people in this discussion are failing to distinguish who "owns" > > the ccTLD and the process by which the DNS zone for the ccTLD is > > inserted into the root. > > The above are 2 separate things. Ideally, ccTLDs are not 'owned" > rather they have 'stewards'. > I agree. That is why I had it in quotes. Couldn't figure out what terminology to use. Stewards is better. > > I would argue that most ccTLDs would agree that the > > government of the country involved "owns" the ccTLD. > > > I think it is an empirical question. One that in my experience is about 50-50. > Given the leaked draft of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement I would say at least some countries believe they can regulate ccTLDs if not own them. I wonder what would happen if a country signed the final TPPA and then the ccTLD operator didn't conform. Would they request a redelegation? It is certainly a confusing area of interest. Kerry Brown -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Thu Dec 19 12:10:44 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 09:10:44 -0800 Subject: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD259DD0F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD259DD0F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <1B077A0F-3A5F-4DFA-9401-08F3EACB6926@virtualized.org> Milton, On Dec 19, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > The UN does NOT control the "country code part" of the DNS root. > A UN agency makes up two-letter alphabetic character strings and uniquely assigns them to geographic entities (which are not necessarily "countries" by the way). When or how those codes get into the DNS root and matched to an IP address is entirely in the hands of ICANN/IANA, which means that it ultimately has to be approved by the US government. Not entirely. ICANN/IANA does not make unrequested changes. In the past (before the root zone automation software), anyone could request a change to a TLD. ICANN/IANA would vet the change request, ensuring the request came from an entity authorized to request the change (that is, it came from one of the TLD administrators) and that it made sense syntactically and technically, then seek confirmation from all the administrators (technical and administrative) for the TLD. Once all parties approved the change request, it would be sent on to NTIA for authorization and then on to Verisign for implementation. I believe the root zone automation software now limits who can request changes to the TLD administrators (that is, the folks who have log in credentials to the system), but not positive. My understanding is that everything else in the process is essentially the same. > Furthermore, there is no such thing as a "country code part of the Internet root." There is a DNS root, full stop. > A country code is a top level domain just like any other, in technical terms. Yes. From the perspective of IANA staff, a TLD is a TLD. Regards, -drc -------------- 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 ca at cafonso.ca Thu Dec 19 12:13:15 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 15:13:15 -0200 Subject: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD259DD0F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> , <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD259DD0F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <52B3292B.9000501@cafonso.ca> We have to cope this recurring misinformation -- really need to extend capacity building on IG to many more people... Well, the board members of Anatel (the BR telco regulator) excels at knowing nearly nothing about the Internet or IG, but keep trying to regulate and issue rules... they could certainly use a basic course on it, but are too arrogant to concede. frt rgds --c.a. On 12/19/2013 02:42 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > This has been a useful and interesting discussion. > Just for the record, however, the header of this thread is completely wrong. > The UN does NOT control the "country code part" of the DNS root. > A UN agency makes up two-letter alphabetic character strings and uniquely assigns them to geographic entities (which are not necessarily "countries" by the way). When or how those codes get into the DNS root and matched to an IP address is entirely in the hands of ICANN/IANA, which means that it ultimately has to be approved by the US government. > Furthermore, there is no such thing as a "country code part of the Internet root." There is a DNS root, full stop. > A country code is a top level domain just like any other, in technical terms. > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Kerry Brown [kerry at kdbsystems.com] > Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 2:12 PM > To: McTim; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: RE: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US > >> -----Original Message----- >>> I think the people in this discussion are failing to distinguish who "owns" >>> the ccTLD and the process by which the DNS zone for the ccTLD is >>> inserted into the root. >> >> The above are 2 separate things. Ideally, ccTLDs are not 'owned" >> rather they have 'stewards'. >> > > I agree. That is why I had it in quotes. Couldn't figure out what terminology to use. Stewards is better. > >> >> I would argue that most ccTLDs would agree that the >>> government of the country involved "owns" the ccTLD. >> >> >> I think it is an empirical question. One that in my experience is about 50-50. >> > > Given the leaked draft of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement I would say at least some countries believe they can regulate ccTLDs if not own them. I wonder what would happen if a country signed the final TPPA and then the ccTLD operator didn't conform. Would they request a redelegation? It is certainly a confusing area of interest. > > Kerry Brown > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Dec 19 12:19:10 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 15:19:10 -0200 Subject: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US In-Reply-To: <1B077A0F-3A5F-4DFA-9401-08F3EACB6926@virtualized.org> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD259DD0F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1B077A0F-3A5F-4DFA-9401-08F3EACB6926@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <52B32A8E.6080505@cafonso.ca> The ISO codes were adopted as any other could have been adopted, not by a treaty or formal agreement with ISO. Milton is correct. --c.a. On 12/19/2013 03:10 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Milton, > > On Dec 19, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> The UN does NOT control the "country code part" of the DNS root. >> A UN agency makes up two-letter alphabetic character strings and uniquely assigns them to geographic entities (which are not necessarily "countries" by the way). When or how those codes get into the DNS root and matched to an IP address is entirely in the hands of ICANN/IANA, which means that it ultimately has to be approved by the US government. > > Not entirely. > > ICANN/IANA does not make unrequested changes. > > In the past (before the root zone automation software), anyone could request a change to a TLD. ICANN/IANA would vet the change request, ensuring the request came from an entity authorized to request the change (that is, it came from one of the TLD administrators) and that it made sense syntactically and technically, then seek confirmation from all the administrators (technical and administrative) for the TLD. Once all parties approved the change request, it would be sent on to NTIA for authorization and then on to Verisign for implementation. > > I believe the root zone automation software now limits who can request changes to the TLD administrators (that is, the folks who have log in credentials to the system), but not positive. My understanding is that everything else in the process is essentially the same. > >> Furthermore, there is no such thing as a "country code part of the Internet root." There is a DNS root, full stop. >> A country code is a top level domain just like any other, in technical terms. > > Yes. From the perspective of IANA staff, a TLD is a TLD. > > Regards, > -drc > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nnenna75 at gmail.com Thu Dec 19 12:45:05 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 17:45:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee In-Reply-To: <6E8F927C-5A78-4AE3-BC6A-0A1D844E976C@afrinic.net> References: <6E8F927C-5A78-4AE3-BC6A-0A1D844E976C@afrinic.net> Message-ID: FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Adiel Akplogan Date: Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 4:32 PM Subject: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee To: discuss at 1net.org Dear colleagues, At the end of the deadline for receiving names for the Coordination/Steering committee (many wrote to tell me that they prefer it to be a coordination committee instead of a steering one - Personally I don't mind as the most important for me is to have a multi-interest/stakeholder group that will help us in shaping the discussions and the campaign along with creating a sustainable bridge with every parties and interest group). The following names were submitted: ** from Business: 1. Aparna Sridhar, Telecom Policy Counsel, Google 2. David Fares, Senior Vice President, Government Relations, 21st Century Fox 3. Marilyn Cade, President, ICT Strategies mCade 4. Sarah Wynn-Williams, Manager, Global Public Policy, Facebook 5. Paul Mitchell, Senior Director, Technology Policy, Microsoft Corporation *** from Civil Society: 1. Joana Varon 2. Rafik Dammak 3. Anriette Esterhuysen 4. Vladimir Radunovik 5. Anja Kovacs The Technical community have requested additional time to complete their selection mechanism and I'm expecting to hear from Academic community anytime. In order to keep thing moving and start giving some structure to this initiative, I would like to suggest that we setup the coordination committee with the names we have while waiting for other to join. Hopefully very soon. As for the nominations related to Brazil meeting's committees, nothing has really progressed from the local committee side. We have names from Business constancy that will be forward to them. We will forward the other as I receive them. I have shared with you on this list all the information I have on that. Any further authoritative information regarding this and the way forward should be coming from CGI.BR. Thanks. - a. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 322 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 kichango at gmail.com Thu Dec 19 12:52:59 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 17:52:59 +0000 Subject: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US In-Reply-To: <52B32A8E.6080505@cafonso.ca> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD259DD0F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1B077A0F-3A5F-4DFA-9401-08F3EACB6926@virtualized.org> <52B32A8E.6080505@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Re. the subject line and the very thrust of the first message in this thread, my first thought right away (a week ago as the message came in) was that George was being too cute/clever by half (Note: please choose between 'cute' and 'clever' which is more respectful than the other, as my familiarity with that idiom is probably limited compared to that of a native English speaker, thanks.) I don't know where the need to make that point came from (from the message content, it looks like coming out of nowhere), and there we were again with another unnecessary conversation started with a message on the defensive and which might very well result in yet another exercise of cross finger-pointing. So I disengaged... until today. The reasoning by which anyone would get to the conclusion that UN controls ccTLDs in the DNS root because they have had a process (in place well before the Internet) to decide on two-letter codes to represent geographical entities for their own purposes different from the DNS management is beyond my thinking ability. Someone in the early Internet technical community (Jon Postel, if my information is correct) decided to rely on that list for the DNS purposes without the UN playing any deliberate role in that specific decision. In my realm of rationality, the UN cannot bear any responsibility for any consequence that might ensue from that specific decision concerning the DNS. That's really a stretch to make a defensive point -- and again, I'm not even sure we needed to have that debate at this point. Thanks, Mawaki -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- *Mawaki Chango, PhD* Founder & Principal, DIGILEXIS Consulting http://www.digilexis.com m.chango at digilexis.com Mobile: +225 4448 7764 twitter.com/digilexis twitter.com/dig_mawaki Skype: digilexis On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > The ISO codes were adopted as any other could have been adopted, not by > a treaty or formal agreement with ISO. Milton is correct. > > --c.a. > > On 12/19/2013 03:10 PM, David Conrad wrote: > > Milton, > > > > On Dec 19, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> The UN does NOT control the "country code part" of the DNS root. > >> A UN agency makes up two-letter alphabetic character strings and > uniquely assigns them to geographic entities (which are not necessarily > "countries" by the way). When or how those codes get into the DNS root and > matched to an IP address is entirely in the hands of ICANN/IANA, which > means that it ultimately has to be approved by the US government. > > > > Not entirely. > > > > ICANN/IANA does not make unrequested changes. > > > > In the past (before the root zone automation software), anyone could > request a change to a TLD. ICANN/IANA would vet the change request, > ensuring the request came from an entity authorized to request the change > (that is, it came from one of the TLD administrators) and that it made > sense syntactically and technically, then seek confirmation from all the > administrators (technical and administrative) for the TLD. Once all > parties approved the change request, it would be sent on to NTIA for > authorization and then on to Verisign for implementation. > > > > I believe the root zone automation software now limits who can request > changes to the TLD administrators (that is, the folks who have log in > credentials to the system), but not positive. My understanding is that > everything else in the process is essentially the same. > > > >> Furthermore, there is no such thing as a "country code part of the > Internet root." There is a DNS root, full stop. > >> A country code is a top level domain just like any other, in technical > terms. > > > > Yes. From the perspective of IANA staff, a TLD is a TLD. > > > > Regards, > > -drc > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Dec 19 14:47:35 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:47:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD259DD0F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1B077A0F-3A5F-4DFA-9401-08F3EACB6926@virtualized.org> <52B32A8E.6080505@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <20131219204735.75418ddf@quill> Mawaki Chango wrote: > The reasoning by which anyone would get to the conclusion that UN > controls ccTLDs in the DNS root because they have had a process (in > place well before the Internet) to decide on two-letter codes to > represent geographical entities for their own purposes different from > the DNS management is beyond my thinking ability. Someone in the > early Internet technical community (Jon Postel, if my information is > correct) decided to rely on that list for the DNS purposes without > the UN playing any deliberate role in that specific decision. In my > realm of rationality, the UN cannot bear any responsibility for any > consequence that might ensue from that specific decision concerning > the DNS. One significant aspect to keep in mind in this context is that the UN does not control the ISO 3166 standard directly; the UN only provides information (about new countries and no longer existing countries and changes to the names of countries) to the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency (ISO 3166 MA), which is the committee that is managing the ISO 3166 standard. It is a special kind of committee, different from the usual kind of standardization committee. ISO 3166 MA has ten members; ICANN is one of the entities delegating a representative to this committee. For further details see http://www.icann.org/en/resources/policy/background/icann-iso-3166 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 mail at christopherwilkinson.eu Thu Dec 19 14:50:38 2013 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:50:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] ISO 3166 lists of 'country' codes In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD259DD0F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1B077A0F-3A5F-4DFA-9401-08F3EACB6926@virtualized.org> <52B32A8E.6080505@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Good evening: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-2#Exceptional_reservations There is a rather straightforward way of concluding this debate: ISO is not a UN agency. Regards CW On 19 Dec 2013, at 18:52, Mawaki Chango 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Dec 19 15:01:27 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 15:01:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] ISO 3166 lists of 'country' codes In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD259DD0F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1B077A0F-3A5F-4DFA-9401-08F3EACB6926@virtualized.org> <52B32A8E.6080505@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: While not a UN Agency, they are allowed to "to participate in the work of the United Nations" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_with_consultative_status_to_the_United_Nations_Economic_and_Social_Council Consultative Status to the United Nations Economic and Social Council is the highest status granted by the United Nations to non-governmental organizations, thereby allowing them to participate in the work of the United Nations. Consultative Status is divided into three categories: - *General Consultative Status* (formerly Consultative Status 1), the highest level, which may be granted to organizations that are concerned with most of the activities of the Council, that are making substantive and sustained contributions in many fields, with a considerable membership, and that are broadly representative of major segments of society in a large number of countries. These organizations are entitled to deliver oral presentations during the Council's meetings. On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 2:50 PM, CW Mail wrote: > Good evening: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-2#Exceptional_reservations > > There is a rather straightforward way of concluding this debate: > ISO is not a UN agency. > > Regards > > CW > > > On 19 Dec 2013, at 18:52, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- 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 george.sadowsky at gmail.com Thu Dec 19 16:03:24 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 16:03:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD259DD0F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1B077A0F-3A5F-4DFA-9401-08F3EACB6926@virtualized.org> <52B32A8E.6080505@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <635B5524-A529-47D7-9F49-3A393C5F4143@gmail.com> Thank you, Mawaki. The subject line is correct in one sense and misleading in others; I should have been more precise, but I was reacting quickly to some other post -- can't remember whose -- which claimed very exaggerated powers for ICANN. It is correct that the UN controls the time of entry of any entity into ISO 3166, and that there are almost certain to be political considerations in determining when such an event occurs. I know that from first hand experience. To make up a mythical example, if the People's Republic of China's 2- and 3-letter codes had been in ISO 3166, and the Chinese Nationalists would then have retreated to Formosa/Taiwan. I m sure that .tw would not exist today. Talk with the folks in the western Sahara. I don't remember what the Eritrea story was, it might be interesting to review it. George On Dec 19, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Re. the subject line and the very thrust of the first message in this thread, my first thought right away (a week ago as the message came in) was that George was being too cute/clever by half (Note: please choose between 'cute' and 'clever' which is more respectful than the other, as my familiarity with that idiom is probably limited compared to that of a native English speaker, thanks.) I don't know where the need to make that point came from (from the message content, it looks like coming out of nowhere), and there we were again with another unnecessary conversation started with a message on the defensive and which might very well result in yet another exercise of cross finger-pointing. So I disengaged... until today. > > The reasoning by which anyone would get to the conclusion that UN controls ccTLDs in the DNS root because they have had a process (in place well before the Internet) to decide on two-letter codes to represent geographical entities for their own purposes different from the DNS management is beyond my thinking ability. Someone in the early Internet technical community (Jon Postel, if my information is correct) decided to rely on that list for the DNS purposes without the UN playing any deliberate role in that specific decision. In my realm of rationality, the UN cannot bear any responsibility for any consequence that might ensue from that specific decision concerning the DNS. That's really a stretch to make a defensive point -- and again, I'm not even sure we needed to have that debate at this point. > Thanks, > > Mawaki > > -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- > Mawaki Chango, PhD > Founder & Principal, DIGILEXIS Consulting > http://www.digilexis.com > m.chango at digilexis.com > Mobile: +225 4448 7764 > twitter.com/digilexis > twitter.com/dig_mawaki > Skype: digilexis > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > The ISO codes were adopted as any other could have been adopted, not by > a treaty or formal agreement with ISO. Milton is correct. > > --c.a. > > On 12/19/2013 03:10 PM, David Conrad wrote: > > Milton, > > > > On Dec 19, 2013, at 8:42 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> The UN does NOT control the "country code part" of the DNS root. > >> A UN agency makes up two-letter alphabetic character strings and uniquely assigns them to geographic entities (which are not necessarily "countries" by the way). When or how those codes get into the DNS root and matched to an IP address is entirely in the hands of ICANN/IANA, which means that it ultimately has to be approved by the US government. > > > > Not entirely. > > > > ICANN/IANA does not make unrequested changes. > > > > In the past (before the root zone automation software), anyone could request a change to a TLD. ICANN/IANA would vet the change request, ensuring the request came from an entity authorized to request the change (that is, it came from one of the TLD administrators) and that it made sense syntactically and technically, then seek confirmation from all the administrators (technical and administrative) for the TLD. Once all parties approved the change request, it would be sent on to NTIA for authorization and then on to Verisign for implementation. > > > > I believe the root zone automation software now limits who can request changes to the TLD administrators (that is, the folks who have log in credentials to the system), but not positive. My understanding is that everything else in the process is essentially the same. > > > >> Furthermore, there is no such thing as a "country code part of the Internet root." There is a DNS root, full stop. > >> A country code is a top level domain just like any other, in technical terms. > > > > Yes. From the perspective of IANA staff, a TLD is a TLD. > > > > Regards, > > -drc > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From keith at internetnz.net.nz Thu Dec 19 16:42:19 2013 From: keith at internetnz.net.nz (Keith Davidson) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:42:19 +1300 Subject: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <52B3683B.50909@internetnz.net.nz> On 14/12/2013 8:12 a.m., Kerry Brown wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >>> I think the people in this discussion are failing to distinguish who "owns" >>> the ccTLD and the process by which the DNS zone for the ccTLD is >>> inserted into the root. >> >> The above are 2 separate things. Ideally, ccTLDs are not 'owned" >> rather they have 'stewards'. >> > > I agree. That is why I had it in quotes. Couldn't figure out what terminology to use. Stewards is better. > >> >> I would argue that most ccTLDs would agree that the >>> government of the country involved "owns" the ccTLD. >> >> >> I think it is an empirical question. One that in my experience is about 50-50. >> > > Given the leaked draft of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement I would say at least some countries believe they can regulate ccTLDs if not own them. I wonder what would happen if a country signed the final TPPA and then the ccTLD operator didn't conform. Would they request a redelegation? It is certainly a confusing area of interest. The redelegation request would require the approval of the local Internet community, or require the local Government to pass into law a methodology of taking over the ccLTD (and the ccTLD exhausting its legal rights to not hand over the ccTLD). No simple task either way. Cheers Keith -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From keith at internetnz.net.nz Thu Dec 19 16:49:50 2013 From: keith at internetnz.net.nz (Keith Davidson) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:49:50 +1300 Subject: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD259DD0F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> , <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD259DD0F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <52B369FE.7000101@internetnz.net.nz> On 20/12/2013 5:42 a.m., Milton L Mueller wrote: > This has been a useful and interesting discussion. > Just for the record, however, the header of this thread is completely wrong. > The UN does NOT control the "country code part" of the DNS root. > A UN agency makes up two-letter alphabetic character strings and uniquely assigns them to geographic entities (which are not necessarily "countries" by the way). When or how those codes get into the DNS root and matched to an IP address is entirely in the hands of ICANN/IANA, which means that it ultimately has to be approved by the US government. > Furthermore, there is no such thing as a "country code part of the Internet root." There is a DNS root, full stop. > A country code is a top level domain just like any other, in technical terms. Succinctly summarised Milton... And the idea of using ISO 3166 arose from Postel and others, encapsulated in RFC1591 (1994): ------ 4.2 Country Codes The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is not a country. The selection of the ISO 3166 list as a basis for country code top-level domain names was made with the knowledge that ISO has a procedure for determining which entities should be and should not be on that list. ----- This was a useful public policy assertion from prior to US Govt control (or UN knowledge) of the Internet's unique identifiers. Cheers Keith -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 19 16:59:38 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:59:38 +1300 Subject: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US In-Reply-To: <52B3683B.50909@internetnz.net.nz> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> <52B3683B.50909@internetnz.net .nz> Message-ID: <0FDC5292-CB34-4ACD-A25A-0AAA367A9F9F@gmail.com> For those in the Caucus, who may not know Keith. He is part of Internet NZ which is the ccTLD operator/manager for .nz and is also on the ccNSO Council within ICANN. You can also use the opportunity to ask his perspective on issues related to country codes. One area that they were recently soliciting comments is in the takeover of ccTLD management by those outside the ccTLD operations or management, that is hostile takeovers when it comes to Redelegation of the ccTLD. ICANN is the global forum for developing policies for coordination of some of the Internet's core technical elements, including the domain-name system (DNS). For the most part, the ccNSO have largely been left to develop their own policies as they are managing country codes what is perceived to be intertwined with notions of sovereignty. They do call for Public comments and feedback from communities, however, there is a very real danger that in the short periods of public comment especially reaching out to those ccTLD managers who are not part of the ccNSO, regulators, government departments who set policy (who are not at GAC meetings nor involved) that their voices can be left out from the policy making process. This is why it is better to be at the table and be part of the conversation rather than let others carry in without your voice being heard. Sent from my iPad > On Dec 20, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Keith Davidson wrote: > > > >> On 14/12/2013 8:12 a.m., Kerry Brown wrote: >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> I think the people in this discussion are failing to distinguish who "owns" >>>> the ccTLD and the process by which the DNS zone for the ccTLD is >>>> inserted into the root. >>> >>> The above are 2 separate things. Ideally, ccTLDs are not 'owned" >>> rather they have 'stewards'. >>> >> >> I agree. That is why I had it in quotes. Couldn't figure out what terminology to use. Stewards is better. >> >>> >>> I would argue that most ccTLDs would agree that the >>>> government of the country involved "owns" the ccTLD. >>> >>> >>> I think it is an empirical question. One that in my experience is about 50-50. >>> >> >> Given the leaked draft of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement I would say at least some countries believe they can regulate ccTLDs if not own them. I wonder what would happen if a country signed the final TPPA and then the ccTLD operator didn't conform. Would they request a redelegation? It is certainly a confusing area of interest. > > The redelegation request would require the approval of the local Internet community, or require the local Government to pass into law a methodology of taking over the ccLTD (and the ccTLD exhausting its legal rights to not hand over the ccTLD). No simple task either way. > > Cheers > > Keith > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Dec 19 17:35:00 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:35:00 +1300 Subject: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US In-Reply-To: <0FDC5292-CB34-4ACD-A25A-0AAA367A9F9F@gmail.com> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> <52B3683B.50909@internetnz.net .nz> <0FDC5292-CB34-4ACD-A25A-0AAA367A9F9F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8368BE33-BE45-4433-A05F-D1B84859A3E1@gmail.com> Revocation is one of the administrative concerns that interplay on notions of security, stability as well as sovereignty. "Revocation" is defined as redelegation without the consent of the ccTLD Manager. The Country Code Name Supporting Organisation (ccNSO) recently published the following: 1) Framework of Interpretation Working Group on Revocation, Public Consultation Final, see: http://ccnso.icann.org/bitcache/e9b54138497221384d5b8992d4366cbbbadb9c71?vid=56121&disposition=attachment&op=download 2) ccNSO Interim Report on Revocation which was open for comments on 20th October, 2013 and closes on 20 December 2013 23:59 UTC, see: http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/foi-interim-28oct13-en.htm For those who feel that they wish to submit their perspectives, you still have time to do so directly via the link in (2). Best Wishes, Sala Sent from my iPad > On Dec 20, 2013, at 10:59 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > For those in the Caucus, who may not know Keith. He is part of Internet NZ which is the ccTLD operator/manager for .nz and is also on the ccNSO Council within ICANN. You can also use the opportunity to ask his perspective on issues related to country codes. > > One area that they were recently soliciting comments is in the takeover of ccTLD management by those outside the ccTLD operations or management, that is hostile takeovers when it comes to Redelegation of the ccTLD. > > ICANN is the global forum for developing policies for coordination of some of the Internet's core technical elements, including the domain-name system (DNS). For the most part, the ccNSO have largely been left to develop their own policies as they are managing country codes what is perceived to be intertwined with notions of sovereignty. They do call for Public comments and feedback from communities, however, there is a very real danger that in the short periods of public comment especially reaching out to those ccTLD managers who are not part of the ccNSO, regulators, government departments who set policy (who are not at GAC meetings nor involved) that their voices can be left out from the policy making process. > > This is why it is better to be at the table and be part of the conversation rather than let others carry in without your voice being heard. > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Dec 20, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Keith Davidson wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 14/12/2013 8:12 a.m., Kerry Brown wrote: >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> I think the people in this discussion are failing to distinguish who "owns" >>>>> the ccTLD and the process by which the DNS zone for the ccTLD is >>>>> inserted into the root. >>>> >>>> The above are 2 separate things. Ideally, ccTLDs are not 'owned" >>>> rather they have 'stewards'. >>> >>> I agree. That is why I had it in quotes. Couldn't figure out what terminology to use. Stewards is better. >>> >>>> >>>> I would argue that most ccTLDs would agree that the >>>>> government of the country involved "owns" the ccTLD. >>>> >>>> >>>> I think it is an empirical question. One that in my experience is about 50-50. >>> >>> Given the leaked draft of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement I would say at least some countries believe they can regulate ccTLDs if not own them. I wonder what would happen if a country signed the final TPPA and then the ccTLD operator didn't conform. Would they request a redelegation? It is certainly a confusing area of interest. >> >> The redelegation request would require the approval of the local Internet community, or require the local Government to pass into law a methodology of taking over the ccLTD (and the ccTLD exhausting its legal rights to not hand over the ccTLD). No simple task either way. >> >> Cheers >> >> Keith >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 Dec 19 17:47:55 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:47:55 -0200 Subject: [governance] ISO 3166 lists of 'country' codes In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD259DD0F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1B077A0F-3A5F-4DFA-9401-08F3EACB6926@virtualized.org> <52B32A8E.6080505@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <52B3779B.6070603@cafonso.ca> You are right, ISO has "liaison" or cooperation agreements with nearly all of the UN agencies, but is not one of the 16. ICANN is listed as one of the organizations in cooperation with ISO. It is composed of countries' standards organizations, which are not necessarily government agencies. Anyway, adopting the ISO CCs was a standard procedure, nothing more than that :) []s fraternos --c.a. On 12/19/2013 05:50 PM, CW Mail wrote: > Good evening: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-2#Exceptional_reservations > > There is a rather straightforward way of concluding this debate: > ISO is not a UN agency. > > Regards > > CW > > > On 19 Dec 2013, at 18:52, Mawaki Chango > wrote: > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pimienta at funredes.org Thu Dec 19 19:52:48 2013 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 20:52:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US In-Reply-To: References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: > > Does the Haiti case stand out? Are there any other examples of > redelegation decision viewed as controversial, >many > > > like this one? >This one seems to have been easy, as parties agreed. Sorry to react a bit late. For the sake of respect to the historical facts, I shall, as one of the first witness of that case, strongly disagree, Mc Tim, and strongly is a weak adjective in that case... This one was not easy at all! The weakness of the civil society involved parties (REHRED and FUNREDES) was challenged by a long lasting action on the Internet media to protest against a real injustice coming from abroad and a threaten to Internet development in Haiti, which was lost by weariness and lack of resources. REHRED, the civil society first network was deeply weakend by this struggle and eventually disappeared. ACN, the first ISP in Haiti, was put in unfair competition with foreign interests. All that in spite the facts that REHRED and ACN were proposing the first multi stakeholder approach for Internet governance and at the time of the redelegation (and for many years after) were the two unique ISPs in the country. The turmoils created by this totally wrong decision of IANA, standing in a new, improvised, on the shot, rule, contradicting all previous documented ones, costed the development of the Internet in Haiti a strong shot which lasted until 2004, 7 years later, when finally under UNDP pressure and thanks to RDDH the situation eventually evolved positively. And that time the parties agreed after the holder of a ccTLD which they never put in function disappeared. The party which stealed, with IANA total complicity, the cc-TLD management from REHRED/ACN was uncapable during the 7 years following the delegation to have the ccTLD perform leaving Haiti without ccTLD all that time with all the implications which that mean in terms of Internet development. This was the opposite of a succes story and one of the worst example of bad doing in terms of governance dictated from the US. Part of the archeologic data is on some gophers which are not reachable now but some links still are offering memories: http://www.firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/531/452 Haiti and Internet governance, John Quarterman, Fist Monday, June 1997 http://som.csudh.edu/cis/lpress/articles/haiti.htm Seats at the Policy-Making Table, Larry Press, OnTheInternet, July 1997 Funredes has a well documented page on that story which is having problem at this moment but will soon be back. -- 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 pouzin at well.com Fri Dec 20 00:06:55 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 06:06:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US Message-ID: Hi, Another case of crooked interference is the bulgarian cyrillic ccTLD, *бг*, chosen by the bulgarian gov and persistently rejected by ICANN. The whole story was published a few years ago by Daniel Kalchev on the igc list. ICANN kept invoking tortuous and delusive arguments which were totally irrelevant, because the Tunis Agenda reads: *« 63. Countries should not be involved in decisions regarding another country’s country-code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD). Their legitimate interests, as expressed and defined by each country, in diverse ways, regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs, need to be respected, upheld and addressed via a flexible and improved framework and mechanisms. »* The Tunis Agenda is crystal clear, it's a violation to reject the bulgarian ccTLD. Nevertheless ICANN being an illegitimate monopoly imposed by the US gov, it can afford being a violator, incompetent and parasitic. Louis - - - On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 1:52 AM, Daniel Pimienta wrote: > > > Does the Haiti case stand out? Are there any other examples of >> redelegation decision viewed as controversial, >> many >> >> > like this one? >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Dec 20 05:34:00 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 11:34:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC coordinator elections Message-ID: <20131220113400.056c5e78@quill> What is the current status in regard to the (IMO overdue by now) start of the IGC coordinator elections? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Dec 20 08:11:32 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 22:11:32 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee References: <52B43FBC.8090108@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: A request for civil society to provide names by the end of the year (11 days) for two committees. Carlos' email below, but quote: "2-3 names for the HL committee and 2 names for the exec committee as, soon as possible (before this year ends)" These committees are described in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's announcement of November 26 as: 1. High-Level Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for conducting the political articulation and fostering the involvement of the international community. 2. Executive Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for organizing the event, including the agenda discussion and execution, and for the treatment of the proposals from participants and different stakeholders; Adam Begin forwarded message: > From: "Carlos A. Afonso" > Date: December 20, 2013 10:01:48 PM GMT+09:00 > To: Ian Peter , Milton L Mueller > Cc: discuss at 1net.org > Subject: Re: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee > > Hi people, > > Writing as a member of the local organizing group (LOG): we are > extremely worried because time is an independent variable and we badly > need a clear definition from all stakeholders as soon as possible. > > To CS: please forget about the other stakeholders (they have their own > challenges and they will have to solve them). If CS is going to restart > the infighting to define representing names, now on who will sit at the > 1Net Steering Committee, instead of building upon the imperfect but > reasonable process we managed to do so far, you will be pushing LOG into > a corner as we have to define the committees ASAP. > > LOG must have the two main committees (high level and executive) > basically defined by the end of this year. My *personal suggestion* is: > CS accepts for the 1Net Steering Committee the nominating group which we > defined for the Icann HL meeting, as proposed now. We will of course be > able to keep an eye on them as we usually do. And let CS try and define > the 2-3 names for the HL committee and 2 names for the exec committee as > soon as possible (before this year ends). > > LOG agreed 1Net will be the conduit to send the names of all non-gov > sectors to it, since there is representation of all sectors in their > Steering Committee. > > BTW, in this (imperfect) way CS will be *far better* than the business > community in terms of all balances. And please recall that the meeting > is planned for about 1,000 participants, so plenty of space to come to > SP and participate. > > []s fraternos with eyes on the ticking clock... > > --c.a. > > On 12/20/2013 09:14 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Well dear fellow multistakeholders, >> >> Here is the state of play as we enter the holiday period. >> >> Business community chooses the biggest and richest without thought for >> balance. >> >> Technical community needs more time to get the job done. >> >> Academic community works hard on deciding what an academic is. >> >> Civil society implodes. >> >> >> >> All sounds like business as usual to me (but maybe my cynicism will wear >> off by morning). >> >> >> I am not going to bore this list with a description of the civil society >> processes that came up with a very good representative set of names. If >> you want to know about the processes adopted, read the IGC or Best Bits >> archives (or email me). Having worked with the various civil society >> groups as an independent facilitator, I can tell you that the civil >> society reps involved knew their processes were imperfect, had little or >> no time to do anything about it, but ploughed ahead to come up with a >> very good and widely accepted result. >> >> Those chosen for civil society were selected for their capacity to >> represent all of civil society, not just their own organisations, and to >> work collegiately with other stakeholder groups. In a less talented >> field perhaps Klaus or Michael, both of whom were candidates, might have >> been chosen. >> >> Anyway >> >> All the best to you all and I look forward to some positive advances in >> the new year! >> >> Ian Peter >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss at 1net.org >> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Dec 20 09:51:15 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:51:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee In-Reply-To: References: <52B43FBC.8090108@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <20131220155115.51c52109@quill> Thanks Adam. So we need some volunteers. Who is willing and able to take the time to serve in these capacities? Greetings, Norbert Adam Peake wrote: > A request for civil society to provide names by the end of the year > (11 days) for two committees. Carlos' email below, but quote: > > "2-3 names for the HL committee and 2 names for the exec committee > as, soon as possible (before this year ends)" > > These committees are described in the Brazilian Internet Steering > Committee's announcement of November 26 > as: > > 1. High-Level Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for conducting > the political articulation and fostering the involvement of the > international community. 2. Executive Multistakeholder Committee: > Responsible for organizing the event, including the agenda discussion > and execution, and for the treatment of the proposals from > participants and different stakeholders; > > Adam > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: "Carlos A. Afonso" > > Date: December 20, 2013 10:01:48 PM GMT+09:00 > > To: Ian Peter , Milton L Mueller > > Cc: discuss at 1net.org > > Subject: Re: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee > > > > Hi people, > > > > Writing as a member of the local organizing group (LOG): we are > > extremely worried because time is an independent variable and we > > badly need a clear definition from all stakeholders as soon as > > possible. > > > > To CS: please forget about the other stakeholders (they have their > > own challenges and they will have to solve them). If CS is going to > > restart the infighting to define representing names, now on who > > will sit at the 1Net Steering Committee, instead of building upon > > the imperfect but reasonable process we managed to do so far, you > > will be pushing LOG into a corner as we have to define the > > committees ASAP. > > > > LOG must have the two main committees (high level and executive) > > basically defined by the end of this year. My *personal suggestion* > > is: CS accepts for the 1Net Steering Committee the nominating group > > which we defined for the Icann HL meeting, as proposed now. We will > > of course be able to keep an eye on them as we usually do. And let > > CS try and define the 2-3 names for the HL committee and 2 names > > for the exec committee as soon as possible (before this year ends). > > > > LOG agreed 1Net will be the conduit to send the names of all non-gov > > sectors to it, since there is representation of all sectors in their > > Steering Committee. > > > > BTW, in this (imperfect) way CS will be *far better* than the > > business community in terms of all balances. And please recall that > > the meeting is planned for about 1,000 participants, so plenty of > > space to come to SP and participate. > > > > []s fraternos with eyes on the ticking clock... > > > > --c.a. > > > > On 12/20/2013 09:14 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Well dear fellow multistakeholders, > >> > >> Here is the state of play as we enter the holiday period. > >> > >> Business community chooses the biggest and richest without thought > >> for balance. > >> > >> Technical community needs more time to get the job done. > >> > >> Academic community works hard on deciding what an academic is. > >> > >> Civil society implodes. > >> > >> > >> > >> All sounds like business as usual to me (but maybe my cynicism > >> will wear off by morning). > >> > >> > >> I am not going to bore this list with a description of the civil > >> society processes that came up with a very good representative set > >> of names. If you want to know about the processes adopted, read > >> the IGC or Best Bits archives (or email me). Having worked with > >> the various civil society groups as an independent facilitator, I > >> can tell you that the civil society reps involved knew their > >> processes were imperfect, had little or no time to do anything > >> about it, but ploughed ahead to come up with a very good and > >> widely accepted result. > >> > >> Those chosen for civil society were selected for their capacity to > >> represent all of civil society, not just their own organisations, > >> and to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups. In a less > >> talented field perhaps Klaus or Michael, both of whom were > >> candidates, might have been chosen. > >> > >> Anyway > >> > >> All the best to you all and I look forward to some positive > >> advances in the new year! > >> > >> Ian Peter > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> discuss mailing list > >> discuss at 1net.org > >> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > discuss mailing list > > discuss at 1net.org > > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jaryn56 at gmail.com Fri Dec 20 10:05:03 2013 From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 10:05:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee In-Reply-To: <20131220155115.51c52109@quill> References: <52B43FBC.8090108@cafonso.ca> <20131220155115.51c52109@quill> Message-ID: Me propongo como voluntario, aquí en el Perú trato de que Internet sea un derecho esencial de los pueblos, creo que ya es tiempo de dar mas chance a la comunidad de técnicos de Latinoamérica y el Caribe... Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo 2013/12/20 Norbert Bollow : > Thanks Adam. > > So we need some volunteers. Who is willing and able to take the time to > serve in these capacities? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > Adam Peake wrote: > >> A request for civil society to provide names by the end of the year >> (11 days) for two committees. Carlos' email below, but quote: >> >> "2-3 names for the HL committee and 2 names for the exec committee >> as, soon as possible (before this year ends)" >> >> These committees are described in the Brazilian Internet Steering >> Committee's announcement of November 26 >> as: >> >> 1. High-Level Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for conducting >> the political articulation and fostering the involvement of the >> international community. 2. Executive Multistakeholder Committee: >> Responsible for organizing the event, including the agenda discussion >> and execution, and for the treatment of the proposals from >> participants and different stakeholders; >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> > From: "Carlos A. Afonso" >> > Date: December 20, 2013 10:01:48 PM GMT+09:00 >> > To: Ian Peter , Milton L Mueller >> > Cc: discuss at 1net.org >> > Subject: Re: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee >> > >> > Hi people, >> > >> > Writing as a member of the local organizing group (LOG): we are >> > extremely worried because time is an independent variable and we >> > badly need a clear definition from all stakeholders as soon as >> > possible. >> > >> > To CS: please forget about the other stakeholders (they have their >> > own challenges and they will have to solve them). If CS is going to >> > restart the infighting to define representing names, now on who >> > will sit at the 1Net Steering Committee, instead of building upon >> > the imperfect but reasonable process we managed to do so far, you >> > will be pushing LOG into a corner as we have to define the >> > committees ASAP. >> > >> > LOG must have the two main committees (high level and executive) >> > basically defined by the end of this year. My *personal suggestion* >> > is: CS accepts for the 1Net Steering Committee the nominating group >> > which we defined for the Icann HL meeting, as proposed now. We will >> > of course be able to keep an eye on them as we usually do. And let >> > CS try and define the 2-3 names for the HL committee and 2 names >> > for the exec committee as soon as possible (before this year ends). >> > >> > LOG agreed 1Net will be the conduit to send the names of all non-gov >> > sectors to it, since there is representation of all sectors in their >> > Steering Committee. >> > >> > BTW, in this (imperfect) way CS will be *far better* than the >> > business community in terms of all balances. And please recall that >> > the meeting is planned for about 1,000 participants, so plenty of >> > space to come to SP and participate. >> > >> > []s fraternos with eyes on the ticking clock... >> > >> > --c.a. >> > >> > On 12/20/2013 09:14 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> Well dear fellow multistakeholders, >> >> >> >> Here is the state of play as we enter the holiday period. >> >> >> >> Business community chooses the biggest and richest without thought >> >> for balance. >> >> >> >> Technical community needs more time to get the job done. >> >> >> >> Academic community works hard on deciding what an academic is. >> >> >> >> Civil society implodes. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> All sounds like business as usual to me (but maybe my cynicism >> >> will wear off by morning). >> >> >> >> >> >> I am not going to bore this list with a description of the civil >> >> society processes that came up with a very good representative set >> >> of names. If you want to know about the processes adopted, read >> >> the IGC or Best Bits archives (or email me). Having worked with >> >> the various civil society groups as an independent facilitator, I >> >> can tell you that the civil society reps involved knew their >> >> processes were imperfect, had little or no time to do anything >> >> about it, but ploughed ahead to come up with a very good and >> >> widely accepted result. >> >> >> >> Those chosen for civil society were selected for their capacity to >> >> represent all of civil society, not just their own organisations, >> >> and to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups. In a less >> >> talented field perhaps Klaus or Michael, both of whom were >> >> candidates, might have been chosen. >> >> >> >> Anyway >> >> >> >> All the best to you all and I look forward to some positive >> >> advances in the new year! >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> discuss mailing list >> >> discuss at 1net.org >> >> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > discuss mailing list >> > discuss at 1net.org >> > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Fri Dec 20 12:21:55 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:21:55 +0000 Subject: [governance] Important concept Message-ID: From Byron Holland's latest blog. http://blog.cira.ca/2013/12/the-panel-on-the-future-of-global-internet-cooperation/ "In the political world, the term ‘governance’ is loaded, and carries with it ideas of power and authority, certainly not the same meaning that we in the Internet world have given it. Are the terms coordination and administration more helpful moving forward?" The above statement really struck a chord with me. It gets at the heart of the current tension between governments, commercial, and civil society interests. If we changed to speaking about coordination and administration rather than governance it may may facilitate more productive conversations from all the concerned parties. Kerry Brown -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Dec 20 14:20:58 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 06:20:58 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee In-Reply-To: References: <52B43FBC.8090108@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: am currently seeking some clarification on this. I note tech community have adopted a mid January deadline rather than December 31. -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 12:11 AM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Bits ; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC Cc: Carlos A. Afonso Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee A request for civil society to provide names by the end of the year (11 days) for two committees. Carlos' email below, but quote: "2-3 names for the HL committee and 2 names for the exec committee as, soon as possible (before this year ends)" These committees are described in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's announcement of November 26 as: 1. High-Level Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for conducting the political articulation and fostering the involvement of the international community. 2. Executive Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for organizing the event, including the agenda discussion and execution, and for the treatment of the proposals from participants and different stakeholders; Adam Begin forwarded message: > From: "Carlos A. Afonso" > Date: December 20, 2013 10:01:48 PM GMT+09:00 > To: Ian Peter , Milton L Mueller > Cc: discuss at 1net.org > Subject: Re: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee > > Hi people, > > Writing as a member of the local organizing group (LOG): we are > extremely worried because time is an independent variable and we badly > need a clear definition from all stakeholders as soon as possible. > > To CS: please forget about the other stakeholders (they have their own > challenges and they will have to solve them). If CS is going to restart > the infighting to define representing names, now on who will sit at the > 1Net Steering Committee, instead of building upon the imperfect but > reasonable process we managed to do so far, you will be pushing LOG into > a corner as we have to define the committees ASAP. > > LOG must have the two main committees (high level and executive) > basically defined by the end of this year. My *personal suggestion* is: > CS accepts for the 1Net Steering Committee the nominating group which we > defined for the Icann HL meeting, as proposed now. We will of course be > able to keep an eye on them as we usually do. And let CS try and define > the 2-3 names for the HL committee and 2 names for the exec committee as > soon as possible (before this year ends). > > LOG agreed 1Net will be the conduit to send the names of all non-gov > sectors to it, since there is representation of all sectors in their > Steering Committee. > > BTW, in this (imperfect) way CS will be *far better* than the business > community in terms of all balances. And please recall that the meeting > is planned for about 1,000 participants, so plenty of space to come to > SP and participate. > > []s fraternos with eyes on the ticking clock... > > --c.a. > > On 12/20/2013 09:14 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Well dear fellow multistakeholders, >> >> Here is the state of play as we enter the holiday period. >> >> Business community chooses the biggest and richest without thought for >> balance. >> >> Technical community needs more time to get the job done. >> >> Academic community works hard on deciding what an academic is. >> >> Civil society implodes. >> >> >> >> All sounds like business as usual to me (but maybe my cynicism will wear >> off by morning). >> >> >> I am not going to bore this list with a description of the civil society >> processes that came up with a very good representative set of names. If >> you want to know about the processes adopted, read the IGC or Best Bits >> archives (or email me). Having worked with the various civil society >> groups as an independent facilitator, I can tell you that the civil >> society reps involved knew their processes were imperfect, had little or >> no time to do anything about it, but ploughed ahead to come up with a >> very good and widely accepted result. >> >> Those chosen for civil society were selected for their capacity to >> represent all of civil society, not just their own organisations, and to >> work collegiately with other stakeholder groups. In a less talented >> field perhaps Klaus or Michael, both of whom were candidates, might have >> been chosen. >> >> Anyway >> >> All the best to you all and I look forward to some positive advances in >> the new year! >> >> Ian Peter >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss at 1net.org >> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 20 14:42:05 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:42:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee In-Reply-To: References: <52B43FBC.8090108@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <740542C8-D14A-452E-8F01-828429775E96@gmail.com> Ian, You are correct. A series of issues delayed the Call for Nominations until now, and that was very unfortunate. The NomCom decided that given the onset of the holiday season, it would be unfair in a number of ways, especially to potential candidates, to accelerate the process to what we considered was a totally unrealistic set of deadlines We're quite aware, as Carlos noted, that time is an independent variable in this process, and we understand the tension between the two. I'm sure that both Carlos and we would have liked to have even more time, but there's only a limited amount of it. We both wish he world were more malleable to our desires, but that is not the reality of the situation. George (Chair, NomCom) On Dec 20, 2013, at 2:20 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > am currently seeking some clarification on this. I note tech community have adopted a mid January deadline rather than December 31. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake > Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 12:11 AM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Bits ; Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC > Cc: Carlos A. Afonso > Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee > > A request for civil society to provide names by the end of the year (11 days) for two committees. Carlos' email below, but quote: > > "2-3 names for the HL committee and 2 names for the exec committee as, soon as possible (before this year ends)" > > These committees are described in the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee's announcement of November 26 as: > > 1. High-Level Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for conducting the political articulation and fostering the involvement of the international community. > 2. Executive Multistakeholder Committee: Responsible for organizing the event, including the agenda discussion and execution, and for the treatment of the proposals from participants and different stakeholders; > > Adam > > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: "Carlos A. Afonso" >> Date: December 20, 2013 10:01:48 PM GMT+09:00 >> To: Ian Peter , Milton L Mueller >> Cc: discuss at 1net.org >> Subject: Re: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee >> >> Hi people, >> >> Writing as a member of the local organizing group (LOG): we are >> extremely worried because time is an independent variable and we badly >> need a clear definition from all stakeholders as soon as possible. >> >> To CS: please forget about the other stakeholders (they have their own >> challenges and they will have to solve them). If CS is going to restart >> the infighting to define representing names, now on who will sit at the >> 1Net Steering Committee, instead of building upon the imperfect but >> reasonable process we managed to do so far, you will be pushing LOG into >> a corner as we have to define the committees ASAP. >> >> LOG must have the two main committees (high level and executive) >> basically defined by the end of this year. My *personal suggestion* is: >> CS accepts for the 1Net Steering Committee the nominating group which we >> defined for the Icann HL meeting, as proposed now. We will of course be >> able to keep an eye on them as we usually do. And let CS try and define >> the 2-3 names for the HL committee and 2 names for the exec committee as >> soon as possible (before this year ends). >> >> LOG agreed 1Net will be the conduit to send the names of all non-gov >> sectors to it, since there is representation of all sectors in their >> Steering Committee. >> >> BTW, in this (imperfect) way CS will be *far better* than the business >> community in terms of all balances. And please recall that the meeting >> is planned for about 1,000 participants, so plenty of space to come to >> SP and participate. >> >> []s fraternos with eyes on the ticking clock... >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 12/20/2013 09:14 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> Well dear fellow multistakeholders, >>> >>> Here is the state of play as we enter the holiday period. >>> >>> Business community chooses the biggest and richest without thought for >>> balance. >>> >>> Technical community needs more time to get the job done. >>> >>> Academic community works hard on deciding what an academic is. >>> >>> Civil society implodes. >>> >>> >>> >>> All sounds like business as usual to me (but maybe my cynicism will wear >>> off by morning). >>> >>> >>> I am not going to bore this list with a description of the civil society >>> processes that came up with a very good representative set of names. If >>> you want to know about the processes adopted, read the IGC or Best Bits >>> archives (or email me). Having worked with the various civil society >>> groups as an independent facilitator, I can tell you that the civil >>> society reps involved knew their processes were imperfect, had little or >>> no time to do anything about it, but ploughed ahead to come up with a >>> very good and widely accepted result. >>> >>> Those chosen for civil society were selected for their capacity to >>> represent all of civil society, not just their own organisations, and to >>> work collegiately with other stakeholder groups. In a less talented >>> field perhaps Klaus or Michael, both of whom were candidates, might have >>> been chosen. >>> >>> Anyway >>> >>> All the best to you all and I look forward to some positive advances in >>> the new year! >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> discuss mailing list >>> discuss at 1net.org >>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss at 1net.org >> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Dec 20 15:06:07 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 09:06:07 +1300 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC coordinator elections In-Reply-To: <20131220113400.056c5e78@quill> References: <20131220113400.056c5e78@quill> Message-ID: <0FC9CAFA-D569-421D-9C8E-39FC608599DA@gmail.com> We are still on track and will be calling the elections before the year ended. we ask that you kindly exercise some restraint and patience as we had not envisaged one of our coordinators stepping down. Sala co-coordinator Sent from my iPad > On Dec 20, 2013, at 11:34 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > What is the current status in regard to the (IMO overdue by now) start > of the IGC coordinator elections? > > Greetings, > Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Dec 20 15:14:59 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 15:14:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] Important concept In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Kerry, On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: > From Byron Holland's latest blog. > > > http://blog.cira.ca/2013/12/the-panel-on-the-future-of-global-internet-cooperation/ > > "In the political world, the term ‘governance’ is loaded, and carries with > it ideas of power and authority, certainly not the same meaning that we in > the Internet world have given it. Are the terms coordination and > administration more helpful moving forward?" > I have always felt so. > > > The above statement really struck a chord with me. It gets at the heart of > the current tension between governments, commercial, and civil society > interests. If we changed to speaking about coordination and administration > rather than governance it may may facilitate more productive conversations > from all the concerned parties. > The I*'s used those words (the 4 C's) Collaboration, Communication, Cooperation and Coordination around admin of tech resources during WSIS. It didn't seem to catch on as a meme outside of the folk who were actually doing the 4 C's. Doesn't mean we can't try again. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri Dec 20 16:02:06 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 21:02:06 +0000 Subject: [governance] UN controls the country code part of the Internet root, not US In-Reply-To: <1B077A0F-3A5F-4DFA-9401-08F3EACB6926@virtualized.org> References: <20131125220248.2d6ec8a6@quill> <1B377CC6-C440-43DF-A451-977C1F1B8CD1@theglobaljournal.net> <063f01ceed65$ee3b3320$cab19960$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2573FD8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52997011.8060907@itforchange.net> <529975B1.4010404@itforchange.net> <529992BD.7000603@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2574558@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <52A5B26C.8090601@diplomacy.edu> <8B8C3A77-414A-4B19-8BE5-0A72BD1C8263@glocom.ac.jp> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD259DD0F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1B077A0F-3A5F-4DFA-9401-08F3EACB6926@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD259E739@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> -----Original Message----- From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org] >I believe the root zone automation software now limits who can request changes to the TLD >administrators (that is, the folks who have log in credentials to the system), but not positive. My >understanding is that everything else in the process is essentially the same. David: My post was not addressing this issue at all. It was simply making the point that the UN is not in control of the "country code part of the root." It is btw the USG that approved this root zone automation process. We had to wait quite a long time for it, as I am sure you 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Sat Dec 21 05:45:26 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 11:45:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] NCUC election results In-Reply-To: <0FC9CAFA-D569-421D-9C8E-39FC608599DA@gmail.com> References: <20131220113400.056c5e78@quill> <0FC9CAFA-D569-421D-9C8E-39FC608599DA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <02AB534A-C338-4396-8348-AE4B1DA9AB22@uzh.ch> Hi Speaking of CS elections, I guess I should mention that the Noncommercial Users Constituency in ICANN just held one, with the following results: Chair William Drake, U. Zurich, Switzerland Executive Committee – Europe Stefania Milan, Tilburg University, the Netherlands Executive Committee – Africa Grace Githaiga, Kenya ICT Action Network Executive Committee – Asia and the Pacific Pranesh Prakash, Centre for Internet and Society, India Executive Committee – North America Roy Balleste, St. Thomas University, USA Executive Committee – Latin America Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza, Rio de Janeiro Institute for Technology of Society Cheers, Bill On Dec 20, 2013, at 9:06 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > We are still on track and will be calling the elections before the year ended. we ask that you kindly exercise some restraint and patience as we had not envisaged one of our coordinators stepping down. > > Sala > co-coordinator > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Dec 20, 2013, at 11:34 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >> What is the current status in regard to the (IMO overdue by now) start >> of the IGC coordinator elections? >> >> 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Sat Dec 21 05:46:50 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 11:46:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] NCUC election results In-Reply-To: <0FC9CAFA-D569-421D-9C8E-39FC608599DA@gmail.com> References: <20131220113400.056c5e78@quill> <0FC9CAFA-D569-421D-9C8E-39FC608599DA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9462C535-F2D3-4D55-BA85-8C9869F10983@uzh.ch> Hi Speaking of CS elections, I guess I should mention that the Noncommercial Users Constituency in ICANN just held one, with the following results: Chair William Drake, U. Zurich, Switzerland Executive Committee – Europe Stefania Milan, Tilburg University, the Netherlands Executive Committee – Africa Grace Githaiga, Kenya ICT Action Network Executive Committee – Asia and the Pacific Pranesh Prakash, Centre for Internet and Society, India Executive Committee – North America Roy Balleste, St. Thomas University, USA Executive Committee – Latin America Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza, Rio de Janeiro Institute for Technology of Society Cheers, Bill On Dec 20, 2013, at 9:06 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > We are still on track and will be calling the elections before the year ended. we ask that you kindly exercise some restraint and patience as we had not envisaged one of our coordinators stepping down. > > Sala > co-coordinator > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Dec 20, 2013, at 11:34 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >> What is the current status in regard to the (IMO overdue by now) start >> of the IGC coordinator elections? >> >> 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 Sat Dec 21 06:22:00 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 16:52:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] NCUC election results Message-ID: As good a committee as I can think of. Congratulations bill, Carlos, grace and pranesh --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "William Drake" To: "Governance" Subject: [governance] NCUC election results Date: Sat, Dec 21, 2013 4:16 PM Hi Speaking of CS elections, I guess I should mention that the Noncommercial Users Constituency in ICANN just held one, with the following results: Chair William Drake, U. Zurich, Switzerland Executive Committee – Europe Stefania Milan, Tilburg University, the Netherlands Executive Committee – Africa Grace Githaiga, Kenya ICT Action Network Executive Committee – Asia and the Pacific Pranesh Prakash, Centre for Internet and Society, India Executive Committee – North America Roy Balleste, St. Thomas University, USA Executive Committee – Latin America Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza, Rio de Janeiro Institute for Technology of Society Cheers, Bill On Dec 20, 2013, at 9:06 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > We are still on track and will be calling the elections before the year ended. we ask that you kindly exercise some restraint and patience as we had not envisaged one of our coordinators stepping down. > > Sala > co-coordinator > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Dec 20, 2013, at 11:34 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >> What is the current status in regard to the (IMO overdue by now) start >> of the IGC coordinator elections? >> >> 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 ggithaiga at hotmail.com Sat Dec 21 06:26:44 2013 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 11:26:44 +0000 Subject: [governance] NCUC election results In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Suresh To: william.drake at uzh.ch; governance at lists.igcaucus.org From: suresh at hserus.net Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 16:52:00 +0530 Subject: Re: [governance] NCUC election results As good a committee as I can think of. Congratulations bill, Carlos, grace and pranesh --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "William Drake" To: "Governance" Subject: [governance] NCUC election results Date: Sat, Dec 21, 2013 4:16 PM Hi Speaking of CS elections, I guess I should mention that the Noncommercial Users Constituency in ICANN just held one, with the following results: Chair William Drake, U. Zurich, Switzerland Executive Committee – Europe Stefania Milan, Tilburg University, the Netherlands Executive Committee – Africa Grace Githaiga, Kenya ICT Action Network Executive Committee – Asia and the Pacific Pranesh Prakash, Centre for Internet and Society, India Executive Committee – North America Roy Balleste, St. Thomas University, USA Executive Committee – Latin America Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza, Rio de Janeiro Institute for Technology of Society Cheers, Bill On Dec 20, 2013, at 9:06 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > We are still on track and will be calling the elections before the year ended. we ask that you kindly exercise some restraint and patience as we had not envisaged one of our coordinators stepping down. > > Sala > co-coordinator > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Dec 20, 2013, at 11:34 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >> What is the current status in regard to the (IMO overdue by now) start >> of the IGC coordinator elections? >> >> 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Dec 21 06:30:01 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 00:30:01 +1300 Subject: [governance] NCUC election results In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9BCDCC44-DDE9-4AAB-BE4B-9E3D41603AB0@gmail.com> Warm Congratulations to all! Sent from my iPad > On Dec 22, 2013, at 12:22 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote: > > As good a committee as I can think of. Congratulations bill, Carlos, grace and pranesh > > --srs (htc one x) > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "William Drake" > To: "Governance" > Subject: [governance] NCUC election results > Date: Sat, Dec 21, 2013 4:16 PM > > Hi > > Speaking of CS elections, I guess I should mention that the Noncommercial Users Constituency in ICANN just held one, with the following results: > > Chair > William Drake, U. Zurich, Switzerland > > Executive Committee – Europe > Stefania Milan, Tilburg University, the Netherlands > > Executive Committee – Africa > Grace Githaiga, Kenya ICT Action Network > > Executive Committee – Asia and the Pacific > Pranesh Prakash, Centre for Internet and Society, India > > Executive Committee – North America > Roy Balleste, St. Thomas University, USA > > Executive Committee – Latin America > Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza, Rio de Janeiro Institute for Technology of Society > > Cheers, > > Bill > > > On Dec 20, 2013, at 9:06 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > We are still on track and will be calling the elections before the year ended. we ask that you kindly exercise some restraint and patience as we had not envisaged one of our coordinators stepping down. > > > > Sala > > co-coordinator > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > >> On Dec 20, 2013, at 11:34 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> > >> What is the current status in regard to the (IMO overdue by now) start > >> of the IGC coordinator elections? > >> > >> 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 Dec 21 07:18:43 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 19:18:43 +0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee In-Reply-To: <04d201cefe45$4e68c290$eb3a47b0$@gmail.com> References: <6E8F927C-5A78-4AE3-BC6A-0A1D844E976C@afrinic.net> <041501cefd11$d6eada70$84c08f50$@gmail.com> <52B4030D.1050306@gmail.com> <52B4C765.1010605@acm.org> <03af01cefdf0$2e77e1f0$8b67a5d0$@gmail.com> <04d201cefe45$4e68c290$eb3a47b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <051001cefe46$cd8d2bf0$68a783d0$@gmail.com> As this has implications for the larger IG CS community I think I should copy this to you folks as well. M From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 7:08 PM To: Adiel Akplogan Cc: 'Avri Doria'; discuss at 1net.org; 'John Curran' Subject: RE: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee As a matter of fact a number of IG CS people are already part of various aspects of the CI network, and we of course, are pleased at their presence and participation. However, that doesn't mean that the interests and concerns as now formalized in the consensus CI Declaration , are in any way being transmitted through them to the larger IG CS community although we would be delighted if they were. Following on from Milton's observation concerning the imbalance in the representation from the business community I would propose to Inet that there are two groupings within CS. One that articulates the interests and concerns of those with a primary vocation in the area of free expression, human rights and related matters, and a second which articulates the interests and concerns of those with a primary vocation in the area of "Internet Justice" as for example identified in the CI Declaration. That being the case a second "nominating committee" in the Internet Justice area would be created to nominate representation in the various forums emerging out of the Brazil conference and elsewhere. Off the top I would see including in this nominating committee those such as Ann-Kristin Hakansson of the Indigenous ICT Task Force, Ahmed (Smiley) Ismael of Siyafunda (the largest network of independent telecenters in Southern Africa), Martin Wolske of the Center for Digital Inclusion, University of Illinois who is using Community Informatics to work with inner city youth in Chicago, among others. I look forward to a positive response to this proposal at which time we would work diligently to constitute this NomCom and provide appropriate nominees for CS representation as well as Academic representation. The issue of whether we would seek to nominate representation for the technical positions from among technical actors active in the CI/Internet Justice community will require further discussion. -----Original Message----- From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at arin.net] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 10:41 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: Avri Doria; discuss at 1net.org Subject: Re: [discuss] /1net Steering/Coordination Commitee On Dec 20, 2013, at 8:58 PM, michael gurstein < gurstein at gmail.com> wrote: > Well, I guess these things are in the eye of the beholder although I > agree about the individuals selected. > ... > When I came forward to suggest that these voices should be provided an > opportunity through the CI network (which as you know consists of some > 1500 researchers, practitioners, grassroots activists and others who > of course are directly serving a base of communities and individuals > in all parts of the world) to be included in these discussions I was > rebuffed--not "miffed"--rebuffed. > > We are, as anyone can observe entering into a crucial round of > meetings/discussions/even decision points concerning the future of the > Internet and thus, I believe ultimately the future shape and even > content of human society as a whole. These are not trivial matters. > > To not insist that the range of additional voices to whom community > informatics is pointing (unfortunately in the absence of other and > more powerful voices) is I believe to act irresponsibly and > unconscionably in relation to those people and to all of those whose > voices are not being given an opportunity to be heard in these forums. Given the importance of this matter, why don't you invite one of chosen CS individuals to participate in the CI network? It should not be that difficult for someone to bring issues up and seek insights from the CI community, and that is no different than what these folks will likely be doing when coalescing input from other communities. Thoughts? /John Disclaimer: My views alone.= -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Dec 21 07:24:16 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 13:24:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Civil society representatives for key committees for the Brazil meeting Message-ID: <20131221132416.17094f45@quill> Forwarding this from the BestBits list since the IGC does not currently have a liaison officer on that civil society IG coordination group. Greetings, Norbert Beginn der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: Datum: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 10:55:42 +0800 Von: Jeremy Malcolm An: Carolina Cc: Best Bits Betreff: Re: [bestbits] [discuss] Call: 1net and Brazil meeting representatives from the Internet Technical Community Similarly the civil society IG coordination group that was used for the HLP and 1net nominations will be commencing a process for recommending appointees to the Brazil meeting committees. As the current liaison between Best Bits and that group, I am writing to update you of the proposed timetable which we are discussing for the nominations: Call for nominations – December 22 Close of nominations – January 6 Some more of the minutia about the coordinating group process and criteria have been been posted to the "summit" list. So, please stay tuned for a call for nominations for the two Brazil committees tomorrow. Also, this is just about the last opportunity if anyone wants to take my place on the coordinating committee, otherwise I will remain in place for now. On 21 Dec 2013, at 3:06 am, Carolina wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: George Sadowsky >> Date: December 20, 2013 at 1:03:02 PM EST >> To: discuss at 1net.org >> Subject: [discuss] Call: 1net and Brazil meeting representatives >> from the Internet Technical Community >> >> All, >> >> This message and its pointers contain the information for submitting >> nominations to the 1net Steering Committee and to the Brazil meeting >> committees from the Internet Technical Community. The information >> pointed to includes the process that is used by this community to >> evaluate the nominations and select the representatives. >> >> The Internet Society (ISOC) is coordinating the process leading to >> appointments to represent the Internet technical community in two of >> the “Brazil Planning Committees” and in the “1net Steering >> Committee”. The “Brazil Planning Committees” will contribute to the >> preparation of a "Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of >> Internet Governance" that will be held on 23 and 24 April 2014, in >> Sao Paulo, Brazil. The two major tasks of “1net Steering Committee” >> will be (1) to liaise with stakeholder communities and encourage >> participation and submission of productive ideas with respect to >> Internet governance issues; and (2) to steer, manage, and otherwise >> lead the activities of the 1net platform towards a productive >> understanding and possibly consensus with respect to these issues. >> Individuals interested in being suggested by the NomCom set up for >> this purpose are invited to read more about the process and the >> timeline here: >> >> http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/Call1netBR-ForPublication.pdf >> >> The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is 10 January >> 2014. >> Any questions or requests for additional information can be sent to: >> information.itcg at gmail.com. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> discuss mailing list >> discuss at 1net.org >> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 190 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 Sat Dec 21 07:34:35 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 13:34:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Need for an IGC liaison officer for the civil society IG coordination group Message-ID: <20131221133435.783e6e58@quill> Dear all Whether or not we like it that the “civil society IG coordination group” is directly handling the selection process for key roles such as the civil society representatives on key committees for the Brazil meeting, instead of having e.g. organized a randomly selected NomCom process, at this point that cannot reasonably be changed anymore. I think that it is important for IGC to appoint a liaison officer for this group. I would propose that this can be either an IGC coordinator, or alternatively we could make an IGC consensus or rough consensus decision to appoint someone, for some specific term of office. Thoughts on this? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Dec 21 11:15:33 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 17:15:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Important concept In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20131221171533.6ca29d63@quill> McTim wrote: > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Kerry Brown > wrote: > > > http://blog.cira.ca/2013/12/the-panel-on-the-future-of-global-internet-cooperation/ > > > > "In the political world, the term ‘governance’ is loaded, and > > carries with it ideas of power and authority, certainly not the > > same meaning that we in the Internet world have given it. Are the > > terms coordination and administration more helpful moving forward?" > > I have always felt so. > > > The above statement really struck a chord with me. It gets at the > > heart of the current tension between governments, commercial, and > > civil society interests. If we changed to speaking about > > coordination and administration rather than governance it may may > > facilitate more productive conversations from all the concerned > > parties. > > The I*'s used those words (the 4 C's) Collaboration, Communication, > Cooperation and Coordination around admin of tech resources during > WSIS. It didn't seem to catch on as a meme outside of the folk who > were actually doing the 4 C's. > > Doesn't mean we can't try again. What about those aspects and public interest concerns which are part of Internet Governance in the sense of the WGIG/Tunis Agenda working definition, but which don't fit into “coordination and administration” or into “Collaboration, Communication, Cooperation and Coordination around admin of tech resources”? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Dec 21 11:36:52 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 14:36:52 -0200 Subject: [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 Message-ID: <52B5C3A4.3070708@cafonso.ca> Hi people, This is my quick summary of yesterday's meeting of the local organizing group (LOG) for the BR meeting. This summary is basically oriented to civil society but may be useful to all stakeholders. Covers basically the structure of the committees and includes some other useful info. I do hope it answers several of the many questions we are receiving. fraternal regards --c.a. ================================ 1. Co-chairs of the BR Meeting This is a no-brainer: the BR Meeting will be chaired by Virgilio Almeida (current chair of CGI.br, and member of Brazil's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation), and Fadi Chehadé. 2. High Level Multistakeholder Committee The HLMC will be responsible for overseeing the political articulations and for encouraging the participation of the international community. It will be composed of government representatives of 12 countries (precise list still being established by the BR government) plus 12 non-govs, and two representatives of UN agencies to be chosen by the UNSG. The 12 non-govs include four of each non-gov stakeholder (civil society, academia/techies, private sector). All of the non-gov, non-UN stakeholders' names will be brought to the LOG by 1Net. So the HLC will be composed of 26 people. The HLMC will have four co-chairs, keeping the multistakeholder balance. One of the co-chairs will be Brazil's Minister of Communications Paulo Bernardo. So civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee four high-level reps as soon as possible. 3. Executive Multistakeholder Committee The EMC will be responsible for organizing the event, including the discussion and implementation of the agenda, and the selection of the participants and the various stakeholders' proposals. The crucial part of the preparation process resides here, in close coordination with the Logistics Committee, so people selected for the EMC ought to make themselves readily available for this challenge. The LOG has already selected the eight Brazilian members of the EMC. There will be four co-chairs as well, and names already appointed are Demi Getschko (CEO of NIC.br) and Raúl Echeberría (to be confirmed, CEO of LACNIC). A representative of an international agency will be appointed as well (by the coordinating body of the UN agencies) to participate. Like the HLMC, non-gov, non-UN members of the EMC will be brought to the LOG by 1Net. For the EMC civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee two names as soon as possible. 4. Logistics and Organizational Committee The LOC will be co-chaired by Hartmut Glaser, executive secretary of CGI.br with proven expertise in coordinating the organization of national and international events. Another co-chair will be indicated by 1Net. 5. Government Advisory Committee This is in the hands of the BR government who acts as a facilitator and coordinator. Two co-chairs will be indicated. This committee will be open to any government who wishes to act in an advisory capacity. 6. Funding NIC.br will cover about 50% of the meeting's overall costs. The balance will be share by international participants/sponsors. Contributions from ICANN and ISOC are expected. 7. Participation The meeting is to be held at Hotel Transamérica, in São Paulo, fairly close to NIC.br headquarters (see attached map). The basic distribution of participants is envisioned approximately as: 450 from govs 500-550 from non-gov, non-UN stakeholders 100 journalists 50 IGOs/UN reps Inviting participants, or receiving and approving participation requests, is one of the tasks of the EMC. 8. Expected outcomes as success indicators - Official launching of a review process of the global IG frameworks/models; - Development of a set of universally acceptable core of principles for global IG; - Tentative draft of a global IG model. My personal comment: these ambitious outcomes of course involve a lot of preparatory process work, especially by the Executive Committee. This is why we need to conclude the nominations asap in order to start the real work towards the meeting. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: cg-nic_transamerica.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 171930 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 Sat Dec 21 13:03:10 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 19:03:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52B5C3A4.3070708@cafonso.ca> References: <52B5C3A4.3070708@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <20131221190310.36d00b6d@quill> Thanks a lot, Carlos! This answers a lot of the questions that I had. Greetings, Norbert Am Sat, 21 Dec 2013 14:36:52 -0200 schrieb "Carlos A. Afonso" : > Hi people, > > This is my quick summary of yesterday's meeting of the local > organizing group (LOG) for the BR meeting. This summary is basically > oriented to civil society but may be useful to all stakeholders. > Covers basically the structure of the committees and includes some > other useful info. > > I do hope it answers several of the many questions we are receiving. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > ================================ > > 1. Co-chairs of the BR Meeting > > This is a no-brainer: the BR Meeting will be chaired by Virgilio > Almeida (current chair of CGI.br, and member of Brazil's Ministry of > Science, Technology and Innovation), and Fadi Chehadé. > > 2. High Level Multistakeholder Committee > > The HLMC will be responsible for overseeing the political > articulations and for encouraging the participation of the > international community. > > It will be composed of government representatives of 12 countries > (precise list still being established by the BR government) plus 12 > non-govs, and two representatives of UN agencies to be chosen by the > UNSG. The 12 non-govs include four of each non-gov stakeholder (civil > society, academia/techies, private sector). All of the non-gov, non-UN > stakeholders' names will be brought to the LOG by 1Net. So the HLC > will be composed of 26 people. > > The HLMC will have four co-chairs, keeping the multistakeholder > balance. One of the co-chairs will be Brazil's Minister of > Communications Paulo Bernardo. > > So civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee four > high-level reps as soon as possible. > > 3. Executive Multistakeholder Committee > > The EMC will be responsible for organizing the event, including the > discussion and implementation of the agenda, and the selection of the > participants and the various stakeholders' proposals. The crucial part > of the preparation process resides here, in close coordination with > the Logistics Committee, so people selected for the EMC ought to make > themselves readily available for this challenge. > > The LOG has already selected the eight Brazilian members of the EMC. > There will be four co-chairs as well, and names already appointed are > Demi Getschko (CEO of NIC.br) and Raúl Echeberría (to be confirmed, > CEO of LACNIC). A representative of an international agency will be > appointed as well (by the coordinating body of the UN agencies) to > participate. > > Like the HLMC, non-gov, non-UN members of the EMC will be brought to > the LOG by 1Net. > > For the EMC civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee > two names as soon as possible. > > 4. Logistics and Organizational Committee > > The LOC will be co-chaired by Hartmut Glaser, executive secretary of > CGI.br with proven expertise in coordinating the organization of > national and international events. Another co-chair will be indicated > by 1Net. > > 5. Government Advisory Committee > > This is in the hands of the BR government who acts as a facilitator > and coordinator. Two co-chairs will be indicated. This committee will > be open to any government who wishes to act in an advisory capacity. > > 6. Funding > > NIC.br will cover about 50% of the meeting's overall costs. The > balance will be share by international participants/sponsors. > Contributions from ICANN and ISOC are expected. > > 7. Participation > > The meeting is to be held at Hotel Transamérica, in São Paulo, fairly > close to NIC.br headquarters (see attached map). The basic > distribution of participants is envisioned approximately as: > > 450 from govs > 500-550 from non-gov, non-UN stakeholders > 100 journalists > 50 IGOs/UN reps > > Inviting participants, or receiving and approving participation > requests, is one of the tasks of the EMC. > > 8. Expected outcomes as success indicators > > - Official launching of a review process of the global IG > frameworks/models; > > - Development of a set of universally acceptable core of principles > for global IG; > > - Tentative draft of a global IG model. > > My personal comment: these ambitious outcomes of course involve a lot > of preparatory process work, especially by the Executive Committee. > This is why we need to conclude the nominations asap in order to > start the real work towards the meeting. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From amedinagomez at gmail.com Sat Dec 21 13:12:35 2013 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 13:12:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52B5C3A4.3070708@cafonso.ca> References: <52B5C3A4.3070708@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Thanks Carlos. Best regards Antonio Medina Gómez 2013/12/21 Carlos A. Afonso > Hi people, > > This is my quick summary of yesterday's meeting of the local organizing > group (LOG) for the BR meeting. This summary is basically oriented to > civil society but may be useful to all stakeholders. Covers basically > the structure of the committees and includes some other useful info. > > I do hope it answers several of the many questions we are receiving. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > ================================ > > 1. Co-chairs of the BR Meeting > > This is a no-brainer: the BR Meeting will be chaired by Virgilio Almeida > (current chair of CGI.br, and member of Brazil's Ministry of Science, > Technology and Innovation), and Fadi Chehadé. > > 2. High Level Multistakeholder Committee > > The HLMC will be responsible for overseeing the political articulations > and for encouraging the participation of the international community. > > It will be composed of government representatives of 12 countries > (precise list still being established by the BR government) plus 12 > non-govs, and two representatives of UN agencies to be chosen by the > UNSG. The 12 non-govs include four of each non-gov stakeholder (civil > society, academia/techies, private sector). All of the non-gov, non-UN > stakeholders' names will be brought to the LOG by 1Net. So the HLC will > be composed of 26 people. > > The HLMC will have four co-chairs, keeping the multistakeholder balance. > One of the co-chairs will be Brazil's Minister of Communications Paulo > Bernardo. > > So civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee four > high-level reps as soon as possible. > > 3. Executive Multistakeholder Committee > > The EMC will be responsible for organizing the event, including the > discussion and implementation of the agenda, and the selection of the > participants and the various stakeholders' proposals. The crucial part > of the preparation process resides here, in close coordination with the > Logistics Committee, so people selected for the EMC ought to make > themselves readily available for this challenge. > > The LOG has already selected the eight Brazilian members of the EMC. > There will be four co-chairs as well, and names already appointed are > Demi Getschko (CEO of NIC.br) and Raúl Echeberría (to be confirmed, CEO > of LACNIC). A representative of an international agency will be > appointed as well (by the coordinating body of the UN agencies) to > participate. > > Like the HLMC, non-gov, non-UN members of the EMC will be brought to the > LOG by 1Net. > > For the EMC civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee > two names as soon as possible. > > 4. Logistics and Organizational Committee > > The LOC will be co-chaired by Hartmut Glaser, executive secretary of > CGI.br with proven expertise in coordinating the organization of > national and international events. Another co-chair will be indicated by > 1Net. > > 5. Government Advisory Committee > > This is in the hands of the BR government who acts as a facilitator and > coordinator. Two co-chairs will be indicated. This committee will be > open to any government who wishes to act in an advisory capacity. > > 6. Funding > > NIC.br will cover about 50% of the meeting's overall costs. The balance > will be share by international participants/sponsors. Contributions from > ICANN and ISOC are expected. > > 7. Participation > > The meeting is to be held at Hotel Transamérica, in São Paulo, fairly > close to NIC.br headquarters (see attached map). The basic distribution > of participants is envisioned approximately as: > > 450 from govs > 500-550 from non-gov, non-UN stakeholders > 100 journalists > 50 IGOs/UN reps > > Inviting participants, or receiving and approving participation > requests, is one of the tasks of the EMC. > > 8. Expected outcomes as success indicators > > - Official launching of a review process of the global IG > frameworks/models; > > - Development of a set of universally acceptable core of principles for > global IG; > > - Tentative draft of a global IG model. > > My personal comment: these ambitious outcomes of course involve a lot of > preparatory process work, especially by the Executive Committee. This is > why we need to conclude the nominations asap in order to start the real > work towards the meeting. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dmitry.epstein at gmail.com Sat Dec 21 17:40:46 2013 From: dmitry.epstein at gmail.com (Dmitry Epstein) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 17:40:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] Important concept In-Reply-To: <20131221171533.6ca29d63@quill> References: <20131221171533.6ca29d63@quill> Message-ID: Hello, Sandra Braman, in her excellent book "Change of State" (2009), makes a distinction, which I think can be helpful here. She distinguishes between “*government *(formal institutions of the law); *governance *(decision-making with constitutive effect whether it takes place within the public or private sectors, and formally or informally); and *governmentality *(cultural predispositions and practices that produce and reproduce the conditions that make particular forms of governance and government possible)” (p.3). Best, Dmitry On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > McTim wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Kerry Brown > > wrote: > > > > > > http://blog.cira.ca/2013/12/the-panel-on-the-future-of-global-internet-cooperation/ > > > > > > "In the political world, the term ‘governance’ is loaded, and > > > carries with it ideas of power and authority, certainly not the > > > same meaning that we in the Internet world have given it. Are the > > > terms coordination and administration more helpful moving forward?" > > > > I have always felt so. > > > > > The above statement really struck a chord with me. It gets at the > > > heart of the current tension between governments, commercial, and > > > civil society interests. If we changed to speaking about > > > coordination and administration rather than governance it may may > > > facilitate more productive conversations from all the concerned > > > parties. > > > > The I*'s used those words (the 4 C's) Collaboration, Communication, > > Cooperation and Coordination around admin of tech resources during > > WSIS. It didn't seem to catch on as a meme outside of the folk who > > were actually doing the 4 C's. > > > > Doesn't mean we can't try again. > > What about those aspects and public interest concerns which are part of > Internet Governance in the sense of the WGIG/Tunis Agenda working > definition, but which don't fit into “coordination and administration” > or into “Collaboration, Communication, Cooperation and Coordination > around admin of tech resources”? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Dec 21 18:17:11 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 18:17:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] Important concept In-Reply-To: <20131221171533.6ca29d63@quill> References: <20131221171533.6ca29d63@quill> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > What about those aspects and public interest concerns which are part of > Internet Governance in the sense of the WGIG/Tunis Agenda working > definition, but which don't fit into “coordination and administration” Are there any which can't be dealt with in a coordinated, cooperative, collaborative manner? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Dec 21 18:38:21 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2013 21:38:21 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [discuss] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <13C11C93-B403-4454-AC49-F943401C54EC@gmail.com> References: <52B5C3A4.3070708@cafonso.ca> <13C11C93-B403-4454-AC49-F943401C54EC@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52B6266D.2000606@cafonso.ca> [anticipated apologies for duplicate messages] Jorge, I am just trying to report, I do not have answers to every question -- several of them will be properly answered as the committees are in place and start their work. On 12/21/2013 05:17 PM, Jorge Amodio wrote: > > Thank Carlos for the detailed update > >> The HLMC will be responsible for overseeing the political >> articulations and for encouraging the participation of the >> international community. >> >> It will be composed of government representatives of 12 countries >> (precise list still being established by the BR government) > > 12 countries out of ~195 UN member states ? One of which I assume > that by default is Brazil. > > What criteria is being followed to select the countries ? > > Looks like the BR government wants to impose their agenda/policy on > every single committee. The original arrangement was eight countries. Sorry, but regarding the April meeting BR is not just a grand venue you rent to do your meeting, it also has a say of course. BR has a clear view that one of the outcomes should be a set of principles for IG worldwide. > >> 450 from govs 500-550 from non-gov, non-UN stakeholders 100 >> journalists 50 IGOs/UN reps > > Where these numbers come from ? The overall number is based on the venue and resources available. > >> 8. Expected outcomes as success indicators >> >> - Official launching of a review process of the global IG >> frameworks/models; > > Would you mind to elaborate what do you mean by "official" > >> - Development of a set of universally acceptable core of principles >> for global IG; > > Who will get the mandate to develop them and from who ? > >> - Tentative draft of a global IG model. > > Is there any existing model of reference ? And what do you mean by > "global" ? As I said to Norbert, I cannot elaborate as I am just reporting, but this is a tentative, initial collection of ideas to guide the meeting -- the actual agenda/themes/expected outcomes will be a result of the process led by the two committees, especially the executive comm. One goal will stand: developing the set of principles for IG worldwide. --c.a. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Dec 21 23:41:17 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 15:41:17 +1100 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees Message-ID: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 and 24 2014. • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives of the conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with stakeholders to encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of success. This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, including: defining conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This committee will include 2 civil society representatives The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 January 2014. If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and a statement of relevant background and experience in response to this topic, or if you would prefer, you can send it to ian.peter at ianpeter.com (pending the appointment of a replacement IGC representative on the co-ordination group). At the closing date for nominations, nominations submitted to various civil society networks will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination Group. Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) or both. CRITERIA The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the suitability of candidates 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your individual civil society organisation(s) 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a multistakeholder setting 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report back as the process progresses 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these discussions 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of civil society perspectives on these issues 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively Explanation of process The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in this process. Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have been put in place since the group's first nomination. These improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other suggestions for improvement of the joint process. Ian Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pimienta at funredes.org Sun Dec 22 11:00:15 2013 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 12:00:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> References: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> Message-ID: >This is a call for nominations to represent >civil society on planning committees in >preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder >Meeting on Internet Governance”, to be held in >Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 and 24 2014. I would like to nominate Louis Pouzin for the Committee No. 1:> Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC). The rationale for this proposal is the following: - He is both an acknowledged, extremely high level, technical personnality and a recognized, responsible and committed, civil society player, sharing the global balanced vision of many parties around here and capable to interact meaningfully witrh all stakeholders. Additionaly, I consider that the academic community should feel well represented by him. - As for my own interests he does carry FUNREDES' and MAAYA's vision on the importance of due respect to linguistic diversity in the Internet and logically therefore in Internet Governance processes, vision which, in my opinion, has lacked solid representation so far and should be include for a meeting which aim is to redefine a new paradigm for Internet governance. I must add that Louis Pouzin is not aware before hand of my nomination and I have not checked if he is ready to accept this representation. I do hope to obtain a consensus in the group for that nomination and a commitment in Pouzin's side to accept it. -- 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sun Dec 22 11:25:29 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (williams.deirdre at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 16:25:29 +0000 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: References: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> Message-ID: <1376071537-1387729549-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1384654974-@b26.c3.bise6.blackberry> I support that nomination - of Louis Pouzin - absolutely. Deirdre Sent from my BlackBerry� device from Digicel -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Pimienta Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 12:00:15 To: Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Daniel Pimienta Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees >This is a call for nominations to represent >civil society on planning committees in >preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder >Meeting on Internet Governance”, to be held in >Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 and 24 2014. I would like to nominate Louis Pouzin for the Committee No. 1:> Multistakeholder High�Level Committee (HLC). The rationale for this proposal is the following: - He is both an acknowledged, extremely high level, technical personnality and a recognized, responsible and committed, civil society player, sharing the global balanced vision of many parties around here and capable to interact meaningfully witrh all stakeholders. Additionaly, I consider that the academic community should feel well represented by him. - As for my own interests he does carry FUNREDES' and MAAYA's vision on the importance of due respect to linguistic diversity in the Internet and logically therefore in Internet Governance processes, vision which, in my opinion, has lacked solid representation so far and should be include for a meeting which aim is to redefine a new paradigm for Internet governance. I must add that Louis Pouzin is not aware before hand of my nomination and I have not checked if he is ready to accept this representation. I do hope to obtain a consensus in the group for that nomination and a commitment in Pouzin's side to accept it. -- 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Sun Dec 22 11:27:11 2013 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 17:27:11 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: References: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> Message-ID: <225207070.17681.1387729631055.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m25> +1 excellent choice for excellent reasons, Daniel Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 22/12/13 17:01 > De : "Daniel Pimienta" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees > > This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 and 24 2014. > I would like to nominate Louis Pouzin for the Committee No. 1:> Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC). > > The rationale for this proposal is the following: > > - He is both an acknowledged, extremely high level, technical personnality and a recognized, responsible and committed, civil society player, sharing the global balanced vision of many parties around here and capable to interact meaningfully witrh all stakeholders. Additionaly, I consider that the academic community should feel well represented by him. > > - As for my own interests he does carry FUNREDES' and MAAYA's vision on the importance of due respect to linguistic diversity in the Internet and logically therefore in Internet Governance processes, vision which, in my opinion, has lacked solid representation so far and should be include for a meeting which aim is to redefine a new paradigm for Internet governance. > > I must add that Louis Pouzin is not aware before hand of my nomination and I have not checked if he is ready to accept this representation. > I do hope to obtain a consensus in the group for that nomination and a commitment in Pouzin's side to accept it. > > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Dec 22 11:37:16 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 22:07:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <225207070.17681.1387729631055.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m25> References: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> <225207070.17681.1387729631055.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m25> Message-ID: My only concern is that, given his advanced age and the grueling schedule expected for this committee, we might ask M. Pouzin before volunteering him for this. --srs (iPad) > On 22-Dec-2013, at 21:57, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > > > +1 > > > > excellent choice for excellent reasons, Daniel > > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > > Message du 22/12/13 17:01 > > De : "Daniel Pimienta" > > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Copie à : > > Objet : Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees > > > > > This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 and 24 2014. > > > I would like to nominate Louis Pouzin for the Committee No. 1:> Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC). > > > > The rationale for this proposal is the following: > > > > - He is both an acknowledged, extremely high level, technical personnality and a recognized, responsible and committed, civil society player, sharing the global balanced vision of many parties around here and capable to interact meaningfully witrh all stakeholders. Additionaly, I consider that the academic community should feel well represented by him. > > > > - As for my own interests he does carry FUNREDES' and MAAYA's vision on the importance of due respect to linguistic diversity in the Internet and logically therefore in Internet Governance processes, vision which, in my opinion, has lacked solid representation so far and should be include for a meeting which aim is to redefine a new paradigm for Internet governance. > > > > I must add that Louis Pouzin is not aware before hand of my nomination and I have not checked if he is ready to accept this representation. > > I do hope to obtain a consensus in the group for that nomination and a commitment in Pouzin's side to accept it. > > > > > -- > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Sun Dec 22 12:09:54 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 17:09:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: References: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> Message-ID: Great choice! Hoping Louis will accept. On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Daniel Pimienta wrote: > This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning > committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on > Internet Governance†, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 and 24 > 2014. > > > I would like to nominate Louis Pouzin for the Committee No. 1:> > Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC). > > The rationale for this proposal is the following: > > - He is both an acknowledged, extremely high level, technical personnality > and a recognized, responsible and committed, civil society player, sharing > the global balanced vision of many parties around here and capable to > interact meaningfully witrh all stakeholders. Additionaly, I consider that > the academic community should feel well represented by him. > > - As for my own interests he does carry FUNREDES' and MAAYA's vision on > the importance of due respect to linguistic diversity in the Internet > and logically therefore in Internet Governance processes, vision which, > in my opinion, has lacked solid representation so far and should be > include for a meeting which aim is to redefine a new paradigm for Internet > governance. > > I must add that Louis Pouzin is not aware before hand of my nomination and > I have not checked if he is ready to accept this representation. > I do hope to obtain a consensus in the group for that nomination and a > commitment in Pouzin's side to accept it. > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by *MailScanner* , and is > believed to be clean. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Dec 22 12:31:23 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 15:31:23 -0200 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: References: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> <225207070.17681.1387729631055.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m25> Message-ID: <52B721EB.30301@cafonso.ca> There is nothing "grueling" in th HLMC. The exec. committee is supposed to do most of the hard work under the guidance of the HL. I of course *personally* enthusiastically support the indication. --c.a. On 12/22/2013 02:37 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > My only concern is that, given his advanced age and the grueling > schedule expected for this committee, we might ask M. Pouzin before > volunteering him for this. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 22-Dec-2013, at 21:57, Jean-Louis FULLSACK > wrote: > >> >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> excellent choice for excellent reasons, Daniel >> >> >> >> Jean-Louis Fullsack >> >> >> >> >> > Message du 22/12/13 17:01 >> > De : "Daniel Pimienta" >> > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> > Copie à : >> > Objet : Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees >> > >> > >> >> This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on >> planning committees in preparations for the “Global >> Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance”, to be held >> in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 and 24 2014. >> >> >> > I would like to nominate Louis Pouzin for the Committee No. >> 1:> Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC). >> > >> > The rationale for this proposal is the following: >> > >> > - He is both an acknowledged, extremely high level, technical >> personnality and a recognized, responsible and committed, civil >> society player, sharing the global balanced vision of many parties >> around here and capable to interact meaningfully witrh all >> stakeholders. Additionaly, I consider that the academic community >> should feel well represented by him. >> > >> > - As for my own interests he does carry FUNREDES' and MAAYA's >> vision on the importance of due respect to linguistic diversity >> in the Internet and logically therefore in Internet Governance >> processes, vision which, in my opinion, has lacked solid >> representation so far and should be include for a meeting which >> aim is to redefine a new paradigm for Internet governance. >> > >> > I must add that Louis Pouzin is not aware before hand of my >> nomination and I have not checked if he is ready to accept this >> representation. >> > I do hope to obtain a consensus in the group for that nomination >> and a commitment in Pouzin's side to accept it. >> > >> > >> -- >> 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 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Dec 22 14:25:44 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 19:25:44 +0000 Subject: [governance] NCUC election results In-Reply-To: <9BCDCC44-DDE9-4AAB-BE4B-9E3D41603AB0@gmail.com> References: ,<9BCDCC44-DDE9-4AAB-BE4B-9E3D41603AB0@gmail.com> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2CCF45@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> + 1 Congrats! ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2013 6:30 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: William Drake; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] NCUC election results Warm Congratulations to all! Sent from my iPad On Dec 22, 2013, at 12:22 AM, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > wrote: As good a committee as I can think of. Congratulations bill, Carlos, grace and pranesh --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "William Drake" > To: "Governance" > Subject: [governance] NCUC election results Date: Sat, Dec 21, 2013 4:16 PM Hi Speaking of CS elections, I guess I should mention that the Noncommercial Users Constituency in ICANN just held one, with the following results: Chair William Drake, U. Zurich, Switzerland Executive Committee – Europe Stefania Milan, Tilburg University, the Netherlands Executive Committee – Africa Grace Githaiga, Kenya ICT Action Network Executive Committee – Asia and the Pacific Pranesh Prakash, Centre for Internet and Society, India Executive Committee – North America Roy Balleste, St. Thomas University, USA Executive Committee – Latin America Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza, Rio de Janeiro Institute for Technology of Society Cheers, Bill On Dec 20, 2013, at 9:06 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > We are still on track and will be calling the elections before the year ended. we ask that you kindly exercise some restraint and patience as we had not envisaged one of our coordinators stepping down. > > Sala > co-coordinator > > Sent from my iPad > >> On Dec 20, 2013, at 11:34 PM, Norbert Bollow > wrote: >> >> What is the current status in regard to the (IMO overdue by now) start >> of the IGC coordinator elections? >> >> 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 mueller at syr.edu Sun Dec 22 14:55:15 2013 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 19:55:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] Call for Experts on the Global Governance of Cyberspace In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD259C221@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25944CD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> ,<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD259C221@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25A039B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> The Institute says that the papers will have to be in English. --MM ________________________________ From: Milton L Mueller Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 12:39 PM To: Carlos Vera Quintana Subject: RE: [governance] Call for Experts on the Global Governance of Cyberspace I will ask HIGJ about it From: Carlos Vera Quintana [mailto:cveraq at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 8:30 PM To: Milton L Mueller Cc: Governance (governance at lists.igcaucus.org) Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Experts on the Global Governance of Cyberspace Yo MM what about language? Carlos Vera Quintana 0988141143 Sígueme @cveraq El 17/12/2013, a las 9:54, Milton L Mueller > escribió: Dear Colleagues: If you want an opportunity to investigate the reform of Internet governance in collaboration with other academics and professionals, I encourage you to look at this "Call for Experts on the Global Governance of Cyberspace" from the Hague Institute for Global Justice. The participants will be required to prepare a 4,000-6,000 word paper in response to one of five questions relating to the governance of cyberspace. The 16 experts selected will get supported travel to The Hague in May 2014 for a 3-day conference. The authors of the best papers will also be sent to a conference in New Delhi, India. They are not only soliciting academics but also people from business, international organizations, civil society and national governments. The deadline for submission of applications is 31 January. I am an advisor to the Institute on this project and am helping them to solicit and review applications. Feel free to forward this note to any other lists you think would be appropriate. The complete call, including the 5 research questions, is here: http://thehagueinstituteforglobaljustice.org/index.php?page=News-News_Articles-Recent_News-Call_for_Experts:__The_Global_Governance_of_Cyberspace&pid=138&id=161 Regards, Dr. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 22 18:52:38 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 00:52:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <1376071537-1387729549-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1384654974-@b26.c3.bise6.blackberry> References: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> <1376071537-1387729549-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1384654974-@b26.c3.bise6.blackberry> Message-ID: <20131223005238.0679b26f@quill> williams.deirdre at gmail.com wrote: > I support that nomination - of Louis Pouzin - absolutely. > Deirdre +1 Greetings, Norbert > -----Original Message----- > From: Daniel Pimienta > Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 12:00:15 > To: > Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Daniel Pimienta > Subject: Re: [governance] Call for > Nominations - Brazil committees > > > >This is a call for nominations to represent > >civil society on planning committees in > >preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder > >Meeting on Internet Governanceâ€_, to be held in > >Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 and 24 2014. > > I would like to nominate Louis Pouzin for > the Committee No. 1:> Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC). > > The rationale for this proposal is the following: > > - He is both an acknowledged, extremely high > level, technical personnality and a recognized, > responsible and committed, civil society player, > sharing the global balanced vision of many > parties around here and capable to interact > meaningfully witrh all stakeholders. Additionaly, > I consider that the academic community should feel well represented > by him. > > - As for my own interests he does carry FUNREDES' > and MAAYA's vision on the importance of due > respect to linguistic diversity in the Internet > and logically therefore in Internet Governance > processes, vision which, in my opinion, has > lacked solid representation so far and should be > include for a meeting which aim is to redefine a > new paradigm for Internet governance. > > I must add that Louis Pouzin is not aware before > hand of my nomination and I have not checked if > he is ready to accept this representation. > I do hope to obtain a consensus in the group for > that nomination and a commitment in Pouzin's side to accept it. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Dec 22 21:19:00 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 07:49:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees In-Reply-To: <52B721EB.30301@cafonso.ca> References: <1763DC2F30034D1CAEB3A029F0534496@Toshiba> <225207070.17681.1387729631055.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m25> <52B721EB.30301@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <3EFAE193-EC0C-4A96-B262-8451C79BC6FB@hserus.net> Just conference calls at the sort of odd hours that would suit a multinational board of directors :) --srs (iPad) > On 22-Dec-2013, at 23:01, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > > There is nothing "grueling" in th HLMC. The exec. committee is supposed > to do most of the hard work under the guidance of the HL. > > I of course *personally* enthusiastically support the indication. > > --c.a. > >> On 12/22/2013 02:37 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> My only concern is that, given his advanced age and the grueling >> schedule expected for this committee, we might ask M. Pouzin before >> volunteering him for this. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 22-Dec-2013, at 21:57, Jean-Louis FULLSACK > > wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> +1 >>> >>> >>> >>> excellent choice for excellent reasons, Daniel >>> >>> >>> >>> Jean-Louis Fullsack >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Message du 22/12/13 17:01 >>>> De : "Daniel Pimienta" >>>> A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>>> Copie à : >>>> Objet : Re: [governance] Call for Nominations - Brazil committees >>> >>> This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on >>> planning committees in preparations for the “Global >>> Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance”, to be held >>> in Sao Paulo Brazil on April 23 and 24 2014. >>> >>> >>>> I would like to nominate Louis Pouzin for the Committee No. >>> 1:> Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC). >>>> >>>> The rationale for this proposal is the following: >>>> >>>> - He is both an acknowledged, extremely high level, technical >>> personnality and a recognized, responsible and committed, civil >>> society player, sharing the global balanced vision of many parties >>> around here and capable to interact meaningfully witrh all >>> stakeholders. Additionaly, I consider that the academic community >>> should feel well represented by him. >>>> >>>> - As for my own interests he does carry FUNREDES' and MAAYA's >>> vision on the importance of due respect to linguistic diversity >>> in the Internet and logically therefore in Internet Governance >>> processes, vision which, in my opinion, has lacked solid >>> representation so far and should be include for a meeting which >>> aim is to redefine a new paradigm for Internet governance. >>>> >>>> I must add that Louis Pouzin is not aware before hand of my >>> nomination and I have not checked if he is ready to accept this >>> representation. >>>> I do hope to obtain a consensus in the group for that nomination >>> and a commitment in Pouzin's side to accept it. >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Dec 23 04:15:13 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 20:15:13 +1100 Subject: [governance] Fw: civil society coordination group membership Message-ID: FYI below is a copy of a letter just sent to Michael Gurstein as regards his recent application to be appointed a member of this group. Ian Peter From: Ian Peter Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 8:12 PM To: Michael Gurstein Subject: civil society coordination group membership Dear Michael, I am replying to your request to the civil society coordination group to make you a member of the group, representing Community Informatics. You have suggested that no reply from us affirming you as a member in a time frame of about 30 hours would be considered by you as a “no”, and that you would be informing others and taking various actions. You have also pointed out in correspondence that the “decision that you folks make will have quite serious ramifications both for yourselves, for civil society in internet governance, and perhaps even for internet governance itself” We also take this decision seriously. We do not think it is appropriate to make such a decision without due consideration, including considering a number of other organisations who would have equal and perhaps better cases to make as regards joining a co-ordination group which must be kept to a manageable size. Accordingly, and because any decisions we make here can have substantial ramifications, we have decided to delay any decisions on expansion of membership of the co ordination group until they can be considered properly. In the current circumstances of limited availability for many people, that will be after we have completed the Brazil committee nomination processes in mid January. With the holiday season and other commitments as well as the Brazil processes, we simply do not have time to do this now with the thoroughness it deserves. We understand the sincerity of your desire to have your groups viewpoints heard and considered, which prompted your actions. I can assure you that the members of the co-ordination group take their roles seriously, and are determined that their actions and the representatives appointed through this process will represent the diversity of viewpoints and perspectives held within civil society, and not just individual organisations. I will be copying this reply to the Best Bits and IGC lists so that others are also aware of this situation and our reasons for not making a decision at this stage. Sincerely, Ian Peter for Co-ordination Group - Virginia Paque (Diplo), Robin Gross (NCSG), Chat Ramilo (APC), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits) ; replacement member for IGC still being determined. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 23 04:49:11 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 15:19:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> Ian. Even when the CS nominating committee was to consider nominees to 1net, I remember asking that an explicit criterion of selection be that the nominee brings in perspectives/ representation of groups typically under-represented in global IG processes, and demonstrate existing linkages and work in this regard . It seems that such a criterion was not included. I will once again appeal that it be included.... Or at least I be responded to why it is not to be included. This is a normal political criterion for representation. It is even more so for civil society which many think it basically to bring in interests and perspectives that are most excluded from existing power structures. Thanks, parminder On Sunday 22 December 2013 11:01 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning > committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on > Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazilon April 23 > and 24 2014. > > *• Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC)* > > This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives > of the > > conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with > stakeholders to > > encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of > success. > > This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. > > • *Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC)* > > This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, > including: defining > > conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input > received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to > address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing > all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This > committee will include 2 civil society representatives > > The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is *midnight UTC* > 7 * January 2014 > *. > > If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and a > statement of relevant background and experience to jeremy at ciroap.org > or by replying to this thread. At the > closing date for nominations, those submitted to various civil society > networks will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co > ordination Group. > > Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether > it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) > or both. > > CRITERIA > > The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the > suitability of candidates > > 1.Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your individual > civil society organisation(s) > > 2.Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a > multistakeholder setting > > 3.Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report back > as the process progresses > > 4.Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these > discussions > > 5.Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of civil > society perspectives on these issues > > 6.Capacity to participate assertively and creatively > > *Explanation of process* > The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came > together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in > several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from the > most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet > governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet > Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial > Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive > Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy > Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an > independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the > boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the > scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out to > other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness of > the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in this > process. > Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a > work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have > been put in place since the group's first nomination. These > improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network to > consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other > suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a > randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual > support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this > nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other > suggestions for improvement of the joint process. > > -- > 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. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Dec 23 05:04:32 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 11:04:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] AW: [NCSG-Discuss] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 References: <52B5C3A4.3070708@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133231C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi, thanks Carlos. Very helpful and stimulating. This sounds for me like a reasonable and promising plan. One key problem - at least in my eyes - will be to have a good "enhanced communication" among the various committtees, but as long as Harmut is responsible for the "backbone" I am sure that this will be worked out. A man who has organized two wonderful ICANN meetings and one excellent IGF and has access to the president´s office guarantees that this will work. Here are six comments: 1. It is important to keep expectations with regard to the outcome on a realistic level. Do not put too much into the conference baskets. It would be a big achievement if the conference could - as already envisaged - work around and adopt two documents: A Multistakeholder Declaration of Principles and a Roadmap for the further evolution of the IG Ecosystem until 2015/2020. 2. The Conference should be seen as a great opportunity to give a injection into the ongoing process and to channel the direction of the IG discussion into the broader context of multistakehoderism. This "multistakeholder environment" is still unchartered territory and the conference should give a push for more exploration of this "terra incognita". It is important to avoid a constellation "mutilateral vs. multistakeholder". This would end in a confrontational approach and could become counterproductive. It also doesn´t mirror the reality of the existing and evolving IG Eco-System. The conference should not become a boxing event where the "blue corner" fights the "red corner" (some governments vs. a rainbow coalition). The conference should make clear, that the move from an intergovernmental system of the 20th century into a multistakeholder system of the 21st century is a move from Level 1 to Level 2, which means, that the intergovernmental mechanisms do not disappear but are embedded now into a broader environment with more independent (global) players. One can describe this as an evolving multilayer multiplayer mechanism of communication, coordination and collaboration among governmental and non-governmental actors. National sovereignty, national governments and national interests do not disappear, but their execution is more complex and needs additional innovative procedures, interactions and mechanisms. And problems can not been settled anymore by a "one size fits all" approach (by one single committee, switch, king or czar) but only on a case by case basis with the involvement of the affected and concerned parties where for each case the proposed governance mechanism has to be designed individually according to the specific nature of the problem under discussion. 3. There is no need to reinvent the wheel if it comes to the Declaration on Principles. As we have discussed it in Nairobi, Baku and Bali, there are already more than 25 documents, adopted by intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations. A rough analysis of those documents show that 80 per cent or more of the principles are the same in all the documents. The problem is that they are either supported by only one stakeholder group or they are limited in their geographical scope. The opportunity here is now to "globalize" and "multistakeholderize" those principle. As long as the principles are "high level", "general" and "legally non-binding" there should be an opportunity to reach rough consensus among governments, private sector, technical community and civil society where all the stakeholders commit themselves to respect those principles. Such a "Framework of Committment" could become an important reference document for future political Internet conflicts, similar to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948 which is also a legally non-binding document of very high level principles. It took nearly 20 years (until 1966) until the non-binding declaration was "translated" into legally binding language (in form the the two human rights conventions) and another 25 years until more than 150 countries did ratify the two conventions. The devil is in the legal details and the interpretation. So if you want to have rough consensus, keep the devil out, do not go to the details but agree on a high level where everybody can agree. Do the "details" later, but do what you can do now. And be realistic. The Human Rights Declaration of 1948 did not stop violation of human rights. But everybody agrees that this is a very useful and important document. It would be good to have a similar document for the Internet, supported not only by governments (as the Human Rights Declaration) but by all stakeholders, including Google, Facebook, ICANN, IETF, APC and HRW etc. 4. The Roadmap 2015/2020 should identify areas for action where further efforts to enhance multistakeholder cooperation are needed. The souce of inspiration could be here both the WGIG report from 2005 as well as the list of public policy issues which is discussed at the moment on the UNCSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC). This could include also the issues raised by the Montevideo Declaration as "Globalization of ICANN and the IANA Fuction" or "new mechanisms for issues which do not have a natural institutional home". 5. A key issue is the legitimacy of the Sao Paulo process. This legitimacy comes both from the legitimacy of the involved actors - key governments, key private sector players, key technical groups, key civil society organisations representing the broad variety of different approaches - but also from the openess and full transparency of the process. Everybody understands that there are technical limitations for the participation both in the preparatory work as well as in the conference itself. However there should be open channels to get as much as possible into this process from the "rest". 6. It is also important that the conference is linked to the ongoing IGF process. It would be bad if the Sao Paulo conference would start another additional or new process. This would be a waste of limited resources, lead to more confusion and would undermine the strength and authority the IGF has achieved over the years. As you have noticed, the 2nd Committee of the UNGA has not yet decided about the continuation of the IGF beyond 2015. If there is a strong signal from Sao Paulo that the IGFs from 2016 to 2020 are the crucial checkpoints to measure progress of the Sao Paulo Roadmap (starting with the IGFs 2014 in Istanbul and 2015 in Brazil), this would be very herlpful. Best wishes and enjoy your holidays wolfgang ________________________________ Von: NCSG-Discuss im Auftrag von Carlos A. Afonso Gesendet: Sa 21.12.2013 17:36 An: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Betreff: [NCSG-Discuss] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 Hi people, This is my quick summary of yesterday's meeting of the local organizing group (LOG) for the BR meeting. This summary is basically oriented to civil society but may be useful to all stakeholders. Covers basically the structure of the committees and includes some other useful info. I do hope it answers several of the many questions we are receiving. fraternal regards --c.a. ================================ 1. Co-chairs of the BR Meeting This is a no-brainer: the BR Meeting will be chaired by Virgilio Almeida (current chair of CGI.br, and member of Brazil's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation), and Fadi Chehadé. 2. High Level Multistakeholder Committee The HLMC will be responsible for overseeing the political articulations and for encouraging the participation of the international community. It will be composed of government representatives of 12 countries (precise list still being established by the BR government) plus 12 non-govs, and two representatives of UN agencies to be chosen by the UNSG. The 12 non-govs include four of each non-gov stakeholder (civil society, academia/techies, private sector). All of the non-gov, non-UN stakeholders' names will be brought to the LOG by 1Net. So the HLC will be composed of 26 people. The HLMC will have four co-chairs, keeping the multistakeholder balance. One of the co-chairs will be Brazil's Minister of Communications Paulo Bernardo. So civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee four high-level reps as soon as possible. 3. Executive Multistakeholder Committee The EMC will be responsible for organizing the event, including the discussion and implementation of the agenda, and the selection of the participants and the various stakeholders' proposals. The crucial part of the preparation process resides here, in close coordination with the Logistics Committee, so people selected for the EMC ought to make themselves readily available for this challenge. The LOG has already selected the eight Brazilian members of the EMC. There will be four co-chairs as well, and names already appointed are Demi Getschko (CEO of NIC.br) and Raúl Echeberría (to be confirmed, CEO of LACNIC). A representative of an international agency will be appointed as well (by the coordinating body of the UN agencies) to participate. Like the HLMC, non-gov, non-UN members of the EMC will be brought to the LOG by 1Net. For the EMC civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee two names as soon as possible. 4. Logistics and Organizational Committee The LOC will be co-chaired by Hartmut Glaser, executive secretary of CGI.br with proven expertise in coordinating the organization of national and international events. Another co-chair will be indicated by 1Net. 5. Government Advisory Committee This is in the hands of the BR government who acts as a facilitator and coordinator. Two co-chairs will be indicated. This committee will be open to any government who wishes to act in an advisory capacity. 6. Funding NIC.br will cover about 50% of the meeting's overall costs. The balance will be share by international participants/sponsors. Contributions from ICANN and ISOC are expected. 7. Participation The meeting is to be held at Hotel Transamérica, in São Paulo, fairly close to NIC.br headquarters (see attached map). The basic distribution of participants is envisioned approximately as: 450 from govs 500-550 from non-gov, non-UN stakeholders 100 journalists 50 IGOs/UN reps Inviting participants, or receiving and approving participation requests, is one of the tasks of the EMC. 8. Expected outcomes as success indicators - Official launching of a review process of the global IG frameworks/models; - Development of a set of universally acceptable core of principles for global IG; - Tentative draft of a global IG model. My personal comment: these ambitious outcomes of course involve a lot of preparatory process work, especially by the Executive Committee. This is why we need to conclude the nominations asap in order to start the real work towards the meeting. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Dec 23 06:21:02 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 16:51:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Fw: civil society coordination group membership In-Reply-To: <7505F27A38D7439898FD22A79131BD8E@Toshiba> References: <7505F27A38D7439898FD22A79131BD8E@Toshiba> Message-ID: <52B81C9E.2000505@itforchange.net> While I have not followed discussions for more than two weeks now and may have missed important emails, I am not sure I understand the reason for not taking a decision now.... Any decision of this kind wouldnt take more than 3-4 days among a group or 4. So whatever be the decision, justice demands that it be taken and conveyed. That is the group's political responsibility. You may also tell us which the other other organisations with "equal and perhaps better cases' are there, whom you have to consider. You may have listed them somewhere and I missed the list. The group taking this decision is of course aware that the decision has a conflict of interest element - even if perhaps unavoidable - in that addition of new members affects the power/ role of the existing ones... This makes the need of making a decision even more urgent. Therefore a half hearted decision to just stick to the staus quo without good reason or justification about any information or circumstance that would make the decision easier or more just at a latter time than now, does not sound quite right to me... parminder On Monday 23 December 2013 02:48 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > FYI below is a copy of a letter just sent to Michael Gurstein as > regards his recent request to join this group. > Ian Peter > *From:* Ian Peter > *Sent:* Monday, December 23, 2013 8:12 PM > *To:* Michael Gurstein > *Subject:* civil society coordination group membership > > Dear Michael, > > I am replying to your request to the civil society coordination group > to make you a member of the group, representing Community Informatics. > You have suggested that no reply from us affirming you as a member in > a time frame of about 30 hours would be considered by you as a “no”, > and that you would be informing others and taking various actions. > > You have also pointed out in correspondence that the “decision that > you folks make will have quite serious ramifications both for > yourselves, for civil society in internet governance, and perhaps even > for internet governance itself” > > We also take this decision seriously. We do not think it is > appropriate to make such a decision without due consideration, > including considering a number of other organisations who would have > equal and perhaps better cases to make as regards joining a > co-ordination group which must be kept to a manageable size. > > Accordingly, and because any decisions we make here can have > substantial ramifications, we have decided to delay any decisions on > expansion of membership of the co ordination group until they can be > considered properly. In the current circumstances of limited > availability for many people, that will be after we have completed the > Brazil committee nomination processes in mid January. With the holiday > season and other commitments as well as the Brazil processes, we > simply do not have time to do this now with the thoroughness it deserves. > > We understand the sincerity of your desire to have your groups > viewpoints heard and considered, which prompted your actions. I can > assure you that the members of the co-ordination group take their > roles seriously, and are determined that their actions and the > representatives appointed through this process will represent the > diversity of viewpoints and perspectives held within civil society, > and not just individual organisations. > > I will be copying this reply to the Best Bits and IGC lists so that > others are also aware of this situation and our reasons for not making > a decision at this stage. > > Sincerely, > > Ian Peter > > for Co-ordination Group - Virginia Paque (Diplo), Robin Gross (NCSG), > Chat Ramilo (APC), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits) ; replacement member for > IGC still being determined. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Mon Dec 23 09:20:03 2013 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 15:20:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] Important concept In-Reply-To: References: <20131221171533.6ca29d63@quill> Message-ID: <52B84693.5040003@wzb.eu> Hi Dmitry, thank you for this helpful distinction between government, governance and Foucault-based governmentality. There is another quite similar but more general definition of governance that I like: reflexive coordination. It refers to coordinating activities that touch upon the social order underlying such activities. Whatever definition chosen, one cannot emphasize enough that governance arrangements can be found anywhere in the internet universe and do not necessarily imply governments, public administrations or legal tools. The popularity of the term governance in academia is due to the fact that it decouples political actions from the governmental sector. The IETF, or standard setting more generally for example, can - and should - also be studied from a governance perspective as reflexive coordination. jeanette Am 21.12.13 23:40, schrieb Dmitry Epstein: > Hello, > > Sandra Braman, in her excellent book "Change of State" (2009), makes a > distinction, which I think can be helpful here. > > She distinguishes between “/government /(formal institutions of the > law); /governance /(decision-making with constitutive effect whether it > takes place within the public or private sectors, and formally or > informally); and /governmentality /(cultural predispositions and > practices that produce and reproduce the conditions that make particular > forms of governance and government possible)” (p.3). > > Best, > Dmitry > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Norbert Bollow > wrote: > > McTim > wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Kerry Brown > > > > wrote: > > > > > > http://blog.cira.ca/2013/12/the-panel-on-the-future-of-global-internet-cooperation/ > > > > > > "In the political world, the term ‘governance’ is loaded, and > > > carries with it ideas of power and authority, certainly not the > > > same meaning that we in the Internet world have given it. Are the > > > terms coordination and administration more helpful moving forward?" > > > > I have always felt so. > > > > > The above statement really struck a chord with me. It gets at the > > > heart of the current tension between governments, commercial, and > > > civil society interests. If we changed to speaking about > > > coordination and administration rather than governance it may may > > > facilitate more productive conversations from all the concerned > > > parties. > > > > The I*'s used those words (the 4 C's) Collaboration, Communication, > > Cooperation and Coordination around admin of tech resources during > > WSIS. It didn't seem to catch on as a meme outside of the folk who > > were actually doing the 4 C's. > > > > Doesn't mean we can't try again. > > What about those aspects and public interest concerns which are part of > Internet Governance in the sense of the WGIG/Tunis Agenda working > definition, but which don't fit into “coordination and administration” > or into “Collaboration, Communication, Cooperation and Coordination > around admin of tech resources”? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Dec 23 13:43:33 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 05:43:33 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I have no problem with this inclusion, Parminder – and from responses here it seems others feel the same. From: parminder Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 8:49 PM To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees Ian. Even when the CS nominating committee was to consider nominees to 1net, I remember asking that an explicit criterion of selection be that the nominee brings in perspectives/ representation of groups typically under-represented in global IG processes, and demonstrate existing linkages and work in this regard . It seems that such a criterion was not included. I will once again appeal that it be included.... Or at least I be responded to why it is not to be included. This is a normal political criterion for representation. It is even more so for civil society which many think it basically to bring in interests and perspectives that are most excluded from existing power structures. Thanks, parminder On Sunday 22 December 2013 11:01 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: This is a call for nominations to represent civil society on planning committees in preparations for the “Global Multistakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance”, to be held in Sao Paulo Brazilon April 23 and 24 2014. • Committee No. 1: Multistakeholder High­Level Committee (HLC) This committee will set the high ­level political tone and objectives of the conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with stakeholders to encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of success. This committee will include 4 civil society representatives. • Committee No. 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee (EC) This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, including: defining conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input received into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing all communications activities pre/­during/­post conference. This committee will include 2 civil society representatives The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is midnight UTC 7 January 2014. If you are interested, you are invited to send a brief biography and a statement of relevant background and experience to jeremy at ciroap.org or by replying to this thread. At the closing date for nominations, those submitted to various civil society networks will be compiled and assessed by the Civil Society Co ordination Group. Please indicate clearly at the beginning of your application whether it is for the High Level Committee (HLC) or Executive Committee (EC) or both. CRITERIA The following factors (among others) will be used to assess the suitability of candidates 1. Able to represent civil society as a whole, not just your individual civil society organisation(s) 2. Able to work collegiately with other stakeholder groups in a multistakeholder setting 3. Able to consult widely with civil society groups and to report back as the process progresses 4. Ability to represent civil society at a senior level in these discussions 5. Broad knowledge of internet governance issues and the range of civil society perspectives on these issues 6. Capacity to participate assertively and creatively Explanation of process The civil society coordinating group is a loose peak body that came together this year to facilitate joint civil society participation in several nominating processes. It currently comprises persons from the most active civil society coalitions or networks in the Internet governance space, which in no particular order are the Internet Governance Caucus, Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN, and the Association for Progressive Communications. The current liaisons are Virginia Paque, Jeremy Malcolm, Robin Gross and Chat Garcia Ramilo, with Ian Peter as an independent facilitator. Its current composition is imperfect - the boundary between an organisation and network is grey, and so is the scope of "Internet governance". In particular, we are reaching out to other civil society networks to further broaden the inclusiveness of the group and have developed a draft set of criteria to assist in this process. Likewise, the process for gathering and reaching consensus is also a work in progress, but progressive improvements to the process have been put in place since the group's first nomination. These improvements include refinement of criteria for each member network to consider when putting forward names for consideration. Other suggested changes to the process, such as the use of a randomly-selected nominating committee, have not met with consensual support from within the group and so have not been adopted for this nomination. However, the coordinating group welcomes other suggestions for improvement of the joint process. -- 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 23 18:21:25 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 21:21:25 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: AW: [NCSG-Discuss] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133231C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <52B5C3A4.3070708@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133231C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <52B8C575.2020100@cafonso.ca> Grande Wolf, thanks. Your comments and many others I am receiving will be very helpful for us to refine several aspects of the process and structure. I am compiling the suggestions to present them to the local gorup on our next online meeting, on Dec.27. Thanks again! fraternal regards --c.a. On 12/23/2013 08:04 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Hi, > > thanks Carlos. Very helpful and stimulating. This sounds for me like a reasonable and promising plan. > > One key problem - at least in my eyes - will be to have a good "enhanced communication" among the various committtees, but as long as Harmut is responsible for the "backbone" I am sure that this will be worked out. A man who has organized two wonderful ICANN meetings and one excellent IGF and has access to the president´s office guarantees that this will work. > > Here are six comments: > > 1. It is important to keep expectations with regard to the outcome on a realistic level. Do not put too much into the conference baskets. It would be a big achievement if the conference could - as already envisaged - work around and adopt two documents: A Multistakeholder Declaration of Principles and a Roadmap for the further evolution of the IG Ecosystem until 2015/2020. > > 2. The Conference should be seen as a great opportunity to give a injection into the ongoing process and to channel the direction of the IG discussion into the broader context of multistakehoderism. This "multistakeholder environment" is still unchartered territory and the conference should give a push for more exploration of this "terra incognita". It is important to avoid a constellation "mutilateral vs. multistakeholder". This would end in a confrontational approach and could become counterproductive. It also doesn´t mirror the reality of the existing and evolving IG Eco-System. The conference should not become a boxing event where the "blue corner" fights the "red corner" (some governments vs. a rainbow coalition). The conference should make clear, that the move from an intergovernmental system of the 20th century into a multistakeholder system of the 21st century is a move from Level 1 to Level 2, which means, that the intergovernmental mechanisms do not disappear but are embed ded now into a broader environment with more independent (global) players. One can describe this as an evolving multilayer multiplayer mechanism of communication, coordination and collaboration among governmental and non-governmental actors. National sovereignty, national governments and national interests do not disappear, but their execution is more complex and needs additional innovative procedures, interactions and mechanisms. And problems can not been settled anymore by a "one size fits all" approach (by one single committee, switch, king or czar) but only on a case by case basis with the involvement of the affected and concerned parties where for each case the proposed governance mechanism has to be designed individually according to the specific nature of the problem under discussion. > > 3. There is no need to reinvent the wheel if it comes to the Declaration on Principles. As we have discussed it in Nairobi, Baku and Bali, there are already more than 25 documents, adopted by intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations. A rough analysis of those documents show that 80 per cent or more of the principles are the same in all the documents. The problem is that they are either supported by only one stakeholder group or they are limited in their geographical scope. The opportunity here is now to "globalize" and "multistakeholderize" those principle. As long as the principles are "high level", "general" and "legally non-binding" there should be an opportunity to reach rough consensus among governments, private sector, technical community and civil society where all the stakeholders commit themselves to respect those principles. Such a "Framework of Committment" could become an important reference document for future political Internet conflicts, similar to the U niversal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948 which is also a legally non-binding document of very high level principles. It took nearly 20 years (until 1966) until the non-binding declaration was "translated" into legally binding language (in form the the two human rights conventions) and another 25 years until more than 150 countries did ratify the two conventions. The devil is in the legal details and the interpretation. So if you want to have rough consensus, keep the devil out, do not go to the details but agree on a high level where everybody can agree. Do the "details" later, but do what you can do now. And be realistic. The Human Rights Declaration of 1948 did not stop violation of human rights. But everybody agrees that this is a very useful and important document. It would be good to have a similar document for the Internet, supported not only by governments (as the Human Rights Declaration) but by all stakeholders, including Google, Facebook, ICANN, IETF, APC and HRW etc. > > 4. The Roadmap 2015/2020 should identify areas for action where further efforts to enhance multistakeholder cooperation are needed. The souce of inspiration could be here both the WGIG report from 2005 as well as the list of public policy issues which is discussed at the moment on the UNCSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC). This could include also the issues raised by the Montevideo Declaration as "Globalization of ICANN and the IANA Fuction" or "new mechanisms for issues which do not have a natural institutional home". > > 5. A key issue is the legitimacy of the Sao Paulo process. This legitimacy comes both from the legitimacy of the involved actors - key governments, key private sector players, key technical groups, key civil society organisations representing the broad variety of different approaches - but also from the openess and full transparency of the process. Everybody understands that there are technical limitations for the participation both in the preparatory work as well as in the conference itself. However there should be open channels to get as much as possible into this process from the "rest". > > 6. It is also important that the conference is linked to the ongoing IGF process. It would be bad if the Sao Paulo conference would start another additional or new process. This would be a waste of limited resources, lead to more confusion and would undermine the strength and authority the IGF has achieved over the years. As you have noticed, the 2nd Committee of the UNGA has not yet decided about the continuation of the IGF beyond 2015. If there is a strong signal from Sao Paulo that the IGFs from 2016 to 2020 are the crucial checkpoints to measure progress of the Sao Paulo Roadmap (starting with the IGFs 2014 in Istanbul and 2015 in Brazil), this would be very herlpful. > > Best wishes and enjoy your holidays > > wolfgang > ________________________________ > > Von: NCSG-Discuss im Auftrag von Carlos A. Afonso > Gesendet: Sa 21.12.2013 17:36 > An: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Betreff: [NCSG-Discuss] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 > > > > Hi people, > > This is my quick summary of yesterday's meeting of the local organizing > group (LOG) for the BR meeting. This summary is basically oriented to > civil society but may be useful to all stakeholders. Covers basically > the structure of the committees and includes some other useful info. > > I do hope it answers several of the many questions we are receiving. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > ================================ > > 1. Co-chairs of the BR Meeting > > This is a no-brainer: the BR Meeting will be chaired by Virgilio Almeida > (current chair of CGI.br, and member of Brazil's Ministry of Science, > Technology and Innovation), and Fadi Chehadé. > > 2. High Level Multistakeholder Committee > > The HLMC will be responsible for overseeing the political articulations > and for encouraging the participation of the international community. > > It will be composed of government representatives of 12 countries > (precise list still being established by the BR government) plus 12 > non-govs, and two representatives of UN agencies to be chosen by the > UNSG. The 12 non-govs include four of each non-gov stakeholder (civil > society, academia/techies, private sector). All of the non-gov, non-UN > stakeholders' names will be brought to the LOG by 1Net. So the HLC will > be composed of 26 people. > > The HLMC will have four co-chairs, keeping the multistakeholder balance. > One of the co-chairs will be Brazil's Minister of Communications Paulo > Bernardo. > > So civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee four > high-level reps as soon as possible. > > 3. Executive Multistakeholder Committee > > The EMC will be responsible for organizing the event, including the > discussion and implementation of the agenda, and the selection of the > participants and the various stakeholders' proposals. The crucial part > of the preparation process resides here, in close coordination with the > Logistics Committee, so people selected for the EMC ought to make > themselves readily available for this challenge. > > The LOG has already selected the eight Brazilian members of the EMC. > There will be four co-chairs as well, and names already appointed are > Demi Getschko (CEO of NIC.br) and Raúl Echeberría (to be confirmed, CEO > of LACNIC). A representative of an international agency will be > appointed as well (by the coordinating body of the UN agencies) to > participate. > > Like the HLMC, non-gov, non-UN members of the EMC will be brought to the > LOG by 1Net. > > For the EMC civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee > two names as soon as possible. > > 4. Logistics and Organizational Committee > > The LOC will be co-chaired by Hartmut Glaser, executive secretary of > CGI.br with proven expertise in coordinating the organization of > national and international events. Another co-chair will be indicated by > 1Net. > > 5. Government Advisory Committee > > This is in the hands of the BR government who acts as a facilitator and > coordinator. Two co-chairs will be indicated. This committee will be > open to any government who wishes to act in an advisory capacity. > > 6. Funding > > NIC.br will cover about 50% of the meeting's overall costs. The balance > will be share by international participants/sponsors. Contributions from > ICANN and ISOC are expected. > > 7. Participation > > The meeting is to be held at Hotel Transamérica, in São Paulo, fairly > close to NIC.br headquarters (see attached map). The basic distribution > of participants is envisioned approximately as: > > 450 from govs > 500-550 from non-gov, non-UN stakeholders > 100 journalists > 50 IGOs/UN reps > > Inviting participants, or receiving and approving participation > requests, is one of the tasks of the EMC. > > 8. Expected outcomes as success indicators > > - Official launching of a review process of the global IG frameworks/models; > > - Development of a set of universally acceptable core of principles for > global IG; > > - Tentative draft of a global IG model. > > My personal comment: these ambitious outcomes of course involve a lot of > preparatory process work, especially by the Executive Committee. This is > why we need to conclude the nominations asap in order to start the real > work towards the meeting. > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Dec 24 05:36:22 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 11:36:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Snowden References: <52B5C3A4.3070708@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133231C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <52B8C575.2020100@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133231F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/edward-snowden-after-months-of-nsa-revelations-says-his-missions-accomplished/2013/12/23/49fc36de-6c1c-11e3-a523-fe73f0ff6b8d_print.html -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From soekpe at gmail.com Tue Dec 24 07:19:22 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 13:19:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Season's Greeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Friends and Fellows, Wishing you all great moments in this beautiful Christmas and a properous new year in the coming days. Lets take moments to reflect on what we can offer the World, while promoting harmony among all. Accept my best. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jaryn56 at gmail.com Tue Dec 24 14:15:32 2013 From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 14:15:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] Season's Greeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Queridos Compañeros y Amigos Amigos Deseo de todo corazón que todos los grandes momentos de esta hermosa Navidad y el año nuevo, sea de prosperidad, armonía y felicidad. Reflexionemos sobre lo que podemos ofrecerle a los pueblos y al mundo. Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo 2013/12/24 Sonigitu Ekpe : > Dear Friends and Fellows, > > Wishing you all great moments in this beautiful Christmas and a properous > new year in the coming days. > > Lets take moments to reflect on what we can offer the World, while promoting > harmony among all. > > Accept my best. > > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > > +234 8027510179 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 aidanoblia at gmail.com Tue Dec 24 15:11:23 2013 From: aidanoblia at gmail.com (Aida Noblia) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 18:11:23 -0200 Subject: [governance] Season's Greeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Muchas Gracias ! Igual les deseo para todos Ustedes Aída Noblia 2013/12/24 José Félix Arias Ynche > Queridos Compañeros y Amigos Amigos > > Deseo de todo corazón que todos los grandes momentos de esta hermosa > Navidad y el año nuevo, sea de prosperidad, armonía y felicidad. > > Reflexionemos sobre lo que podemos ofrecerle a los pueblos y al mundo. > > > > > Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche > Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo > > > 2013/12/24 Sonigitu Ekpe : > > Dear Friends and Fellows, > > > > Wishing you all great moments in this beautiful Christmas and a properous > > new year in the coming days. > > > > Lets take moments to reflect on what we can offer the World, while > promoting > > harmony among all. > > > > Accept my best. > > > > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > > > > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > > > > +234 8027510179 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Aida Noblia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From remmyn at gmail.com Tue Dec 24 15:19:04 2013 From: remmyn at gmail.com (Remmy Nweke) Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2013 21:19:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Season's Greeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, Happy Xmas season and exciting new year. On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Aida Noblia wrote: > Muchas Gracias ! Igual les deseo para todos Ustedes > > Aída Noblia > > > 2013/12/24 José Félix Arias Ynche > >> Queridos Compañeros y Amigos Amigos >> >> Deseo de todo corazón que todos los grandes momentos de esta hermosa >> Navidad y el año nuevo, sea de prosperidad, armonía y felicidad. >> >> Reflexionemos sobre lo que podemos ofrecerle a los pueblos y al mundo. >> >> >> >> >> Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche >> Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo >> >> >> 2013/12/24 Sonigitu Ekpe : >> > Dear Friends and Fellows, >> > >> > Wishing you all great moments in this beautiful Christmas and a >> properous >> > new year in the coming days. >> > >> > Lets take moments to reflect on what we can offer the World, while >> promoting >> > harmony among all. >> > >> > Accept my best. >> > >> > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA >> > >> > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." >> > >> > +234 8027510179 >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Aida Noblia > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- REMMY NWEKE, Lead Strategist/Group Executive Editor, DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd (publishers of) DigitalSENSE Business News; ITREALMS, NaijaAgroNet (Multiple-award winning medium) Published by: DigitalSENSE Africa Media Ltd Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms [Member, NIRA Executive Board] Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria NDS Forum on Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) 2014< http://www.digitalsenseafrica.com.ng>- June 5 Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable 2014 - June 6 @Welcome Centre Hotels. Register now. Email: remnekkv at gmail.com _____________________________________________________________________ *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 24 17:42:45 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2013 05:42:45 +0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B858E4.9090902@ITforChange.net> <52B85DEF.9060807@acm.org> <52B97CEB.50806@acm.org> Message-ID: <039401cf00f9$793002c0$6b900840$@gmail.com> And since others from the "Civil Society Coordinating Committee" have peddling this line in this venue as well... M -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2013 5:36 AM To: 'Avri Doria'; 'Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net' Subject: RE: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In England, where I spent some idle years pursuing an education they had a term--"clubbable"--what it meant was, whether you were suitable to be asked to "join the club"... Now among the overt criteria for being "clubbable" was of course, whether you were "nice" enough, whether you would fit in with the existing members, make them feel comfortable and all warm and cozy at and in your presence. Of course what that really meant was whether you were sufficiently "like us" for them to let you into the club... whether you were the right colour, or the right gender, had gone to the right schools, were of an appropriate religion, and of course, overall whether your "politics/value system" would be such as to support the "club's" status quo--their perq's and privileges, folkways and prejudices... Needless to say I was never "invited". But I have to ask here, are you folks really serious about this--having as a criteria for joining a "Coordinating Committee" of "Civil Society" whether someone adheres to kindergarten rules of playing "nice"... If that is so then surely any right minded person would treat this self-selected grouping and this process with the contempt and derision it deserves. M -----Original Message----- From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:24 PM To: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees [MG>] snipped... So sure put in the criterion of including minority viewpoints, but also put in the criterion of "plays well with others." avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 24 18:59:17 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2013 05:29:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <039401cf00f9$793002c0$6b900840$@gmail.com> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B858E4.9090902@ITforChange.net> <52B85DEF.9060807@acm.org> <52B97CEB.50806@acm.org> <039401cf00f9$793002c0$6b900840$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Put in civil society terms, is a collegial and productive atmosphere likely to be retained if X is included in whatever committee it is? Is X likely to build bridges with other communities rather than pick fights or explicitly exclude and crowd them out? The answer to those questions and other similar ones would determine whether X is even elected dogcatcher rather than being placed on a global committee of any sort. --srs (iPad) > On 25-Dec-2013, at 4:12, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > And since others from the "Civil Society Coordinating Committee" have peddling this line in this venue as well... > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2013 5:36 AM > To: 'Avri Doria'; 'Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net' > Subject: RE: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees > > In England, where I spent some idle years pursuing an education they had a term--"clubbable"--what it meant was, whether you were suitable to be asked to "join the club"... > > Now among the overt criteria for being "clubbable" was of course, whether you were "nice" enough, whether you would fit in with the existing members, make them feel comfortable and all warm and cozy at and in your presence. > > Of course what that really meant was whether you were sufficiently "like us" for them to let you into the club... whether you were the right colour, or the right gender, had gone to the right schools, were of an appropriate religion, and of course, overall whether your "politics/value system" would be such as to support the "club's" status quo--their perq's and privileges, folkways and prejudices... > > Needless to say I was never "invited". > > But I have to ask here, are you folks really serious about this--having as a criteria for joining a "Coordinating Committee" of "Civil Society" whether someone adheres to kindergarten rules of playing "nice"... > > If that is so then surely any right minded person would treat this self-selected grouping and this process with the contempt and derision it deserves. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:24 PM > To: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees > > [MG>] snipped... > > So sure put in the criterion of including minority viewpoints, but also put in the criterion of "plays well with others." > > 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 gurstein at gmail.com Wed Dec 25 19:44:40 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 07:44:40 +0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Edward Snowden's Christmas Message 2013 In-Reply-To: References: <2A2803B2-C47C-46B9-B42F-433BC3F0B796@warpspeed.com> Message-ID: <018101cf01d3$abc7f7d0$0357e770$@gmail.com> --------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dewayne Hendricks Date: Wednesday, December 25, 2013 Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Edward Snowden's Christmas Message 2013 To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net Here's a link for the Snowden video that should stay up a while and doesn't require you to open up your browser for cookies: Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: 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 dave at difference.com.au Thu Dec 26 01:17:59 2013 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 14:17:59 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <52B858E4.9090902@ITforChange.net> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B858E4.9090902@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: On 23 Dec 2013, at 11:38 pm, Guru गुरु wrote: >> and need to be the sort of people who can be expected to work with their fellow CS representatives, and not at cross-purposes. > > Avri, > this is a very dangerous argument for pushing the continued dominance of a narrow set of perspectives on IG. What one disagrees with can be characterised as being at 'cross purposes'. Give a dog a bad name and hang it! whereas the very strength and even legitimacy of CS lies in enabling diverse and even conflicting views to emerge and to be listened to. Every time I read about such arguments I fear that CS may be only ending up supporting 'dominant reasonable views' ('dominant reasonable views' = hegemony) Guru - are you arguing that we should select representative specifically regardless of whether they are able to work with their fellow CS representatives? Given the very limited number of CS representatives, it is hard to see how that is helpful. We should, of course, be mindful of the need to represent minority views - but not so much that it interferes with the ability of our very limited number of representatives to represent majority views, and indeed minority views other than their own. I appreciate the argument to represent the views of those under-represented in IG processes - but all of CS is under represented in IG processes. I do not think that asking those selected to represent the views of civil society do their best to represent the views of all of civil society is unreasonable. I'm quite surprised to find that it is. Cheers David -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 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 dave at difference.com.au Thu Dec 26 01:23:39 2013 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 14:23:39 +0800 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <039401cf00f9$793002c0$6b900840$@gmail.com> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B858E4.9090902@ITforChange.net> <52B85DEF.9060807@acm.org> <52B97CEB.50806@acm.org> <039401cf00f9$793002c0$6b900840$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <37AF7CF8-469B-412B-8C43-CD982B76F33C@difference.com.au> MIchael, this is a deeply faulty analogy. No one is arguing that minority views should not be part of the 'civil society' club. Only that those selected as representatives of civil society are willing to act as representatives of the various diverging views of civil society - to use your analogy, that those selected to represent the club are willing to represent more than their own small clique among its members. If you honestly believe that we should select representatives of civil society who intend only to represent their small fraction - not only does this baffle me as a strategy, but I am quite baffled as to why those representatives would be listened to by anyone. Regards David On 25 Dec 2013, at 6:42 am, michael gurstein wrote: > And since others from the "Civil Society Coordinating Committee" have peddling this line in this venue as well... > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2013 5:36 AM > To: 'Avri Doria'; 'Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net' > Subject: RE: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees > > In England, where I spent some idle years pursuing an education they had a term--"clubbable"--what it meant was, whether you were suitable to be asked to "join the club"... > > Now among the overt criteria for being "clubbable" was of course, whether you were "nice" enough, whether you would fit in with the existing members, make them feel comfortable and all warm and cozy at and in your presence. > > Of course what that really meant was whether you were sufficiently "like us" for them to let you into the club... whether you were the right colour, or the right gender, had gone to the right schools, were of an appropriate religion, and of course, overall whether your "politics/value system" would be such as to support the "club's" status quo--their perq's and privileges, folkways and prejudices... > > Needless to say I was never "invited". > > But I have to ask here, are you folks really serious about this--having as a criteria for joining a "Coordinating Committee" of "Civil Society" whether someone adheres to kindergarten rules of playing "nice"... > > If that is so then surely any right minded person would treat this self-selected grouping and this process with the contempt and derision it deserves. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:24 PM > To: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees > > [MG>] snipped... > > So sure put in the criterion of including minority viewpoints, but also put in the criterion of "plays well with others." > > 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 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 Thu Dec 26 01:35:24 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 12:05:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B858E4.9090902@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: +1, I said much the same in an earlier post, but what you say here puts it much better Dominant reasonable views are a consensus, not a "hegemony". Hegemony is more like the attempt to forcibly impose unacceptable minority views on a majority (like say a nation forcing the adoption of a particular religious or political ideology, all the way to the assiduous pushing of a proposal like CIRP that explicitly does not have consensus or acceptability). If an individual or group's participation can be seen to guarantee power politics and oneupmanship, conflict with / attempts to exclude a class of peers with shared goals, and the advocacy of proposals that actually veer towards multilateralism, civil society remains much better off not choosing such people or groups to represent them. --srs (iPad) > On 26-Dec-2013, at 11:47, David Cake wrote: > > > On 23 Dec 2013, at 11:38 pm, Guru गुरु wrote: > >>> and need to be the sort of people who can be expected to work with their fellow CS representatives, and not at cross-purposes. >> >> Avri, >> this is a very dangerous argument for pushing the continued dominance of a narrow set of perspectives on IG. What one disagrees with can be characterised as being at 'cross purposes'. Give a dog a bad name and hang it! whereas the very strength and even legitimacy of CS lies in enabling diverse and even conflicting views to emerge and to be listened to. Every time I read about such arguments I fear that CS may be only ending up supporting 'dominant reasonable views' ('dominant reasonable views' = hegemony) > > Guru - are you arguing that we should select representative specifically regardless of whether they are able to work with their fellow CS representatives? Given the very limited number of CS representatives, it is hard to see how that is helpful. > We should, of course, be mindful of the need to represent minority views - but not so much that it interferes with the ability of our very limited number of representatives to represent majority views, and indeed minority views other than their own. > I appreciate the argument to represent the views of those under-represented in IG processes - but all of CS is under represented in IG processes. > I do not think that asking those selected to represent the views of civil society do their best to represent the views of all of civil society is unreasonable. I'm quite surprised to find that it is. > > Cheers > David > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Dec 26 02:27:54 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 14:27:54 +0700 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <37AF7CF8-469B-412B-8C43-CD982B76F33C@difference.com.au> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B858E4.9090902@ITforChange.net> <52B85DEF.9060807@acm.org> <52B97CEB.50806@acm.org> <039401cf00f9$793002c0$6b900840$@gmail.com> <37AF7CF8-469B-412B-8C43-CD982B76F33C@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <00ae01cf020c$0172af30$04580d90$@gmail.com> David, I think there are two separate issues at play here and I may be at fault in conflating them (or perhaps you are... Anyway, the first issue is whether the CI network should be allowed to join the CS "club" as represented by the CS "Coordinating Committee" -- the significance of which is the CC's establishment of "criteria" and selection of CS representatives for various representative positions... My note below on "clubbableness" was addressed, I believe quite correctly (and most certainly not by analogy) to this matter. The second issue (or rather set of issues) is the manner of selection of those representatives including the (lack of a) transparent and accountable process for those selections (following directly from the illegitimacy of the processes referred to in #1 above), the magical creation (pulling out of thin air) of selection "criteria", the evident ad hominem-ness of those criteria and so on. And as a matter of fact, it seems to me that given the current small clique nature of CS "governance" processes and participation--and its internal processes of self-selection and self-promotion, those doing the selecting at least are in fact "represent(ing) no more than their own small clique"... And you keep referring to minorities and small groups etc. -- my point overall is that probably a majority of the global population would be included in what you are referring to as "their small fraction"... Providing a means to give voice (or of course hopefully voices) to those interests is hardly something that should "not be listened to by anyone" except of course, for those who are directly benefiting from current circumstances and conditions. M -----Original Message----- From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2013 1:24 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees MIchael, this is a deeply faulty analogy. No one is arguing that minority views should not be part of the 'civil society' club. Only that those selected as representatives of civil society are willing to act as representatives of the various diverging views of civil society - to use your analogy, that those selected to represent the club are willing to represent more than their own small clique among its members. If you honestly believe that we should select representatives of civil society who intend only to represent their small fraction - not only does this baffle me as a strategy, but I am quite baffled as to why those representatives would be listened to by anyone. Regards David On 25 Dec 2013, at 6:42 am, michael gurstein wrote: > And since others from the "Civil Society Coordinating Committee" have peddling this line in this venue as well... > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2013 5:36 AM > To: 'Avri Doria'; 'Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net' > Subject: RE: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees > > In England, where I spent some idle years pursuing an education they had a term--"clubbable"--what it meant was, whether you were suitable to be asked to "join the club"... > > Now among the overt criteria for being "clubbable" was of course, whether you were "nice" enough, whether you would fit in with the existing members, make them feel comfortable and all warm and cozy at and in your presence. > > Of course what that really meant was whether you were sufficiently "like us" for them to let you into the club... whether you were the right colour, or the right gender, had gone to the right schools, were of an appropriate religion, and of course, overall whether your "politics/value system" would be such as to support the "club's" status quo--their perq's and privileges, folkways and prejudices... > > Needless to say I was never "invited". > > But I have to ask here, are you folks really serious about this--having as a criteria for joining a "Coordinating Committee" of "Civil Society" whether someone adheres to kindergarten rules of playing "nice"... > > If that is so then surely any right minded person would treat this self-selected grouping and this process with the contempt and derision it deserves. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:24 PM > To: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees > > [MG>] snipped... > > So sure put in the criterion of including minority viewpoints, but also put in the criterion of "plays well with others." > > 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 gurstein at gmail.com Thu Dec 26 03:08:13 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 15:08:13 +0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Facebook and Google Aim to Fix Global Connectivity, but for Whom? | MIT Technology Review In-Reply-To: <0572E689-A41F-4B87-9E9F-C401BFB57112@me.com> References: <0572E689-A41F-4B87-9E9F-C401BFB57112@me.com> Message-ID: <00bd01cf0211$a25b0f50$e7112df0$@gmail.com> A useful review of the Facebook et al’s Alliance for Affordable Internet. M From: DAVID FARBER [mailto:dfarber at me.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2013 9:01 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] Facebook and Google Aim to Fix Global Connectivity, but for Whom? | MIT Technology Review http://www.technologyreview.com/review/522671/facebooks-two-faces/?utm_campaign=newsletters &utm_source=newsletter-weekly-web&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20131225 http://maps.gstatic.com/mapfiles/mv/imgs8.png http://maps.gstatic.com/mapfiles/transparent.png 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: application/octet-stream Size: 8602 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: application/octet-stream Size: 95 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 465 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: application/octet-stream Size: 3173 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Dec 26 06:39:49 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 18:39:49 +0700 Subject: [governance] RE: civil society coordination group membership In-Reply-To: <06E220B8731542FEBAEC803711862F8A@Toshiba> References: <06E220B8731542FEBAEC803711862F8A@Toshiba> Message-ID: <015901cf022f$344f1470$9ced3d50$@gmail.com> Thanks for getting back Ian, and I wanted to consult with some CI colleagues before I replied. And of course, no one would expect these kinds of decisions to be made without “due consideration”. However, since I’ve been making this or similar requests in one form or another actively for at least the last month and more passively for the last ten years, the issue of additional time and “due consideration” seems to have other motivations as its background. I of course, look forward to the outcome of your processes when they have been completed; however, since we and others all know that time is of the essence here if an effective contribution is to be made to the Brazil event, the CI community will be launching a nominating process for those slots identified for CS representation, which we will of course, forward to and through the appropriate parties as they are identified. Once having done that we expect that these nominations will be given appropriate consideration as providing voice for grassroots Internet users (and non-users) including marginalized communities in Developed and Developing Countries, Indigenous peoples, older person, people with disabilities among others all as framed by the Community Informatics Declaration which of course, you and others are encouraged to endorse alongside individuals and organizations from a wide variety of communities globally. Mike From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 4:13 PM To: Michael Gurstein Subject: civil society coordination group membership Dear Michael, I am replying to your request to the civil society coordination group to make you a member of the group, representing Community Informatics. You have suggested that no reply from us affirming you as a member in a time frame of about 30 hours would be considered by you as a “no”, and that you would be informing others and taking various actions. You have also pointed out in correspondence that the “decision that you folks make will have quite serious ramifications both for yourselves, for civil society in internet governance, and perhaps even for internet governance itself” We also take this decision seriously. We do not think it is appropriate to make such a decision without due consideration, including considering a number of other organisations who would have equal and perhaps better cases to make as regards joining a co-ordination group which must be kept to a manageable size. Accordingly, and because any decisions we make here can have substantial ramifications, we have decided to delay any decisions on expansion of membership of the co ordination group until they can be considered properly. In the current circumstances of limited availability for many people, that will be after we have completed the Brazil committee nomination processes in mid January. With the holiday season and other commitments as well as the Brazil processes, we simply do not have time to do this now with the thoroughness it deserves. We understand the sincerity of your desire to have your groups viewpoints heard and considered, which prompted your actions. I can assure you that the members of the co-ordination group take their roles seriously, and are determined that their actions and the representatives appointed through this process will represent the diversity of viewpoints and perspectives held within civil society, and not just individual organisations. I will be copying this reply to the Best Bits and IGC lists so that others are also aware of this situation and our reasons for not making a decision at this stage. Sincerely, Ian Peter for Co-ordination Group - Virginia Paque (Diplo), Robin Gross (NCSG), Chat Ramilo (APC), Jeremy Malcolm (Best Bits) ; replacement member for IGC still being determined. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net Thu Dec 26 07:25:27 2013 From: jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net (Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 13:25:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <37AF7CF8-469B-412B-8C43-CD982B76F33C@difference.com.au> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B858E4.9090902@ITforChange.net> <52B85DEF.9060807@acm.org> <52B97CEB.50806@acm.org> <039401cf00f9$793002c0$6b900840$@gmail.com> <37AF7CF8-469B-412B-8C43-CD982B76F33C@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <9548A335-05CF-4938-9E0D-03E569ACC934@theglobaljournal.net> David, Deeply faulty? Hmmm, hmmm. One question: from what I understand in this thread, there is a clique who wishes to have a representative in a 'committee'? And the answer so far is no, because : 1_ This representative won't be able to 'work' with others (Bill, Wolfang, Avri, Suresh...? Sorry I am lost here with the ones standing behind the arguments) 2_ This representative is himself part of a clique 3_ This representative will not, when attending the committee, represent all the other cliques 4_ So time is needed for greater consideration of the decision, in case, more arguments would pop up. This is indeed sounds very intriguing. Questions 1_ Are you expecting each of the representatives, each of them belonging to his own clique of choice, to represent all the different cliques' views? One representative would then hold all the other representatives' view? 2_ How many of these gentle, and impressive, representatives - talking each of them on behalf of all the cliques- do you think we need to have to obtain a drawing of all views as seen per these amazing many-views representatives? So X all-view representatives would then discuss all-views? 2bis_Would these X all-view representatives consider these views more or less, depending of the 'dominance' of each view? How do you assess dominance by the way? 3_ What's the members of such committee's job at the end of the day? Shall each of them present his view of all other views? 4_ What will be the purpose of the committee's meeting? Agreeing on a collective understanding over one view of all the views of the different cliques? Or gathering all the different views on a list? Or anything else? 5_ Is this committee a private club? Or aiming at some public policy? This is all a very fun game. How do you call this, as I don't find here anything related to Democracy - You would be quite right to point our that IG has nothing to do with Democracy. Then, what is it that we are trying to achieve here? I do believe that by acting is this way, we only demonstrate the overall incapacity of such representativity (whatever you will end with) to pretend acting in a fair way to CS, whatever clique we are thinking of. We know about what a Democratic divide or gap can do to our societies, and when fascists begin to prosper, it usually comes with this type of behavior. IG seems to be a 'mort-né' process. In such a case, all IG efforts will be easily constrain to stay un-heard, and un-productive. Maybe this is what the dominant representatives (5 Eyes, I*...) are looking for? Thanks for elaborating a bit over the concrete results you are aiming at. JC Le 26 déc. 2013 à 07:23, David Cake a écrit : > MIchael, this is a deeply faulty analogy. > No one is arguing that minority views should not be part of the 'civil society' club. Only that those selected as representatives of civil society are willing to act as representatives of the various diverging views of civil society - to use your analogy, that those selected to represent the club are willing to represent more than their own small clique among its members. > > If you honestly believe that we should select representatives of civil society who intend only to represent their small fraction - not only does this baffle me as a strategy, but I am quite baffled as to why those representatives would be listened to by anyone. > > Regards > > David > > On 25 Dec 2013, at 6:42 am, michael gurstein wrote: > >> And since others from the "Civil Society Coordinating Committee" have peddling this line in this venue as well... >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2013 5:36 AM >> To: 'Avri Doria'; 'Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net' >> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees >> >> In England, where I spent some idle years pursuing an education they had a term--"clubbable"--what it meant was, whether you were suitable to be asked to "join the club"... >> >> Now among the overt criteria for being "clubbable" was of course, whether you were "nice" enough, whether you would fit in with the existing members, make them feel comfortable and all warm and cozy at and in your presence. >> >> Of course what that really meant was whether you were sufficiently "like us" for them to let you into the club... whether you were the right colour, or the right gender, had gone to the right schools, were of an appropriate religion, and of course, overall whether your "politics/value system" would be such as to support the "club's" status quo--their perq's and privileges, folkways and prejudices... >> >> Needless to say I was never "invited". >> >> But I have to ask here, are you folks really serious about this--having as a criteria for joining a "Coordinating Committee" of "Civil Society" whether someone adheres to kindergarten rules of playing "nice"... >> >> If that is so then surely any right minded person would treat this self-selected grouping and this process with the contempt and derision it deserves. >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:24 PM >> To: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees >> >> [MG>] snipped... >> >> So sure put in the criterion of including minority viewpoints, but also put in the criterion of "plays well with others." >> >> 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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Dec 26 13:09:08 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 23:39:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52B5C3A4.3070708@cafonso.ca> References: <52B5C3A4.3070708@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> Dear Carlos. Thanks for this report.... Apparently, this meeting of the local organising group (LOG) has moved the pieces around quite a bit, and I now see the 'Brazil meeting' shaping up in a rather different manner than what it seemed to be to begin with.... Most of us saw it basically as a meeting with the Brazilians - initially the government and then the CGI.Br - as the convening 'neutral' trusted party, which would of course take along all stakeholders and so on.... But now for the first time I see the co-ownership of the meeting beginning to split almost equally between the Brazilians and the I* group. ICANN now co chairs the 'Brazil meeting' - which is the first time I hear such a thing, although I have not been following discussions in the last few weeks and may be wrong. One is not sure why this was found necessary. So, it is no longer a Brazil meeting, it is Brazil-ICANN meeting on the 'Future of ......', right?. .. (BTW what happens to the meme of equal footing! Why are some 'stakeholders' continually more equal and than the others). Even more surprising is the formal role vis a vis the representation of, or at least as the platform for, all non gov groups that is now clearly conferred on 1Net, an entity about which no one knows what it is, really - who controls it, what is it supposed to do and so on.... Civil society groups had on many occasions, including through formal representation, conveyed to the Brazilians that they are not looking forward to be represented through 1Net, or even have their communication routed through it, ..... Civil society formally made known the names of 4 liaison persons for routing communication to them.. So, while anointing 1Net as 'the' non gov platform for the 'Brazil meeting', simultaneously clear claims and requests from civil society were completely ignored. Was it put forward by anyone during the LOG meeting that such has been the civil society stand (against 1Net mediation) . And if it had indeed been put forward, what was the response of the LOG, and what justifications was provided for its decision. Civil society must be told all about it. It is not willing to be taken for granted, and play the B team to the powerful groups.... We have very high hopes from the Brazil meeting, and the best way to nurture them would be by treating civil society's decisions and requests with due respect, and so on... I simply do not yet know what 1Net is...As I have often said, I find it very useful as a cross-stakeholder groups discussion space... Some of us did not take much interest in nomination to 1Net's coordination committee because one really had no idea what it was to do.... We were told that the coordination committee would decide what 1Net would do. But now a lot seems to be decided for it already. Who is it pushing 1Net, who are such powerful players behind it that what looked like a mere discussion list gets suddenly conferred with such a powerful role. We never suspected before those nominations to its coordination committee that 1Net would become 'the' non gov stakeholders platform for the Brazil meeting, and would play such a central formal role in it.... This decision, especially the manner of taking it - is a major disappointment. It is in my opinion, a decision taken without good justification, and in disregard of common civil society positions communicated to the LOG. Hope to get more information on these issues... Best, parminder On Saturday 21 December 2013 10:06 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi people, > > This is my quick summary of yesterday's meeting of the local organizing > group (LOG) for the BR meeting. This summary is basically oriented to > civil society but may be useful to all stakeholders. Covers basically > the structure of the committees and includes some other useful info. > > I do hope it answers several of the many questions we are receiving. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > ================================ > > 1. Co-chairs of the BR Meeting > > This is a no-brainer: the BR Meeting will be chaired by Virgilio Almeida > (current chair of CGI.br, and member of Brazil's Ministry of Science, > Technology and Innovation), and Fadi Chehadé. > > 2. High Level Multistakeholder Committee > > The HLMC will be responsible for overseeing the political articulations > and for encouraging the participation of the international community. > > It will be composed of government representatives of 12 countries > (precise list still being established by the BR government) plus 12 > non-govs, and two representatives of UN agencies to be chosen by the > UNSG. The 12 non-govs include four of each non-gov stakeholder (civil > society, academia/techies, private sector). All of the non-gov, non-UN > stakeholders' names will be brought to the LOG by 1Net. So the HLC will > be composed of 26 people. > > The HLMC will have four co-chairs, keeping the multistakeholder balance. > One of the co-chairs will be Brazil's Minister of Communications Paulo > Bernardo. > > So civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee four > high-level reps as soon as possible. > > 3. Executive Multistakeholder Committee > > The EMC will be responsible for organizing the event, including the > discussion and implementation of the agenda, and the selection of the > participants and the various stakeholders' proposals. The crucial part > of the preparation process resides here, in close coordination with the > Logistics Committee, so people selected for the EMC ought to make > themselves readily available for this challenge. > > The LOG has already selected the eight Brazilian members of the EMC. > There will be four co-chairs as well, and names already appointed are > Demi Getschko (CEO of NIC.br) and Raúl Echeberría (to be confirmed, CEO > of LACNIC). A representative of an international agency will be > appointed as well (by the coordinating body of the UN agencies) to > participate. > > Like the HLMC, non-gov, non-UN members of the EMC will be brought to the > LOG by 1Net. > > For the EMC civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee > two names as soon as possible. > > 4. Logistics and Organizational Committee > > The LOC will be co-chaired by Hartmut Glaser, executive secretary of > CGI.br with proven expertise in coordinating the organization of > national and international events. Another co-chair will be indicated by > 1Net. > > 5. Government Advisory Committee > > This is in the hands of the BR government who acts as a facilitator and > coordinator. Two co-chairs will be indicated. This committee will be > open to any government who wishes to act in an advisory capacity. > > 6. Funding > > NIC.br will cover about 50% of the meeting's overall costs. The balance > will be share by international participants/sponsors. Contributions from > ICANN and ISOC are expected. > > 7. Participation > > The meeting is to be held at Hotel Transamérica, in São Paulo, fairly > close to NIC.br headquarters (see attached map). The basic distribution > of participants is envisioned approximately as: > > 450 from govs > 500-550 from non-gov, non-UN stakeholders > 100 journalists > 50 IGOs/UN reps > > Inviting participants, or receiving and approving participation > requests, is one of the tasks of the EMC. > > 8. Expected outcomes as success indicators > > - Official launching of a review process of the global IG frameworks/models; > > - Development of a set of universally acceptable core of principles for > global IG; > > - Tentative draft of a global IG model. > > My personal comment: these ambitious outcomes of course involve a lot of > preparatory process work, especially by the Executive Committee. This is > why we need to conclude the nominations asap in order to start the real > work towards the meeting. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 26 13:23:04 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 23:53:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> References: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> I would like to request the liaisons that we nominated to the Brazilian organisers to help us understand what is going on here... Did we not all agree that we do not want 1Net to mediate civil society representation or communication to the Brazilian organisers? Why and how did they decide to go completely against our request, in the matter of configuring our own manner of participation in the Brazil meeting? (BTW, I would no longer call it Brazil meeting, but Brazil-ICANN meeting, since it is jointly chaired now, and the responsibility of organising the meeting split rather equitably between them.) Did the Liaisons that we appointed protest this move or decision - I mean at least that part where it got decided that despite our clearly expressed wishes, we still are to be told that we need to go through 1Net? I am a bit surprised that 5 days after Carlos sent the notes of the organising group meeting which made such important decisions, there has been no discussion on the matter, especially on how civil society's requests have been spurned. Why are we so supinely ready to slip into a secondary role under the leadership of 1* group .... This is not only very disappointing, but also rather disturbing. parminder -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [bestbits] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 23:39:08 +0530 From: parminder To: Carlos A. Afonso CC: BestBits List , Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC , NCSG List , 1Net List , Chapter Delegates , Caucus de la Sociedad Civil LA&C Sobre la Sociedad de la Informacion , gt-brm at cgi.br Dear Carlos. Thanks for this report.... Apparently, this meeting of the local organising group (LOG) has moved the pieces around quite a bit, and I now see the 'Brazil meeting' shaping up in a rather different manner than what it seemed to be to begin with.... Most of us saw it basically as a meeting with the Brazilians - initially the government and then the CGI.Br - as the convening 'neutral' trusted party, which would of course take along all stakeholders and so on.... But now for the first time I see the co-ownership of the meeting beginning to split almost equally between the Brazilians and the I* group. ICANN now co chairs the 'Brazil meeting' - which is the first time I hear such a thing, although I have not been following discussions in the last few weeks and may be wrong. One is not sure why this was found necessary. So, it is no longer a Brazil meeting, it is Brazil-ICANN meeting on the 'Future of ......', right?. .. (BTW what happens to the meme of equal footing! Why are some 'stakeholders' continually more equal and than the others). Even more surprising is the formal role vis a vis the representation of, or at least as the platform for, all non gov groups that is now clearly conferred on 1Net, an entity about which no one knows what it is, really - who controls it, what is it supposed to do and so on.... Civil society groups had on many occasions, including through formal representation, conveyed to the Brazilians that they are not looking forward to be represented through 1Net, or even have their communication routed through it, ..... Civil society formally made known the names of 4 liaison persons for routing communication to them.. So, while anointing 1Net as 'the' non gov platform for the 'Brazil meeting', simultaneously clear claims and requests from civil society were completely ignored. Was it put forward by anyone during the LOG meeting that such has been the civil society stand (against 1Net mediation) . And if it had indeed been put forward, what was the response of the LOG, and what justifications was provided for its decision. Civil society must be told all about it. It is not willing to be taken for granted, and play the B team to the powerful groups.... We have very high hopes from the Brazil meeting, and the best way to nurture them would be by treating civil society's decisions and requests with due respect, and so on... I simply do not yet know what 1Net is...As I have often said, I find it very useful as a cross-stakeholder groups discussion space... Some of us did not take much interest in nomination to 1Net's coordination committee because one really had no idea what it was to do.... We were told that the coordination committee would decide what 1Net would do. But now a lot seems to be decided for it already. Who is it pushing 1Net, who are such powerful players behind it that what looked like a mere discussion list gets suddenly conferred with such a powerful role. We never suspected before those nominations to its coordination committee that 1Net would become 'the' non gov stakeholders platform for the Brazil meeting, and would play such a central formal role in it.... This decision, especially the manner of taking it - is a major disappointment. It is in my opinion, a decision taken without good justification, and in disregard of common civil society positions communicated to the LOG. Hope to get more information on these issues... Best, parminder On Saturday 21 December 2013 10:06 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi people, > > This is my quick summary of yesterday's meeting of the local organizing > group (LOG) for the BR meeting. This summary is basically oriented to > civil society but may be useful to all stakeholders. Covers basically > the structure of the committees and includes some other useful info. > > I do hope it answers several of the many questions we are receiving. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > ================================ > > 1. Co-chairs of the BR Meeting > > This is a no-brainer: the BR Meeting will be chaired by Virgilio Almeida > (current chair of CGI.br, and member of Brazil's Ministry of Science, > Technology and Innovation), and Fadi Chehadé. > > 2. High Level Multistakeholder Committee > > The HLMC will be responsible for overseeing the political articulations > and for encouraging the participation of the international community. > > It will be composed of government representatives of 12 countries > (precise list still being established by the BR government) plus 12 > non-govs, and two representatives of UN agencies to be chosen by the > UNSG. The 12 non-govs include four of each non-gov stakeholder (civil > society, academia/techies, private sector). All of the non-gov, non-UN > stakeholders' names will be brought to the LOG by 1Net. So the HLC will > be composed of 26 people. > > The HLMC will have four co-chairs, keeping the multistakeholder balance. > One of the co-chairs will be Brazil's Minister of Communications Paulo > Bernardo. > > So civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee four > high-level reps as soon as possible. > > 3. Executive Multistakeholder Committee > > The EMC will be responsible for organizing the event, including the > discussion and implementation of the agenda, and the selection of the > participants and the various stakeholders' proposals. The crucial part > of the preparation process resides here, in close coordination with the > Logistics Committee, so people selected for the EMC ought to make > themselves readily available for this challenge. > > The LOG has already selected the eight Brazilian members of the EMC. > There will be four co-chairs as well, and names already appointed are > Demi Getschko (CEO of NIC.br) and Raúl Echeberría (to be confirmed, CEO > of LACNIC). A representative of an international agency will be > appointed as well (by the coordinating body of the UN agencies) to > participate. > > Like the HLMC, non-gov, non-UN members of the EMC will be brought to the > LOG by 1Net. > > For the EMC civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee > two names as soon as possible. > > 4. Logistics and Organizational Committee > > The LOC will be co-chaired by Hartmut Glaser, executive secretary of > CGI.br with proven expertise in coordinating the organization of > national and international events. Another co-chair will be indicated by > 1Net. > > 5. Government Advisory Committee > > This is in the hands of the BR government who acts as a facilitator and > coordinator. Two co-chairs will be indicated. This committee will be > open to any government who wishes to act in an advisory capacity. > > 6. Funding > > NIC.br will cover about 50% of the meeting's overall costs. The balance > will be share by international participants/sponsors. Contributions from > ICANN and ISOC are expected. > > 7. Participation > > The meeting is to be held at Hotel Transamérica, in São Paulo, fairly > close to NIC.br headquarters (see attached map). The basic distribution > of participants is envisioned approximately as: > > 450 from govs > 500-550 from non-gov, non-UN stakeholders > 100 journalists > 50 IGOs/UN reps > > Inviting participants, or receiving and approving participation > requests, is one of the tasks of the EMC. > > 8. Expected outcomes as success indicators > > - Official launching of a review process of the global IG frameworks/models; > > - Development of a set of universally acceptable core of principles for > global IG; > > - Tentative draft of a global IG model. > > My personal comment: these ambitious outcomes of course involve a lot of > preparatory process work, especially by the Executive Committee. This is > why we need to conclude the nominations asap in order to start the real > work towards the meeting. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Fri Dec 27 00:33:26 2013 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 13:33:26 +0800 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <9548A335-05CF-4938-9E0D-03E569ACC934@theglobaljournal.net> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B858E4.9090902@ITforChange.net> <52B85DEF.9060807@acm.org> <52B97CEB.50806@acm.org> <039401cf00f9$793002c0$6b900840$@gmail.com> <37AF7CF8-469B-412B-8C43-CD982B76F33C@difference.com.au> <9548A335-05CF-4938-9E0D-03E569ACC934@theglobaljournal.net> Message-ID: <3BCBB1FF-DF54-4D2E-806E-F520F083F328@difference.com.au> On 26 Dec 2013, at 8:25 pm, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal wrote: > David, > > Deeply faulty? Hmmm, hmmm. > > One question: from what I understand in this thread, there is a clique who wishes to have a representative in a 'committee'? And the answer so far is no, No, I think the answer has been 'this is under consideration'. I think your understanding of the thread is lacking. [snipped] > This is all a very fun game. No, it is a pointless and annoying game. > How do you call this, as I don't find here anything related to Democracy - You would be quite right to point our that IG has nothing to do with Democracy. Then, what is it that we are trying to achieve here? Democracy does not consist only of voting. Consultative committees etc are part of the process. > I do believe that by acting is this way, we only demonstrate the overall incapacity of such representativity (whatever you will end with) to pretend acting in a fair way to CS, whatever clique we are thinking of. You may continue to attempt to demonstrate the overall incapacity of such representativity if you wish. I'd rather attempt to get some value out of whatever process we engage in. Each to their own. > > We know about what a Democratic divide or gap can do to our societies, and when fascists begin to prosper, it usually comes with this type of behavior. IG seems to be a 'mort-né' process. In such a case, all IG efforts will be easily constrain to stay un-heard, and un-productive. 'fascist' is not quite invoking Godwins law, but close. > > Thanks for elaborating a bit over the concrete results you are aiming at. I'm sorry, the way you abstracted the question away made it more or less impossible to provide a concrete answer. Regards David -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 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 dave at difference.com.au Fri Dec 27 00:40:59 2013 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 13:40:59 +0800 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <00ae01cf020c$0172af30$04580d90$@gmail.com> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B858E4.9090902@ITforChange.net> <52B85DEF.9060807@acm.org> <52B97CEB.50806@acm.org> <039401cf00f9$793002c0$6b900840$@gmail.com> <37AF7CF8-469B-412B-8C43-CD982B76F33C@difference.com.au> <00ae01cf020c$0172af30$04580d90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 26 Dec 2013, at 3:27 pm, michael gurstein wrote: > David, > > I think there are two separate issues at play here and I may be at fault in > conflating them (or perhaps you are... > > Anyway, the first issue is whether the CI network should be allowed to join > the CS "club" as represented by the CS "Coordinating Committee" -- the > significance of which is the CC's establishment of "criteria" and selection > of CS representatives for various representative positions... My note below > on "clubbableness" was addressed, I believe quite correctly (and most > certainly not by analogy) to this matter. Well, the thread is clearly labelled as being about the Brazil meeting committees, and no one has mentioned the CI list but you, and then only as an addendum rather than in your main argument, so yes, I am wondering why you are conflating these two discussions. FWIW, I have no issue with the CI list being part of the CS group, but you seemed to be arguing for rather more than membership in various recent emails. > The second issue (or rather set of issues) is the manner of selection of > those representatives including the (lack of a) transparent and accountable > process for those selections (following directly from the illegitimacy of > the processes referred to in #1 above), the magical creation (pulling out of > thin air) of selection "criteria", Oh, I'm all in favour of transparency and accountability. But I was not disagreeing with the need for transparency and accountability, only suggesting that some of the suggested criteria were poorly designed if their goal is to strengthen CS involvement.. Active critique of poorly designed proposals is surely why we have accountability. If you want open discussion of the selection criteria, surely that includes critical comments? > the evident ad hominem-ness of those > criteria and so on. Well, there certainly do seem to have been some ad hominem arguments made, certainly. > And as a matter of fact, it seems to me that given the > current small clique nature of CS "governance" processes and > participation--and its internal processes of self-selection and > self-promotion, those doing the selecting at least are in fact > "represent(ing) no more than their own small clique"... That is not, in fact, clear to me at all. I know that from my active involvement in NCSG, while there are certainly a core group that know each other fairly well due to spending three ICANN meetings a year together (plus phone meetings, email lists, etc), that group is not unified in its policy positions by any means, and that there are many more participants in NCSG beyond that core group - and that is just one of the several groups represented in current civil society processes. Civil society groups such as the IGC and NCSG certainly appear to me to represent a broad network rather than a unified clique. Perhaps your experience is different. > And you keep referring to minorities and small groups etc. -- my point > overall is that probably a majority of the global population would be > included in what you are referring to as "their small fraction"... Many of the groups involved in CS work on issues of global relevance, such as human rights, free expression, or development. That those issues are of global relevance does not mean that their representatives constitute a global majority. This seems obvious, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. > Providing > a means to give voice (or of course hopefully voices) to those interests is > hardly something that should "not be listened to by anyone" except of > course, for those who are directly benefiting from current circumstances and > conditions. I was not suggesting that those issues are not of value - only that if you were appointed to a committee as a representative of cilvil society, and then declared that you had no interest in representing the majority of civil society groups, but only one specific group, that would seem to me to be handing other stakeholder groups an excuse for marginalisation. Cheers David > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] > Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2013 1:24 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for > nominations to Brazil meeting committees > > MIchael, this is a deeply faulty analogy. > No one is arguing that minority views should not be part of the 'civil > society' club. Only that those selected as representatives of civil society > are willing to act as representatives of the various diverging views of > civil society - to use your analogy, that those selected to represent the > club are willing to represent more than their own small clique among its > members. > > If you honestly believe that we should select representatives of civil > society who intend only to represent their small fraction - not only does > this baffle me as a strategy, but I am quite baffled as to why those > representatives would be listened to by anyone. > > Regards > > David > > On 25 Dec 2013, at 6:42 am, michael gurstein wrote: > >> And since others from the "Civil Society Coordinating Committee" have > peddling this line in this venue as well... >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2013 5:36 AM >> To: 'Avri Doria'; 'Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net' >> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to > Brazil meeting committees >> >> In England, where I spent some idle years pursuing an education they had a > term--"clubbable"--what it meant was, whether you were suitable to be asked > to "join the club"... >> >> Now among the overt criteria for being "clubbable" was of course, whether > you were "nice" enough, whether you would fit in with the existing members, > make them feel comfortable and all warm and cozy at and in your presence. >> >> Of course what that really meant was whether you were sufficiently "like > us" for them to let you into the club... whether you were the right colour, > or the right gender, had gone to the right schools, were of an appropriate > religion, and of course, overall whether your "politics/value system" would > be such as to support the "club's" status quo--their perq's and privileges, > folkways and prejudices... >> >> Needless to say I was never "invited". >> >> But I have to ask here, are you folks really serious about this--having as > a criteria for joining a "Coordinating Committee" of "Civil Society" whether > someone adheres to kindergarten rules of playing "nice"... >> >> If that is so then surely any right minded person would treat this > self-selected grouping and this process with the contempt and derision it > deserves. >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:24 PM >> To: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to > Brazil meeting committees >> >> [MG>] snipped... >> >> So sure put in the criterion of including minority viewpoints, but also > put in the criterion of "plays well with others." >> >> avri >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Dec 27 01:26:10 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 11:56:10 +0530 Subject: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <409CC9E0-B303-4DE7-949F-692F477A2EB2@corp.arin.net> References: <52B5C3A4.3070708@cafonso.ca> <52B61230.9030602@cafonso.ca> <52B6F397.3070209@cafonso.ca> <52B722EC.7050601@cafonso.ca> <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <409CC9E0-B303-4DE7-949F-692F477A2EB2@corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <52BD1D82.9000807@itforchange.net> John Thanks for your response and the information you have shared... I can of course agree with you that 1Net, not yet having any clear purpose or structure in place, should hardly be in a position to strongly seek anything... However, the plain and visible fact remains that 1Net has been given a very important/ central role in organisation of 'Brazil meeting', despite, 1. claims by Brazilians at and since Bali that it is they and they alone who are organising the meeting, as a neutral trusted broker and so on, while all others are 'equally' welcome.... 2. clear requests, madeformallyby civil society, that they have no intention to go through 1Net in terms of its involvement in the Brazil meeting... How does one get conferred such a role, against such adverse circumstances? No one for instance approached Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus to take up such a central role! I think it clearly follows that if 1Net is not 'seeking' anything, there are some extremely, repeat, extremely, powerful people seeking such a role for 1Net.... I leave people to make their own guesses who these powerful people might be.... But this fact certainly puts 1Net is a certain perspective, which at the very least seems to compromise its supposedly open, bottom up, 'movement' character - with which kind of declarations it was launched... Even before a structure - supposedly, bottom up, participative etc - is built for 1Net, some powerful people seem already convinced (rather, 'know') about its role, purpose, and, I dare extrapolate, even the directions that it will lead to, to be so confident to be be aggressively pushing it to have such a central role in organising the Brazil meeting.... I can see no other reason why (specific motivations) and how (the power of those so motivated) was, for instance, civil society denied its right to decide the manner of its participation in the Brazil meeting... If 1Net is to become the front of such non transparent motivations of some powerful players, it puts an unfortunate shadow on its genuine possibilities, al least some of which I could see and appreciate. parminder On Friday 27 December 2013 01:03 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Dec 26, 2013, at 2:04 PM, parminder > wrote: > >> ... >> The current meeting seems to have gone back on all those 'right >> decisions' and allowed ICANN and 1* the central role that it had >> always been seeking in the forthcoming meeting. >> >> This is my honest reading of what happened. But I may be over >> reacting. I am happy to be corrected by anyone.. > > Parminder - > > I appreciate you sharing your perspective of events, as it is helpful. > I do want to correct > one assertion made in the above - > > "... and allowed ICANN and 1* the central role that it had always > been seeking > in the forthcoming meeting. " > > Given that the I* were informed by Fadi about the Brazil meeting and > 1net's role well > after the Montevideo Statement, I do not know how either "1net" or the > I* leaders could > have been "seeking" anything... I will admit to probably as much > surprise as anyone > else on this list, but it is what it is. > > At this point, until there is a seated 1net coordinating committee, I > know of no mechanism > for "1net" to even respond to the meeting organizers about its role > (whatever that may be) > and any assertion that the I* leaders might have been seeking a role > in a meeting which > which wasn't even conceived of (let alone discussed) at the time of > our gathering in > Montevideo is invalid. > > Thanks, > /John > > Disclaimer: My views alone. (As one of the I* leaders via my role at > ARIN, I was part > of the discussions that led to the Montevideo > Statement and the idea of > a 1net initiative - that predates any discussion > or announcement of the > Brazil meeting) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Dec 27 01:56:41 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 17:56:41 +1100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> References: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I’ll also be interested in clarification on this Parminder, as I am sure will many others. But in the mean time I have seen nothing to suggest we do not continue to choose our own representatives, and as far as I can see so far, the suggested 1net role is simply to pass on our names. It appears that the Brazilian committee for whatever reason want us to notify our choices via 1net, and that could well be something to do with the Fadi/Dilma politics and unable to be changed by the local committee. I also see no reason not to inform Brazil direct and copy to 1net if that is the situation. But yes we need to know more about what is happening here if possible. Ian Peter From: parminder Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 5:23 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: [bestbits] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 I would like to request the liaisons that we nominated to the Brazilian organisers to help us understand what is going on here... Did we not all agree that we do not want 1Net to mediate civil society representation or communication to the Brazilian organisers? Why and how did they decide to go completely against our request, in the matter of configuring our own manner of participation in the Brazil meeting? (BTW, I would no longer call it Brazil meeting, but Brazil-ICANN meeting, since it is jointly chaired now, and the responsibility of organising the meeting split rather equitably between them.) Did the Liaisons that we appointed protest this move or decision - I mean at least that part where it got decided that despite our clearly expressed wishes, we still are to be told that we need to go through 1Net? I am a bit surprised that 5 days after Carlos sent the notes of the organising group meeting which made such important decisions, there has been no discussion on the matter, especially on how civil society's requests have been spurned. Why are we so supinely ready to slip into a secondary role under the leadership of 1* group .... This is not only very disappointing, but also rather disturbing. parminder -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [bestbits] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2013 23:39:08 +0530 From: parminder mailto:parminder at itforchange.net To: Carlos A. Afonso mailto:ca at cafonso.ca CC: BestBits List mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net, Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus - IGC mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org, NCSG List mailto:ncsg-discuss at listserv.syr.edu, 1Net List mailto:discuss at 1net.org, Chapter Delegates mailto:Chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org, Caucus de la Sociedad Civil LA&C Sobre la Sociedad de la Informacion mailto:alc-cmsi at gn.apc.org, gt-brm at cgi.br Dear Carlos. Thanks for this report.... Apparently, this meeting of the local organising group (LOG) has moved the pieces around quite a bit, and I now see the 'Brazil meeting' shaping up in a rather different manner than what it seemed to be to begin with.... Most of us saw it basically as a meeting with the Brazilians - initially the government and then the CGI.Br - as the convening 'neutral' trusted party, which would of course take along all stakeholders and so on.... But now for the first time I see the co-ownership of the meeting beginning to split almost equally between the Brazilians and the I* group. ICANN now co chairs the 'Brazil meeting' - which is the first time I hear such a thing, although I have not been following discussions in the last few weeks and may be wrong. One is not sure why this was found necessary. So, it is no longer a Brazil meeting, it is Brazil-ICANN meeting on the 'Future of ......', right?. .. (BTW what happens to the meme of equal footing! Why are some 'stakeholders' continually more equal and than the others). Even more surprising is the formal role vis a vis the representation of, or at least as the platform for, all non gov groups that is now clearly conferred on 1Net, an entity about which no one knows what it is, really - who controls it, what is it supposed to do and so on.... Civil society groups had on many occasions, including through formal representation, conveyed to the Brazilians that they are not looking forward to be represented through 1Net, or even have their communication routed through it, ..... Civil society formally made known the names of 4 liaison persons for routing communication to them.. So, while anointing 1Net as 'the' non gov platform for the 'Brazil meeting', simultaneously clear claims and requests from civil society were completely ignored. Was it put forward by anyone during the LOG meeting that such has been the civil society stand (against 1Net mediation) . And if it had indeed been put forward, what was the response of the LOG, and what justifications was provided for its decision. Civil society must be told all about it. It is not willing to be taken for granted, and play the B team to the powerful groups.... We have very high hopes from the Brazil meeting, and the best way to nurture them would be by treating civil society's decisions and requests with due respect, and so on... I simply do not yet know what 1Net is...As I have often said, I find it very useful as a cross-stakeholder groups discussion space... Some of us did not take much interest in nomination to 1Net's coordination committee because one really had no idea what it was to do.... We were told that the coordination committee would decide what 1Net would do. But now a lot seems to be decided for it already. Who is it pushing 1Net, who are such powerful players behind it that what looked like a mere discussion list gets suddenly conferred with such a powerful role. We never suspected before those nominations to its coordination committee that 1Net would become 'the' non gov stakeholders platform for the Brazil meeting, and would play such a central formal role in it.... This decision, especially the manner of taking it - is a major disappointment. It is in my opinion, a decision taken without good justification, and in disregard of common civil society positions communicated to the LOG. Hope to get more information on these issues... Best, parminder On Saturday 21 December 2013 10:06 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: Hi people, This is my quick summary of yesterday's meeting of the local organizing group (LOG) for the BR meeting. This summary is basically oriented to civil society but may be useful to all stakeholders. Covers basically the structure of the committees and includes some other useful info. I do hope it answers several of the many questions we are receiving. fraternal regards --c.a. ================================ 1. Co-chairs of the BR Meeting This is a no-brainer: the BR Meeting will be chaired by Virgilio Almeida (current chair of CGI.br, and member of Brazil's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation), and Fadi Chehadé. 2. High Level Multistakeholder Committee The HLMC will be responsible for overseeing the political articulations and for encouraging the participation of the international community. It will be composed of government representatives of 12 countries (precise list still being established by the BR government) plus 12 non-govs, and two representatives of UN agencies to be chosen by the UNSG. The 12 non-govs include four of each non-gov stakeholder (civil society, academia/techies, private sector). All of the non-gov, non-UN stakeholders' names will be brought to the LOG by 1Net. So the HLC will be composed of 26 people. The HLMC will have four co-chairs, keeping the multistakeholder balance. One of the co-chairs will be Brazil's Minister of Communications Paulo Bernardo. So civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee four high-level reps as soon as possible. 3. Executive Multistakeholder Committee The EMC will be responsible for organizing the event, including the discussion and implementation of the agenda, and the selection of the participants and the various stakeholders' proposals. The crucial part of the preparation process resides here, in close coordination with the Logistics Committee, so people selected for the EMC ought to make themselves readily available for this challenge. The LOG has already selected the eight Brazilian members of the EMC. There will be four co-chairs as well, and names already appointed are Demi Getschko (CEO of NIC.br) and Raúl Echeberría (to be confirmed, CEO of LACNIC). A representative of an international agency will be appointed as well (by the coordinating body of the UN agencies) to participate. Like the HLMC, non-gov, non-UN members of the EMC will be brought to the LOG by 1Net. For the EMC civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee two names as soon as possible. 4. Logistics and Organizational Committee The LOC will be co-chaired by Hartmut Glaser, executive secretary of CGI.br with proven expertise in coordinating the organization of national and international events. Another co-chair will be indicated by 1Net. 5. Government Advisory Committee This is in the hands of the BR government who acts as a facilitator and coordinator. Two co-chairs will be indicated. This committee will be open to any government who wishes to act in an advisory capacity. 6. Funding NIC.br will cover about 50% of the meeting's overall costs. The balance will be share by international participants/sponsors. Contributions from ICANN and ISOC are expected. 7. Participation The meeting is to be held at Hotel Transamérica, in São Paulo, fairly close to NIC.br headquarters (see attached map). The basic distribution of participants is envisioned approximately as: 450 from govs 500-550 from non-gov, non-UN stakeholders 100 journalists 50 IGOs/UN reps Inviting participants, or receiving and approving participation requests, is one of the tasks of the EMC. 8. Expected outcomes as success indicators - Official launching of a review process of the global IG frameworks/models; - Development of a set of universally acceptable core of principles for global IG; - Tentative draft of a global IG model. My personal comment: these ambitious outcomes of course involve a lot of preparatory process work, especially by the Executive Committee. This is why we need to conclude the nominations asap in order to start the real work towards the meeting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 27 02:39:22 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 13:09:22 +0530 Subject: Fwd: Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> Ian/ All On your email about 1Net being simply a conduit, I forward an email as below that I wrote on the 1Net list which I see is not copied to IGC and BB.. IMHO civil society should quit pussy footing and learn to stand up and assert... Dont be afraid that we will lose this or that... civil society activism was not built on timidness, but on being bold and speaking out the truth, truth that is repressed and window dressed otherwise. That is civil society's primary role - not to sit in committees, which we will of course do for fulfilling our primary role as and when needed. We are openly being taken for granted here, and I have no doubt that in a big part we ourselves are responsible for this... No personal comments on anyone (least on you, Ian) but I think we need to begin giving clear-speak a higher rating than our civil society lists have been reduced to doing... Civil society has to react as strongly to a set of ICANN or 1* star players manipulating it as we would if a government was..... Not doing so bespeaks a political ideology, which not only I but a very very big number of people and groups across the world are extremely uncomfortable with. 'Niceness' cannot mask real politics, and I see some hilarious attempts on this list attempting to do so... At the very least, lets give each other the credit of being grown up political adults... parminder -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 00:34:32 +0530 From: parminder To: Carlos A. Afonso CC: discuss at 1net.org Dear Carlos, I take your below email with as much respect as I take everything coming from you... But the fact remains that I am completely unable to understand how a vague 'platform' that 1net is (if it is that) without anything at all certain about it, would be able to do a better job of receiving nominations from different stakeholders than a clearly constituted committee with clear membership ( and, I understand, secretarial support) as the local organising group..... (The rest of the email is general and not addressed to Carlos, since I have no intention to take potshots at the messenger) Everyone knows that a tremendous goodwill, with great hope and expectation, was conferred on this meeting from the world over - especially from quarters outside the charmed circles of IG kinds - 'specifically' because of the Brazilian leadership of this initiative, and the *unique circumstances under which such a leadership shaped up*... I know it may not be very fashionable to call a spade a spade in this space, but let me say that the set of decisions take at this meeting suggests considerable political accommodations that I am not sure were either right or necessary. At the very least, they appear to less than very transparently made. We all know what happened at Bali when 1Net was launched, and the aggressive stances of some protagonist, which was resisted by most right thinking people really interested in reform in global IG. And again earlier last month when there seemed to be unilateral announcements made by some people that 1Net would organise non gov participation in Brazil meeting's organisation. We got the distinct feeling that the last meeting of the local organising group - the meeting before this one - fully ignored this unilateral announcement and put forward the impression that 1Net had no special role and all stakeholders can organise themselves and communicate directly with the Brazilian organisers. The current meeting seems to have gone back on all those 'right decisions' and allowed ICANN and 1* the central role that it had always been seeking in the forthcoming meeting. This is my honest reading of what happened. But I may be over reacting. I am happy to be corrected by anyone.. parminder On Sunday 22 December 2013 11:05 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > It is not an extra step. It is a way to consolidate all the requests > from all non-gov stakeholders, as they (1Net) proposed to do it. It they > do not do what they are supposed to do, the local organizing group will > have to find (quickly) alternatives, which will be far more complicated. > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > On 12/22/2013 02:50 PM, Roland Perry wrote: >> In message<52B6F397.3070209 at cafonso.ca>, at 12:13:43 on Sun, 22 Dec >> 2013, Carlos A. Afonso writes >>> I did not say that, did I? I meant what I said. >> So if I understand you correctly, the one and only way to get nominated >> for the 'Brazil meeting' is to submit your name *via* the >> as-yet-not-convened 1net steering committee, who being "only a conduit" >> have no remit to filter or preselect the names at all? >> >> If that's the case, why introduce this extra step. >> >>> On 12/22/2013 11:49 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >>>> In message<52B61230.9030602 at cafonso.ca>, at 20:12:00 on Sat, 21 Dec >>>> 2013, Carlos A. Afonso writes >>>>> No, not at all. 1Net is the conduit only. >>>> Still confused. Do you mean "1Net is *one of* at least two independent >>>> conduits" - the other being direct nominations? >>>> >>>>> The StComm will receive the nominations from the stakeholders. >>>>> >>>>> Hope it works... >>>>> >>>>> frt rgds >>>>> >>>>> --c.a. >>>>> >>>>> On 12/21/2013 04:36 PM, Roland Perry wrote: >>>>>> In message<52B5C3A4.3070708 at cafonso.ca>, at 14:36:52 on Sat, 21 Dec >>>>>> 2013, Carlos A. Afonso writes >>>>>>> civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee four >>>>>>> high-level reps as soon as possible. >>>>>> I apologise for getting confused by this, but are you saying that it's >>>>>> only the 1Net Steering Committee [which I don't think has convened >>>>>> yet] >>>>>> which can propose candidates such as these for the 'Brazil Meeting' >>>>>> organising committee? >>> _______________________________________________ >>> discuss mailing list >>> discuss at 1net.org >>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss at 1net.org > http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss at 1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Dec 27 03:48:45 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 14:18:45 +0530 Subject: Fwd: Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> Dear Carlos I understand that the local organising group will meet in a few hours from now... I will request you to let them know that civil society groups stand by their decision to communicate their nominees for various organising committees directly to the local organising group (LOG) ... All other kinds of communication from the civil society side will also continue to be done from civil society side directly to the LOG, and later, as appropriate to the relevant organising committees. We do not intend to mediate any such communication through 1Net or any such other group. I will add as a personal opinion that: Brazil/ CGI.Br has taken the political role of organising this important meeting; it cannot now shirk from the corresponding political responsibilities, by passing them on to others who have not been given the needed legitimacy. The world sees and approves Brazil as the host and organiser of this meeting, and it will be best if they are able to continue to do so. Any change of perception would have important bearing on the legitimacy and success of the meeting. I would also like to request LOG to give civil society Liaisons - the names being already communicated to them - equal status and involvement in your meetings and decisions as, apparently, is being given to some other non governmental groups. In this regard I also request the Liaisons to be in contact with the LOG, and also with us. Thanks and best regards 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 gurstein at gmail.com Fri Dec 27 03:54:18 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 15:54:18 +0700 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B858E4.9090902@ITforChange.net> <52B85DEF.9060807@acm.org> <52B97CEB.50806@acm.org> <039401cf00f9$793002c0$6b900840$@gmail.com> <37AF7CF8-469B-412B-8C43-CD982B76F33C@difference.com.au> <00ae01cf020c$0172af30$04580d90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <069b01cf02e1$3c7fcf60$b57f6e20$@gmail.com> David, The sequence of activities as I understand them has been 1. the creation of the CS "coordinating committee"--which was drawn from certain CS groupings but not others... I have two problems with this, first that the Best Bits coordinating group, a founding member of the CS CC, itself is self-selected without due procedures or transparency; secondly the CS coordinating committee did not appear to have any criteria for who should be included in this grouping, and one moreover where I have made several approaches on behalf of the Community Informatics network to be included with no useful response (see my correspondence with Ian Peter and Jeremy Malcolm in this regard. 2. this "coordinating committee" without any evident larger consultation pulled some criteria out of the air for making its nominations for various CS positions within the Brazil committee structure evidently designed specifically to exclude the Community Informatics network. 3. without any evident transparent or accountable process it proceeded to make nominations in these regards and forward them to responsible parties. I'm not sure what happens when you pile an illegitimate process onto an illegitimate process on top of a further illegitimate process but to my mind the result is not one that any reasonable person should find acceptable under any circumstances. I know nothing about NCSG and can't comment on that... I'm quite familiar with the IGC which, though it had significant faults, the lack of legitimate processes was not one of them... I know little about the internal activities of either Diplo or APC although I have had very significant respect for Diplo (and am surprised to see them continue to be engaged in this charade), and am a recently arrived "Associate" with APC which would seem on the surface to have some significant similarities and common interests with the Community Informatics network and thus I'm rather surprised to see them not acting in consistency with these. (and honestly I'm a bit tired of all this and will withdraw from future discussion on these matters as the CI network works towards making its own nomination process and ultimately nominations. However, as I said at the very beginning of these discussions, the CS Coordinating Committee process, procedures and outcomes lack any legitimacy and any process that allows these illegitimate processes to proceed as part of its own processes will itself lack legitimacy. Best, M -----Original Message----- From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 12:41 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees On 26 Dec 2013, at 3:27 pm, michael gurstein wrote: > David, > > I think there are two separate issues at play here and I may be at > fault in conflating them (or perhaps you are... > > Anyway, the first issue is whether the CI network should be allowed to > join the CS "club" as represented by the CS "Coordinating Committee" > -- the significance of which is the CC's establishment of "criteria" > and selection of CS representatives for various representative > positions... My note below on "clubbableness" was addressed, I believe > quite correctly (and most certainly not by analogy) to this matter. Well, the thread is clearly labelled as being about the Brazil meeting committees, and no one has mentioned the CI list but you, and then only as an addendum rather than in your main argument, so yes, I am wondering why you are conflating these two discussions. FWIW, I have no issue with the CI list being part of the CS group, but you seemed to be arguing for rather more than membership in various recent emails. > The second issue (or rather set of issues) is the manner of selection > of those representatives including the (lack of a) transparent and > accountable process for those selections (following directly from the > illegitimacy of the processes referred to in #1 above), the magical > creation (pulling out of thin air) of selection "criteria", Oh, I'm all in favour of transparency and accountability. But I was not disagreeing with the need for transparency and accountability, only suggesting that some of the suggested criteria were poorly designed if their goal is to strengthen CS involvement.. Active critique of poorly designed proposals is surely why we have accountability. If you want open discussion of the selection criteria, surely that includes critical comments? > the evident ad hominem-ness of those > criteria and so on. Well, there certainly do seem to have been some ad hominem arguments made, certainly. > And as a matter of fact, it seems to me that given the current small > clique nature of CS "governance" processes and participation--and its > internal processes of self-selection and self-promotion, those doing > the selecting at least are in fact > "represent(ing) no more than their own small clique"... That is not, in fact, clear to me at all. I know that from my active involvement in NCSG, while there are certainly a core group that know each other fairly well due to spending three ICANN meetings a year together (plus phone meetings, email lists, etc), that group is not unified in its policy positions by any means, and that there are many more participants in NCSG beyond that core group - and that is just one of the several groups represented in current civil society processes. Civil society groups such as the IGC and NCSG certainly appear to me to represent a broad network rather than a unified clique. Perhaps your experience is different. > And you keep referring to minorities and small groups etc. -- my > point overall is that probably a majority of the global population > would be included in what you are referring to as "their small fraction"... Many of the groups involved in CS work on issues of global relevance, such as human rights, free expression, or development. That those issues are of global relevance does not mean that their representatives constitute a global majority. This seems obvious, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. > Providing > a means to give voice (or of course hopefully voices) to those > interests is hardly something that should "not be listened to by > anyone" except of course, for those who are directly benefiting from > current circumstances and conditions. I was not suggesting that those issues are not of value - only that if you were appointed to a committee as a representative of cilvil society, and then declared that you had no interest in representing the majority of civil society groups, but only one specific group, that would seem to me to be handing other stakeholder groups an excuse for marginalisation. Cheers David > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Cake [mailto:dave at difference.com.au] > Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2013 1:24 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants > for nominations to Brazil meeting committees > > MIchael, this is a deeply faulty analogy. > No one is arguing that minority views should not be part of the 'civil > society' club. Only that those selected as representatives of civil > society are willing to act as representatives of the various diverging > views of civil society - to use your analogy, that those selected to > represent the club are willing to represent more than their own small > clique among its members. > > If you honestly believe that we should select representatives of civil > society who intend only to represent their small fraction - not only > does this baffle me as a strategy, but I am quite baffled as to why > those representatives would be listened to by anyone. > > Regards > > David > > On 25 Dec 2013, at 6:42 am, michael gurstein wrote: > >> And since others from the "Civil Society Coordinating Committee" have > peddling this line in this venue as well... >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2013 5:36 AM >> To: 'Avri Doria'; 'Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net' >> Subject: RE: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for >> nominations to > Brazil meeting committees >> >> In England, where I spent some idle years pursuing an education they >> had a > term--"clubbable"--what it meant was, whether you were suitable to be > asked to "join the club"... >> >> Now among the overt criteria for being "clubbable" was of course, >> whether > you were "nice" enough, whether you would fit in with the existing > members, make them feel comfortable and all warm and cozy at and in your presence. >> >> Of course what that really meant was whether you were sufficiently >> "like > us" for them to let you into the club... whether you were the right > colour, or the right gender, had gone to the right schools, were of an > appropriate religion, and of course, overall whether your > "politics/value system" would be such as to support the "club's" > status quo--their perq's and privileges, folkways and prejudices... >> >> Needless to say I was never "invited". >> >> But I have to ask here, are you folks really serious about >> this--having as > a criteria for joining a "Coordinating Committee" of "Civil Society" > whether someone adheres to kindergarten rules of playing "nice"... >> >> If that is so then surely any right minded person would treat this > self-selected grouping and this process with the contempt and derision > it deserves. >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2013 7:24 PM >> To: Bits bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for >> nominations to > Brazil meeting committees >> >> [MG>] snipped... >> >> So sure put in the criterion of including minority viewpoints, but >> also > put in the criterion of "plays well with others." >> >> avri >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wjdrake at gmail.com Fri Dec 27 04:23:35 2013 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 10:23:35 +0100 Subject: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> Hi Small corrections please On Dec 27, 2013, at 9:48 AM, parminder wrote: > Dear Carlos > > I understand that the local organising group will meet in a few hours from now... > > I will request you to let them know that civil society groups Should read “some civil society groups”. Probably necessary to give their names so the message is understood properly. > stand by their decision to communicate their nominees for various organising committees directly to the local organising group (LOG) ... All other kinds of communication from the civil society side from these members of the civil society ‘side’ > will also continue to be done from civil society side directly to the LOG, and later, as appropriate to the relevant organising committees. We These civil society groups These amendments add some precision and avoid some of the unnecessary confusion that’s arisen. Thanks Bill > do not intend to mediate any such communication through 1Net or any such other group. > > I will add as a personal opinion that: Brazil/ CGI.Br has taken the political role of organising this important meeting; it cannot now shirk from the corresponding political responsibilities, by passing them on to others who have not been given the needed legitimacy. The world sees and approves Brazil as the host and organiser of this meeting, and it will be best if they are able to continue to do so. Any change of perception would have important bearing on the legitimacy and success of the meeting. > > I would also like to request LOG to give civil society Liaisons - the names being already communicated to them - equal status and involvement in your meetings and decisions as, apparently, is being given to some other non governmental groups. > > In this regard I also request the Liaisons to be in contact with the LOG, and also with us. > > Thanks and best regards > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ******************************************************************* 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 (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Dec 27 05:34:22 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 16:04:22 +0530 Subject: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> On Friday 27 December 2013 02:53 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Small corrections please > > On Dec 27, 2013, at 9:48 AM, parminder > wrote: > >> Dear Carlos >> >> I understand that the local organising group will meet in a few hours >> from now... >> >> I will request you to let them know that civil society groups > > Should read “some civil society groups”. Probably necessary to give > their names so the message is understood properly. I understand that it is a decision of 4 CS organisations/ networks - IGC, BB, IRP and APC - which was sent in a written form to the Brazilians and I am only reiterating that decision... I understand that decision stand unless a counter decision is taken.. However, if you and or others want that decision to be reversed, please indicate so, and we can gather opinions. Otherwise please do not confuse people about what is an existing decision of key civil society groups... parminder > >> stand by their decision to communicate their nominees for various >> organising committees directly to the local organising group (LOG) >> ... All other kinds of communication from the civil society side > > from these members of the civil society ‘side’ > >> will also continue to be done from civil society side directly to the >> LOG, and later, as appropriate to the relevant organising committees. We > > These civil society groups > > These amendments add some precision and avoid some of the unnecessary > confusion that’s arisen. > > Thanks > > Bill > >> do not intend to mediate any such communication through 1Net or any >> such other group. >> >> I will add as a personal opinion that: Brazil/ CGI.Br has taken the >> political role of organising this important meeting; it cannot now >> shirk from the corresponding political responsibilities, by passing >> them on to others who have not been given the needed legitimacy. The >> world sees and approves Brazil as the host and organiser of this >> meeting, and it will be best if they are able to continue to do so. >> Any change of perception would have important bearing on the >> legitimacy and success of the meeting. >> >> I would also like to request LOG to give civil society Liaisons - the >> names being already communicated to them - equal status and >> involvement in your meetings and decisions as, apparently, is being >> given to some other non governmental groups. >> >> In this regard I also request the Liaisons to be in contact with the >> LOG, and also with us. >> >> Thanks and best regards >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ******************************************************************* > 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 (direct), > wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > ******************************************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Dec 27 05:38:43 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 11:38:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU References: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi everybody I would prefer on this list a discussion on substance and the concrete CS contribution to the two envisaged outcome documents for the meeting in Brazil: 1. a declaration of principles and 2. a road map/plan of action. It is not a secondary issue how CS channels its ideas into the process, and we should be represented in a proper way in all committees respecting the special responsibilities of the local organizers. However, substance comes first and if we want to have a seat on the table, we have to demonstrate that we make substantial contributions and come with new, fresh, fair and workable ideas how to enhance and improve the IG processes in 2014 an beyond in the intersts of individual users based on our commitmenet to human rights and development. And BTW, it would be equally important to start a discussion about CS representation in the WSIS 10+ process. If you read the UNGA resolution, CS should be shocked. The resolution says that WSIS 10+ (including a potential third summit in 2015 in Sotchi) will be prepared by an intergovernmental preparatory committeee. There is nothing in the UN resolution which recommends similar structures for the civil society (or private sector and technical community). This goes back to WSIS 2002!!!! It needed two PrepComs until we hade a CS structure in place which could communicate (unfortunately not on an equal level) with the intergovernmental committee. I remember the stormy days in Geneva when the Intergovernmental Committee had its meetings behind closed doors and we were invited only for five minutes to a special TOP. Here is the text from the UN resolution, adopted in December 2013 by the UN General Assembly (table by Fihi on behalf ot the Group of 77 and China) " 20. Reaffirms the role of the General Assembly in the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society, tobe held in 2015, as recognized in paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda; 21. Decides to hold, in 2015, the 10-year review summit on the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society, in accordance with paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda; 22. Also decides to launch a preparatory process for the review summit by January 2014, which shall take place through an open-ended intergovernmental preparatory committee and be consistent with and draw on the experience of the two phases of the World Summit on the Information Society process and which will define the agenda of the review summit, finalize the negotiated outcome document of the summit and decide on the modalities for the participation of other stakeholders in the summit; 23. Invites Governments to participate actively in the preparatory process of the overall review summit in 2015 and to be represented in the summit at the highest possible level; 24. Acknowledges the contributions of the International Telecommunication Union in the Geneva and Tunis Summits, and invites the Union to contribute similarly to the overall review summit and its preparatory process;" With other words, this list should start a discussion how CS will be included into the PrepComs for WSIS III, how it will self-organize in 2014/2015 for WSIS 10+. Should we have the same structure like between WSIS I and WSIS II with a CS Bureau, a CS Plenary, a CS Content & Themes group and a large number of CS WGs and Caucuses? This IGC was one of the groups, established during PrepCom2 in February 2003 (see attachment). Should we wait until the Intergovernmental Committee defines under which conditions CS is allowed to participate? Or should we ask for a multistakeholder (instead of intergovernmental) preparatory committee? Should we write a letter to Ban Kin Moon and to protest against this governmental exclusive approach to the WSIS 10+ process and say very clearly that we feel excluded and that all the other paragraphs in the resolution which refer to "multistakeholder" are just lip service as long as CS is not an equal partner in the preparatory process? And what about CS representation in the UNGIS? "16. Also recognizes the role of the United Nations Group on the Information Society as an inter-agency mechanism of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination designed to coordinate United Nations implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society;" And finally, what this list will do to go prepared to the ITU Plenipot in Busan in Fall 2014? Do we want to play an active role in the WTDC and the ITU sponsored Ministerial WSIS 10+ meeting, orignally planned for Sharm el Sheikh in April 2014 and move now probably to Dubai and/or Bucharest? Best wishes for 2014 wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: flyer3 Rev..doc Type: application/msword Size: 31232 bytes Desc: flyer3 Rev..doc URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 27 05:49:50 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 16:19:50 +0530 Subject: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 Message-ID: Yes, correct. Speak for yourself and your own organization and please don't presume to speak for all of civil society. If the entire goal is to fight with other stakeholders and despite the denial, simply obsess about representation on committees then that is absolutely not the direction civil society should ever take. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "William Drake" To: "Parminder Singh" Cc: "Governance" , "Carlos A. Afonso" , "Best Bits" Subject: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 Date: Fri, Dec 27, 2013 2:53 PM Hi Small corrections please On Dec 27, 2013, at 9:48 AM, parminder wrote: > Dear Carlos > > I understand that the local organising group will meet in a few hours from now... > > I will request you to let them know that civil society groups Should read “some civil society groups”. Probably necessary to give their names so the message is understood properly. > stand by their decision to communicate their nominees for various organising committees directly to the local organising group (LOG) ... All other kinds of communication from the civil society side from these members of the civil society ‘side’ > will also continue to be done from civil society side directly to the LOG, and later, as appropriate to the relevant organising committees. We These civil society groups These amendments add some precision and avoid some of the unnecessary confusion that’s arisen. Thanks Bill > do not intend to mediate any such communication through 1Net or any such other group. > > I will add as a personal opinion that: Brazil/ CGI.Br has taken the political role of organising this important meeting; it cannot now shirk from the corresponding political responsibilities, by passing them on to others who have not been given the needed legitimacy. The world sees and approves Brazil as the host and organiser of this meeting, and it will be best if they are able to continue to do so. Any change of perception would have important bearing on the legitimacy and success of the meeting. > > I would also like to request LOG to give civil society Liaisons - the names being already communicated to them - equal status and involvement in your meetings and decisions as, apparently, is being given to some other non governmental groups. > > In this regard I also request the Liaisons to be in contact with the LOG, and also with us. > > Thanks and best regards > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ******************************************************************* 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 (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), 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 jcurran at arin.net Fri Dec 27 06:02:09 2013 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 11:02:09 +0000 Subject: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52BD1D82.9000807@itforchange.net> References: <52B5C3A4.3070708@cafonso.ca> <52B61230.9030602@cafonso.ca> <52B6F397.3070209@cafonso.ca> <52B722EC.7050601@cafonso.ca> <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <409CC9E0-B303-4DE7-949F-692F477A2EB2@corp.arin.net> <52BD1D82.9000807@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1326E79C-D281-4684-A8B1-9558093AC063@arin.net> On Dec 27, 2013, at 1:26 AM, parminder > wrote: John Thanks for your response and the information you have shared... I can of course agree with you that 1Net, not yet having any clear purpose or structure in place, should hardly be in a position to strongly seek anything... There is little doubt (at least in my mind) that a seated 1net coordinating committee can establish exactly what role 1net will take on with respect to making appointments to any international meeting committees. I think it clearly follows that if 1Net is not 'seeking' anything, there are some extremely, repeat, extremely, powerful people seeking such a role for 1Net.... I leave people to make their own guesses who these powerful people might be.... But this fact certainly puts 1Net is a certain perspective, which at the very least seems to compromise its supposedly open, bottom up, 'movement' character - with which kind of declarations it was launched... That would certainly be a valid concern if those initiating the 1net platform (the I* leaders) also seated themselves an interim 1net coordinating committee, then took actions (such as making appointments) in the name of "1net"... if anything, I see an extremely strong bias in the opposite direction to insure that 1net can set its own direction per the representatives coming from the various communities. Even before a structure - supposedly, bottom up, participative etc - is built for 1Net, some powerful people seem already convinced (rather, 'know') about its role, purpose, and, I dare extrapolate, even the directions that it will lead to, to be so confident to be be aggressively pushing it to have such a central role in organising the Brazil meeting.... I can see no other reason why (specific motivations) and how (the power of those so motivated) was, for instance, civil society denied its right to decide the manner of its participation in the Brazil meeting... I have no idea... I'd ask those organizing it, but there isn't anyway that "1net" can be doing such since 1net has done anything yet other than setup a website and call for representatives for its coordinating committee. If 1Net is to become the front of such non transparent motivations of some powerful players, it puts an unfortunate shadow on its genuine possibilities, al least some of which I could see and appreciate. Doesn't that argue all the more reason why it is important for a coordinating committee to be seated, as soon as possible? /John Disclaimer: My views alone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wjdrake at gmail.com Fri Dec 27 06:05:46 2013 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 12:05:46 +0100 Subject: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> On Dec 27, 2013, at 11:34 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 27 December 2013 02:53 PM, William Drake wrote: >> Hi >> >> Small corrections please >> >> On Dec 27, 2013, at 9:48 AM, parminder wrote: >> >>> Dear Carlos >>> >>> I understand that the local organising group will meet in a few hours from now... >>> >>> I will request you to let them know that civil society groups >> >> Should read “some civil society groups”. Probably necessary to give their names so the message is understood properly. > > I understand that it is a decision of 4 CS organisations/ networks - IGC, BB, IRP and APC - which was sent in a written form to the Brazilians and I am only reiterating that decision... I understand that decision stand unless a counter decision is taken.. Well…As Nnenna and other have documented, IGC and BB are in fact the same people, and as BB is a voting platform with formal members it’s not clear how legitimately this position was adopted without a vote. IRP I thought was a multistakeholder coalition, is it not? I don’t recall what APC’s position was, would be good to have reconfirmation. Either way, not endorsing that approach is NCSG (almost 400 organization and individual members), Diplo (quite a lot), or various other CS networks and organizations engaged in IG. So you really are not in a position to issue grandiose totalizing proclamations on behalf of all global civil society. And FWIW, as both a founding IGC member and a BB attendee, I certainly I don’t recall an open and inclusive discussion in either setting about whether to stand aloof of the process the Brazilians are asking us to use (which I can’t believe we’re still debating). What I do remember is a few loud and aggressive voices demanding that this be the stance and nobody wanting to tangle. I also remember the very same people who denounced using 1net as the agreed aggregator of nominations and anything else then demanding to be appointed to its coordination committee, which is a pretty blatant bit of have your cake and eat it too incoherence. Anyway, it’s of course totally fine if there are groups that feel that on principle you will not interface with the Brazilian process in the manner the Brazilians have asked for. Then simply say who you are, and don’t pretend to speak for other parts of CS that don’t agree with you. > > However, if you and or others want that decision to be reversed, please indicate so, and we can gather opinions. I’m not asking you to change your view, I know you won’t. I’m asking you to please report accurately who supports your statement so that others of us don’t have to waste time issuing a public corrective. Such a process is not going to add luster to CS participation. > Otherwise please do not confuse people about what is an existing decision of key civil society groups… I’m not confusing people, you are. You are claiming, yet again, to be speaking for “civil society,” when you are not. It is a pretty major misrepresentation. BD > > parminder > >> >>> stand by their decision to communicate their nominees for various organising committees directly to the local organising group (LOG) ... All other kinds of communication from the civil society side >> >> from these members of the civil society ‘side’ >> >>> will also continue to be done from civil society side directly to the LOG, and later, as appropriate to the relevant organising committees. We >> >> These civil society groups >> >> These amendments add some precision and avoid some of the unnecessary confusion that’s arisen. >> >> Thanks >> >> Bill >> >>> do not intend to mediate any such communication through 1Net or any such other group. >>> >>> I will add as a personal opinion that: Brazil/ CGI.Br has taken the political role of organising this important meeting; it cannot now shirk from the corresponding political responsibilities, by passing them on to others who have not been given the needed legitimacy. The world sees and approves Brazil as the host and organiser of this meeting, and it will be best if they are able to continue to do so. Any change of perception would have important bearing on the legitimacy and success of the meeting. >>> >>> I would also like to request LOG to give civil society Liaisons - the names being already communicated to them - equal status and involvement in your meetings and decisions as, apparently, is being given to some other non governmental groups. >>> >>> In this regard I also request the Liaisons to be in contact with the LOG, and also with us. >>> >>> Thanks and best regards >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> ******************************************************************* >> 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 (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >> www.williamdrake.org >> ******************************************************************** >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ******************************************************************* 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 (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), 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 samantha at linguasynaptica.com Fri Dec 27 06:10:50 2013 From: samantha at linguasynaptica.com (Samantha Dickinson) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 21:10:50 +1000 Subject: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi Wolfgang Just a quick clarification. The text you refer to in relation to WSIS+10 in 2015 is from the original draft by the G77 and not the version that was eventually adopted. The report on 2nd Committee (http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/68/435) quotes the draft resolution first (pp. 3-12), followed by the final version of the resolution (pp.13-20). It was the second and final version that was adopted. The final version of the resolution delays a decision on the modalities of the WSIS review in 2015 until the end of March 2014 at the latest. Modalities will be put together based on "open intergovernmental consultations”. If it's of any use, I put together a quick overview of the main differences between the two versions here: http://linguasynaptica.com/unga-68-ict4d-resolution/ Regards Sam On 27 December 2013 20:38, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Hi everybody > > I would prefer on this list a discussion on substance and the concrete CS contribution to the two envisaged outcome documents for the meeting in Brazil: 1. a declaration of principles and 2. a road map/plan of action. It is not a secondary issue how CS channels its ideas into the process, and we should be represented in a proper way in all committees respecting the special responsibilities of the local organizers. However, substance comes first and if we want to have a seat on the table, we have to demonstrate that we make substantial contributions and come with new, fresh, fair and workable ideas how to enhance and improve the IG processes in 2014 an beyond in the intersts of individual users based on our commitmenet to human rights and development. > > And BTW, it would be equally important to start a discussion about CS representation in the WSIS 10+ process. If you read the UNGA resolution, CS should be shocked. The resolution says that WSIS 10+ (including a potential third summit in 2015 in Sotchi) will be prepared by an intergovernmental preparatory committeee. There is nothing in the UN resolution which recommends similar structures for the civil society (or private sector and technical community). This goes back to WSIS 2002!!!! It needed two PrepComs until we hade a CS structure in place which could communicate (unfortunately not on an equal level) with the intergovernmental committee. I remember the stormy days in Geneva when the Intergovernmental Committee had its meetings behind closed doors and we were invited only for five minutes to a special TOP. > > Here is the text from the UN resolution, adopted in December 2013 by the UN General Assembly (table by Fihi on behalf ot the Group of 77 and China) > " 20. Reaffirms the role of the General Assembly in the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society, tobe held in 2015, as recognized in paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda; > > 21. Decides to hold, in 2015, the 10-year review summit on the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society, in accordance with paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda; > > 22. Also decides to launch a preparatory process for the review summit by January 2014, which shall take place through an open-ended intergovernmental preparatory committee and be consistent with and draw on the experience of the two phases of the World Summit on the Information Society process and which will define the agenda of the review summit, finalize the negotiated outcome document of the summit and decide on the modalities for the participation of other stakeholders in the summit; > > 23. Invites Governments to participate actively in the preparatory process of the overall review summit in 2015 and to be represented in the summit at the highest possible level; > > 24. Acknowledges the contributions of the International Telecommunication Union in the Geneva and Tunis Summits, and invites the Union to contribute similarly to the overall review summit and its preparatory process;" > > With other words, this list should start a discussion how CS will be included into the PrepComs for WSIS III, how it will self-organize in 2014/2015 for WSIS 10+. Should we have the same structure like between WSIS I and WSIS II with a CS Bureau, a CS Plenary, a CS Content & Themes group and a large number of CS WGs and Caucuses? This IGC was one of the groups, established during PrepCom2 in February 2003 (see attachment). Should we wait until the Intergovernmental Committee defines under which conditions CS is allowed to participate? Or should we ask for a multistakeholder (instead of intergovernmental) preparatory committee? Should we write a letter to Ban Kin Moon and to protest against this governmental exclusive approach to the WSIS 10+ process and say very clearly that we feel excluded and that all the other paragraphs in the resolution which refer to "multistakeholder" are just lip service as long as CS is not an equal partner in the preparatory process? > > And what about CS representation in the UNGIS? > > "16. Also recognizes the role of the United Nations Group on the Information Society as an inter-agency mechanism of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination designed to coordinate United Nations implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society;" > > And finally, what this list will do to go prepared to the ITU Plenipot in Busan in Fall 2014? Do we want to play an active role in the WTDC and the ITU sponsored Ministerial WSIS 10+ meeting, orignally planned for Sharm el Sheikh in April 2014 and move now probably to Dubai and/or Bucharest? > > Best wishes for 2014 > > wolfgang > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Samantha Dickinson Internet governance consultant & writer Lingua Synaptica Web: http://linguasynaptica.com Twitter: @sgdickinson -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 27 06:15:28 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 12:15:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi Wolfgang Good to see you back in the flow. On Dec 27, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Here is the text from the UN resolution, adopted in December 2013 by the UN General Assembly (table by Fihi on behalf ot the Group of 77 and China) Uh, no, I don’t think so. You are quoting A/C.2/68/L.40 of 7 November 2013, the G77 and China’s contribution. I believe this was superseded after negotiations by A/C.2/68/L.73 of 6 December 2013. The latter deletes mention of summit, but does call for an intergovernmental process to prepare the modalities for review. Best Bill > " 20. Reaffirms the role of the General Assembly in the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society, tobe held in 2015, as recognized in paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda; > > 21.∫ on the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society, in accordance with paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda; > > 22. Also decides to launch a preparatory process for the review summit by January 2014, which shall take place through an open-ended intergovernmental preparatory committee and be consistent with and draw on the experience of the two phases of the World Summit on the Information Society process and which will define the agenda of the review summit, finalize the negotiated outcome document of the summit and decide on the modalities for the participation of other stakeholders in the summit; > > 23. Invites Governments to participate actively in the preparatory process of the overall review summit in 2015 and to be represented in the summit at the highest possible level; > > 24. Acknowledges the contributions of the International Telecommunication Union in the Geneva and Tunis Summits, and invites the Union to contribute similarly to the overall review summit and its preparatory process;" > > With other words, this list should start a discussion how CS will be included into the PrepComs for WSIS III, how it will self-organize in 2014/2015 for WSIS 10+. Should we have the same structure like between WSIS I and WSIS II with a CS Bureau, a CS Plenary, a CS Content & Themes group and a large number of CS WGs and Caucuses? This IGC was one of the groups, established during PrepCom2 in February 2003 (see attachment). Should we wait until the Intergovernmental Committee defines under which conditions CS is allowed to participate? Or should we ask for a multistakeholder (instead of intergovernmental) preparatory committee? Should we write a letter to Ban Kin Moon and to protest against this governmental exclusive approach to the WSIS 10+ process and say very clearly that we feel excluded and that all the other paragraphs in the resolution which refer to "multistakeholder" are just lip service as long as CS is not an equal partner in the preparatory process? > > And what about CS representation in the UNGIS? > > "16. Also recognizes the role of the United Nations Group on the Information Society as an inter-agency mechanism of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination designed to coordinate United Nations implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society;" > > And finally, what this list will do to go prepared to the ITU Plenipot in Busan in Fall 2014? Do we want to play an active role in the WTDC and the ITU sponsored Ministerial WSIS 10+ meeting, orignally planned for Sharm el Sheikh in April 2014 and move now probably to Dubai and/or Bucharest? > > Best wishes for 2014 > > wolfgang > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ********************************************************** 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Dec 27 06:38:19 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 12:38:19 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU References: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thx Bill for the clarification. Yes I quoted the draft from November 7, 2013 and was not aware about the last minute changes. However this does not change the challenge for the civil society. And even if there is not formal summit in 2015, the process is underway and the process as designed by the UN, is intergovernmental leadership with unclear involvement of non-governmental stakeholders, including civil society. Why such an "intergovernmental preparatory committee" is not designed according to the UNCSTD WGs? The options which I have heard as an alternative to an independent WSIS III Summit are a.- to do it together with the big MDG Summt in 2015 or to have a WSIS Summit in 2016. Best wishes wolfgang ________________________________ Von: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] Gesendet: Fr 27.12.2013 12:15 An: Governance; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Cc: Parminder Singh; Best Bits Betreff: Re: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU Hi Wolfgang Good to see you back in the flow. On Dec 27, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: Here is the text from the UN resolution, adopted in December 2013 by the UN General Assembly (table by Fihi on behalf ot the Group of 77 and China) Uh, no, I don't think so. You are quoting A/C.2/68/L.40 of 7 November 2013, the G77 and China's contribution. I believe this was superseded after negotiations by A/C.2/68/L.73 of 6 December 2013. The latter deletes mention of summit, but does call for an intergovernmental process to prepare the modalities for review. Best Bill " 20. Reaffirms the role of the General Assembly in the overall review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society, tobe held in 2015, as recognized in paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda; 21.? on the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society, in accordance with paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda; 22. Also decides to launch a preparatory process for the review summit by January 2014, which shall take place through an open-ended intergovernmental preparatory committee and be consistent with and draw on the experience of the two phases of the World Summit on the Information Society process and which will define the agenda of the review summit, finalize the negotiated outcome document of the summit and decide on the modalities for the participation of other stakeholders in the summit; 23. Invites Governments to participate actively in the preparatory process of the overall review summit in 2015 and to be represented in the summit at the highest possible level; 24. Acknowledges the contributions of the International Telecommunication Union in the Geneva and Tunis Summits, and invites the Union to contribute similarly to the overall review summit and its preparatory process;" With other words, this list should start a discussion how CS will be included into the PrepComs for WSIS III, how it will self-organize in 2014/2015 for WSIS 10+. Should we have the same structure like between WSIS I and WSIS II with a CS Bureau, a CS Plenary, a CS Content & Themes group and a large number of CS WGs and Caucuses? This IGC was one of the groups, established during PrepCom2 in February 2003 (see attachment). Should we wait until the Intergovernmental Committee defines under which conditions CS is allowed to participate? Or should we ask for a multistakeholder (instead of intergovernmental) preparatory committee? Should we write a letter to Ban Kin Moon and to protest against this governmental exclusive approach to the WSIS 10+ process and say very clearly that we feel excluded and that all the other paragraphs in the resolution which refer to "multistakeholder" are just lip service as long as CS is not an equal partner in the preparatory process? And what about CS representation in the UNGIS? "16. Also recognizes the role of the United Nations Group on the Information Society as an inter-agency mechanism of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination designed to coordinate United Nations implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society;" And finally, what this list will do to go prepared to the ITU Plenipot in Busan in Fall 2014? Do we want to play an active role in the WTDC and the ITU sponsored Ministerial WSIS 10+ meeting, orignally planned for Sharm el Sheikh in April 2014 and move now probably to Dubai and/or Bucharest? Best wishes for 2014 wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ********************************************************** 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Fri Dec 27 08:27:15 2013 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 14:27:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <52BD8033.1050705@wzb.eu> Am 27.12.13 11:38, schrieb "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang": > Hi everybody > > I would prefer on this list a discussion on substance and the > concrete CS contribution to the two envisaged outcome documents for > the meeting in Brazil: 1. a declaration of principles and 2. a road > map/plan of action. It is not a secondary issue how CS channels its > ideas into the process, and we should be represented in a proper way > in all committees respecting the special responsibilities of the > local organizers. However, substance comes first and if we want to > have a seat on the table, we have to demonstrate that we make > substantial contributions and come with new, fresh, fair and workable > ideas how to enhance and improve the IG processes in 2014 an beyond > in the intersts of individual users based on our commitmenet to human > rights and development. > > Since there seem to be several people who are tired of these big-ego cultivating exchanges on this list, we could actually try to work on the Andrew's compilation of contributions which he circulated on Dec 13. (subject line: input into Brazil summit). There has been no substantive response to this as far as I am aware of. The amount of text is a bit daunting and not easy to handle for a mailing list. One way to go about this would be to decide with which section we want to start and have someone drafting a shorter text out of all answers. My suggestion would be to start with questions 3: What is the case for reform of these arrangements and on what grounds (better protection of human rights and democracy, better representation from global south etc) and 4: What existing proposals for reform are you aware of and how do they meet the criteria for reform you set out in the previous question jeanette -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kstubbs at afilias.info Fri Dec 27 09:26:07 2013 From: kstubbs at afilias.info (Ken Stubbs) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 09:26:07 -0500 Subject: Fwd: Re: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU In-Reply-To: <52BD8174.1030200@afilias.info> References: <52BD8174.1030200@afilias.info> Message-ID: <52BD8DFF.6000808@afilias.info> +1 On 12/27/2013 8:27 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Am 27.12.13 11:38, schrieb "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang": >> Hi everybody >> >> I would prefer on this list a discussion on substance and the >> concrete CS contribution to the two envisaged outcome documents for >> the meeting in Brazil: 1. a declaration of principles and 2. a road >> map/plan of action. It is not a secondary issue how CS channels its >> ideas into the process, and we should be represented in a proper way >> in all committees respecting the special responsibilities of the >> local organizers. However, substance comes first and if we want to >> have a seat on the table, we have to demonstrate that we make >> substantial contributions and come with new, fresh, fair and workable >> ideas how to enhance and improve the IG processes in 2014 an beyond >> in the intersts of individual users based on our commitmenet to human >> rights and development. >> >> > Since there seem to be several people who are tired of these big-ego > cultivating exchanges on this list, we could actually try to work on > the Andrew's compilation of contributions which he circulated on Dec > 13. (subject line: input into Brazil summit). There has been no > substantive response to this as far as I am aware of. > > The amount of text is a bit daunting and not easy to handle for a > mailing list. One way to go about this would be to decide with which > section we want to start and have someone drafting a shorter text out > of all answers. My suggestion would be to start with questions 3: > > What is the case for reform of these arrangements and on what grounds > (better protection of human rights and democracy, better > representation from global south etc) > and 4: > What existing proposals for reform are you aware of and how do they > meet the criteria for reform you set out in the previous question > > jeanette > --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Dec 27 09:41:49 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 20:11:49 +0530 Subject: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> Ok, Bill, There was a category confusion here. Since we were/ are interacting within the IGC and BB space I meant simply 'our CS groups' here had made that decision. I agree that it is factually incorrect to say that it is a civil society decision. Should only say it is IGC plus BB plus APC plus IRP decision. I stand corrected. (Since I was writing to Carlos I was also mindful that Carlos knew exactly which groups put forward this position and will communicate accordingly...) In any case, I request the leaderships of IGC, BB, APC and IRP colaition to let us know what there current position is on this issue, and what do they propose to do since it seems that things are going in the direction that they did not want them to go.. parminder On Friday 27 December 2013 04:35 PM, William Drake wrote: > > On Dec 27, 2013, at 11:34 AM, parminder > wrote: > >> >> On Friday 27 December 2013 02:53 PM, William Drake wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> Small corrections please >>> >>> On Dec 27, 2013, at 9:48 AM, parminder >> > wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Carlos >>>> >>>> I understand that the local organising group will meet in a few >>>> hours from now... >>>> >>>> I will request you to let them know that civil society groups >>> >>> Should read “some civil society groups”. Probably necessary to give >>> their names so the message is understood properly. >> >> I understand that it is a decision of 4 CS organisations/ networks - >> IGC, BB, IRP and APC - which was sent in a written form to the >> Brazilians and I am only reiterating that decision... I understand >> that decision stand unless a counter decision is taken.. > > Well…As Nnenna and other have documented, IGC and BB are in fact the > same people, and as BB is a voting platform with formal members it’s > not clear how legitimately this position was adopted without a vote. > IRP I thought was a multistakeholder coalition, is it not? I don’t > recall what APC’s position was, would be good to have reconfirmation. > Either way, not endorsing that approach is NCSG (almost 400 > organization and individual members), Diplo (quite a lot), or various > other CS networks and organizations engaged in IG. So you really are > not in a position to issue grandiose totalizing proclamations on > behalf of all global civil society. And FWIW, as both a founding IGC > member and a BB attendee, I certainly I don’t recall an open and > inclusive discussion in either setting about whether to stand aloof of > the process the Brazilians are asking us to use (which I can’t believe > we’re still debating). What I do remember is a few loud and > aggressive voices demanding that this be the stance and nobody wanting > to tangle. I also remember the very same people who denounced using > 1net as the agreed aggregator of nominations and anything else then > demanding to be appointed to its coordination committee, which is a > pretty blatant bit of have your cake and eat it too incoherence. > > Anyway, it’s of course totally fine if there are groups that feel that > on principle you will not interface with the Brazilian process in the > manner the Brazilians have asked for. Then simply say who you are, > and don’t pretend to speak for other parts of CS that don’t agree with > you. >> >> However, if you and or others want that decision to be reversed, >> please indicate so, and we can gather opinions. > > I’m not asking you to change your view, I know you won’t. I’m asking > you to please report accurately who supports your statement so that > others of us don’t have to waste time issuing a public corrective. > Such a process is not going to add luster to CS participation. > >> Otherwise please do not confuse people about what is an existing >> decision of key civil society groups… > > I’m not confusing people, you are. You are claiming, yet again, to be > speaking for “civil society,” when you are not. It is a pretty major > misrepresentation. > > BD >> >> parminder >> >>> >>>> stand by their decision to communicate their nominees for various >>>> organising committees directly to the local organising group (LOG) >>>> ... All other kinds of communication from the civil society side >>> >>> from these members of the civil society ‘side’ >>> >>>> will also continue to be done from civil society side directly to >>>> the LOG, and later, as appropriate to the relevant organising >>>> committees. We >>> >>> These civil society groups >>> >>> These amendments add some precision and avoid some of the >>> unnecessary confusion that’s arisen. >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Bill >>> >>>> do not intend to mediate any such communication through 1Net or any >>>> such other group. >>>> >>>> I will add as a personal opinion that: Brazil/ CGI.Br has taken the >>>> political role of organising this important meeting; it cannot now >>>> shirk from the corresponding political responsibilities, by passing >>>> them on to others who have not been given the needed legitimacy. >>>> The world sees and approves Brazil as the host and organiser of >>>> this meeting, and it will be best if they are able to continue to >>>> do so. Any change of perception would have important bearing on the >>>> legitimacy and success of the meeting. >>>> >>>> I would also like to request LOG to give civil society Liaisons - >>>> the names being already communicated to them - equal status and >>>> involvement in your meetings and decisions as, apparently, is being >>>> given to some other non governmental groups. >>>> >>>> In this regard I also request the Liaisons to be in contact with >>>> the LOG, and also with us. >>>> >>>> Thanks and best regards >>>> >>>> Parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >>> >>> ******************************************************************* >>> 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 (direct), >>> wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >>> www.williamdrake.org >>> ******************************************************************** >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ******************************************************************* > 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 (direct), > wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Dec 27 09:48:20 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 22:48:20 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 27 Dec 2013, at 10:41 pm, parminder wrote: > In any case, I request the leaderships of IGC, BB, APC and IRP colaition to let us know what there current position is on this issue, and what do they propose to do since it seems that things are going in the direction that they did not want them to go.. Just speaking personally for now, while I remain skeptical about 1net, I am content with the position that Ian has described, that the coordinating group will be responsible for the nominations, and the 1net committee will just be a conduit. I don't see much "value add" there, but neither do I see grave harm. -- 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 204 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 genekimmelman at gmail.com Fri Dec 27 10:10:06 2013 From: genekimmelman at gmail.com (Gene Kimmelman) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 10:10:06 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU In-Reply-To: References: <52BD8033.1050705@wzb.eu> Message-ID: And I think everyone should give the Brazilians a breather, and let them celebrate their holidays in peace!!! Happy New Year to all of you! On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > Hi Jeanette > > I should have something to send out in the next few days if you can hang > on - the results of some preliminary analysis > > I¹ve been taking it easy over Xmas here > > On 27/12/2013 13:27, "Jeanette Hofmann" wrote: > > > > > > >Am 27.12.13 11:38, schrieb "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang": > >> Hi everybody > >> > >> I would prefer on this list a discussion on substance and the > >> concrete CS contribution to the two envisaged outcome documents for > >> the meeting in Brazil: 1. a declaration of principles and 2. a road > >> map/plan of action. It is not a secondary issue how CS channels its > >> ideas into the process, and we should be represented in a proper way > >> in all committees respecting the special responsibilities of the > >> local organizers. However, substance comes first and if we want to > >> have a seat on the table, we have to demonstrate that we make > >> substantial contributions and come with new, fresh, fair and workable > >> ideas how to enhance and improve the IG processes in 2014 an beyond > >> in the intersts of individual users based on our commitmenet to human > >> rights and development. > >> > >> > >Since there seem to be several people who are tired of these big-ego > >cultivating exchanges on this list, we could actually try to work on the > >Andrew's compilation of contributions which he circulated on Dec 13. > >(subject line: input into Brazil summit). There has been no substantive > >response to this as far as I am aware of. > > > >The amount of text is a bit daunting and not easy to handle for a > >mailing list. One way to go about this would be to decide with which > >section we want to start and have someone drafting a shorter text out of > >all answers. My suggestion would be to start with questions 3: > > > >What is the case for reform of these arrangements and on what grounds > >(better protection of human rights and democracy, better representation > >from global south etc) > >and 4: > >What existing proposals for reform are you aware of and how do they meet > >the criteria for reform you set out in the previous question > > > >jeanette > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 27 10:30:24 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 21:00:24 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52BD9D10.6050706@itforchange.net> On Friday 27 December 2013 08:18 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 27 Dec 2013, at 10:41 pm, parminder > wrote: > >> In any case, I request the leaderships of IGC, BB, APC and IRP >> colaition to let us know what there current position is on this >> issue, and what do they propose to do since it seems that things are >> going in the direction that they did not want them to go.. > > Just speaking personally for now, while I remain skeptical about 1net, > I am content with the position that Ian has described, that the > coordinating group will be responsible for the nominations, and the > 1net committee will just be a conduit. I don't see much "value add" > there, but neither do I see grave harm. Jeremy You had termed something as a 'power grab' not long back :) If something is to be only a conduit, why would that role be sought by anyone, and conferred on anyone.... I am sure the Brazilians are perfectly good in running email ids for themselves.... Firstly, there could be issues about forwarding names for organizing committees... Bill elaborated just now how some groups cannot claim that they exhaust the category of 'civil society' .... If more names get forwarded than there are CS slots on different committees, who prunes the numbers down..... This is the crucial question.... Can you assure me that it wont be 1Net, who would be asked to just forward the perfect number and no more.... Secondly, this is an official entry of 1Net as (an extremely important) formal entity into the Brazil meeting process... Cant you see that! At present, it is about the committee members' nominations. Later it will be about receiving, drafting, organising, compiling substantive inputs..... And when one is caught in a bind about what exactly is to be considered a 'mainstream' input from one stakeholder group or the other, a similar choosing role will arise... Who will do it. Watch out for 1Net, soon to be declared as bottom up, properly constituted 'community process'. And well of course, it is by now clear to me that the main role that 1Net will play is to present a 'consensus' (or thereabout) community view on substantive matters - the proposed outcomes of the meeting - a set of Internet principles, and a road map for reform of global IG (or for not reforming it). (If you are a betting kind I am even ready to take bets :) ) Anyway, I really hope that civil society stops playing naive..... And to the extend some actors here are not playing naive but it is a considered pursuance of a political thinking and strategy, please be clear about it....So that others who have a different political thinking may be allowed to express themselves fairly and allowed to do what they want to do. That I would say is a core civil society value. Separating people into 'nice' and 'not so nice' categories wont do any more to cover up real deep politics in operation here... parminder > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > 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 deborah at accessnow.org Fri Dec 27 11:23:28 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 11:23:28 -0500 Subject: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi Wolfgang, all, I very much share the concerns you raised, however I wonder if strategically the intergovernmental consultations on the modalities for the overall WSIS review can be separated from the modalities themselves. [see OP22 below] In other words, couldn't CS and other stakeholders take advantage of the fact that the modalities for the review haven't been decided yet and push for a CSTD WG-like structure to be the the outcome of the consultations that will be taking place early next year? *22. Decides to finalize the modalities for the overall review by the General Assembly of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society, in accordance with paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda, as early as possible, but no later than the end of March 2014, and invites the President of the Assembly to appoint two co-facilitators to convene open intergovernmental consultations for that purpose; * Perhaps it's optimistic to think an intergovernmental consultation could result in a more open prep-com process, but given that UNGA has created 2 MS WGs through CSTD in the last few years and that theis resolution reaffirms CSTD (through ECOSOC) as "the focal point in the system-wide follow-up" for WSIS (PP10), maybe it's worth a try? With regards to some of the other ITU meetings you mentioned in your earlier email, it was announced at the CSTD intersessional and WSIS+10 MPP meeting earlier this month that WTDC will be moved to Dubai. The high level ITU sponsored WSIS meeting is still somewhat up in the air because there wasn't enough progress made at the December meeting to hold the high level meeting in April. There will likely be a working meeting in Sharm al-Sheikh and the high level one will need to be rescheduled. At least that was my understanding of the situation. I think it would be great to discuss CS approaches to WSIS, WTDC, PP in the new year. Happy holidays! Deborah On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 6:38 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > Thx Bill for the clarification. > > Yes I quoted the draft from November 7, 2013 and was not aware about the > last minute changes. However this does not change the challenge for the > civil society. And even if there is not formal summit in 2015, the process > is underway and the process as designed by the UN, is intergovernmental > leadership with unclear involvement of non-governmental stakeholders, > including civil society. Why such an "intergovernmental preparatory > committee" is not designed according to the UNCSTD WGs? > > The options which I have heard as an alternative to an independent WSIS > III Summit are a.- to do it together with the big MDG Summt in 2015 or to > have a WSIS Summit in 2016. > > Best wishes > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] > Gesendet: Fr 27.12.2013 12:15 > An: Governance; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > Cc: Parminder Singh; Best Bits > Betreff: Re: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU > > > Hi Wolfgang > > Good to see you back in the flow. > > On Dec 27, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > > > Here is the text from the UN resolution, adopted in December 2013 > by the UN General Assembly (table by Fihi on behalf ot the Group of 77 and > China) > > > > Uh, no, I don't think so. You are quoting A/C.2/68/L.40 of 7 November > 2013, the G77 and China's contribution. I believe this was superseded > after negotiations by A/C.2/68/L.73 of 6 December 2013. The latter deletes > mention of summit, but does call for an intergovernmental process to > prepare the modalities for review. > > Best > > Bill > > > " 20. Reaffirms the role of the General Assembly in the overall > review of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the > Information Society, tobe held in 2015, as recognized in paragraph 111 of > the Tunis Agenda; > > 21.? on the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on > the Information Society, in accordance with paragraph 111 of the Tunis > Agenda; > > 22. Also decides to launch a preparatory process for the review > summit by January 2014, which shall take place through an open-ended > intergovernmental preparatory committee and be consistent with and draw on > the experience of the two phases of the World Summit on the Information > Society process and which will define the agenda of the review summit, > finalize the negotiated outcome document of the summit and decide on the > modalities for the participation of other stakeholders in the summit; > > 23. Invites Governments to participate actively in the preparatory > process of the overall review summit in 2015 and to be represented in the > summit at the highest possible level; > > 24. Acknowledges the contributions of the International > Telecommunication Union in the Geneva and Tunis Summits, and invites the > Union to contribute similarly to the overall review summit and its > preparatory process;" > > With other words, this list should start a discussion how CS will > be included into the PrepComs for WSIS III, how it will self-organize in > 2014/2015 for WSIS 10+. Should we have the same structure like between WSIS > I and WSIS II with a CS Bureau, a CS Plenary, a CS Content & Themes group > and a large number of CS WGs and Caucuses? This IGC was one of the groups, > established during PrepCom2 in February 2003 (see attachment). Should we > wait until the Intergovernmental Committee defines under which conditions > CS is allowed to participate? Or should we ask for a multistakeholder > (instead of intergovernmental) preparatory committee? Should we write a > letter to Ban Kin Moon and to protest against this governmental exclusive > approach to the WSIS 10+ process and say very clearly that we feel excluded > and that all the other paragraphs in the resolution which refer to > "multistakeholder" are just lip service as long as CS is not an equal > partner in the preparatory process? > > And what about CS representation in the UNGIS? > > "16. Also recognizes the role of the United Nations Group on the > Information Society as an inter-agency mechanism of the United Nations > System Chief Executives Board for Coordination designed to coordinate > United Nations implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the > Information Society;" > > And finally, what this list will do to go prepared to the ITU > Plenipot in Busan in Fall 2014? Do we want to play an active role in the > WTDC and the ITU sponsored Ministerial WSIS 10+ meeting, orignally planned > for Sharm el Sheikh in April 2014 and move now probably to Dubai and/or > Bucharest? > > Best wishes for 2014 > > wolfgang > > > Rev..doc>____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ********************************************************** > 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 > *********************************************************** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | accessnow.org rightscon.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Dec 27 14:11:30 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 19:11:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU In-Reply-To: <52BD8DFF.6000808@afilias.info> References: <52BD8174.1030200@afilias.info>,<52BD8DFF.6000808@afilias.info> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2CE7B1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> +2 ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Ken Stubbs [kstubbs at afilias.info] Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 9:26 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeanette Hofmann Subject: Fwd: Re: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU +1 On 12/27/2013 8:27 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Am 27.12.13 11:38, schrieb "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang": >> Hi everybody >> >> I would prefer on this list a discussion on substance and the >> concrete CS contribution to the two envisaged outcome documents for >> the meeting in Brazil: 1. a declaration of principles and 2. a road >> map/plan of action. It is not a secondary issue how CS channels its >> ideas into the process, and we should be represented in a proper way >> in all committees respecting the special responsibilities of the >> local organizers. However, substance comes first and if we want to >> have a seat on the table, we have to demonstrate that we make >> substantial contributions and come with new, fresh, fair and workable >> ideas how to enhance and improve the IG processes in 2014 an beyond >> in the intersts of individual users based on our commitmenet to human >> rights and development. >> >> > Since there seem to be several people who are tired of these big-ego > cultivating exchanges on this list, we could actually try to work on > the Andrew's compilation of contributions which he circulated on Dec > 13. (subject line: input into Brazil summit). There has been no > substantive response to this as far as I am aware of. > > The amount of text is a bit daunting and not easy to handle for a > mailing list. One way to go about this would be to decide with which > section we want to start and have someone drafting a shorter text out > of all answers. My suggestion would be to start with questions 3: > > What is the case for reform of these arrangements and on what grounds > (better protection of human rights and democracy, better > representation from global south etc) > and 4: > What existing proposals for reform are you aware of and how do they > meet the criteria for reform you set out in the previous question > > jeanette > ________________________________ [http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png] This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 28 02:50:08 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 14:50:08 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <03e701cf03a1$71b59fa0$5520dee0$@gmail.com> Hi Jeremy, I'm not quite sure who you are addressing with your message below, but if is meant to be CS in IG as a whole perhaps it would be better to phrase what you have written as "the coordinating group will be responsible for "its" nominations" since as already noted the CI community has launched its own nominating process and will be submitting nominations, to the appropriate authority as that becomes clear, in parallel to those of CC-CS. I would add that I agree with Parminder's point that CS should not be going through a third party for its nominations (this was generally, perhaps universally, agreed to in Bali). As well, it should be noted that at this point precisely the provenance of Inet is not clear. If Inet is a creature of ICANN then we, as CS overall should be concerned since ICANN is not CS and may, because of its activities and mandate have its own interests which it may be concerned to pursue in this context as with others. If Inet is rather more linked to I* then clearly we should not be passing our nominations through a body organically linked to one of the other stakeholder groups. Mike From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Friday, December 27, 2013 9:48 PM To: parminder Cc: William Drake; Governance; Carlos A. Afonso; Best Bits; Anriette Esterhuysen Subject: Re: [bestbits] [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 On 27 Dec 2013, at 10:41 pm, parminder wrote: In any case, I request the leaderships of IGC, BB, APC and IRP colaition to let us know what there current position is on this issue, and what do they propose to do since it seems that things are going in the direction that they did not want them to go.. Just speaking personally for now, while I remain skeptical about 1net, I am content with the position that Ian has described, that the coordinating group will be responsible for the nominations, and the 1net committee will just be a conduit. I don't see much "value add" there, but neither do I see grave harm. -- 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 wjdrake at gmail.com Sat Dec 28 04:28:52 2013 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 10:28:52 +0100 Subject: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Thanks Parminder, glad we are able to agree on this. But further to the question of being clear about who’s speaking, I guess I also don’t understand why you’re only asking for the views of the leaderships of these networks? Undoubtedly there are varying views among their memberships about whether CS should present its nominations to the conference committees in the same way as other stakeholders, as the LOG has asked us to do for simplicity’s sake. Surely you’re not suggesting that the leaders should just take whatever stances they want because their memberships have varying views (well, Best Bits doesn’t actually have members to represent, but whatever). While I’m not trying to initiate another long and needlessly divisive thread about representational modalities, I don’t think continuing down this road will be helpful to anyone. FWIW my view remains that if the networks involved refuse to work through the 1net mechanism to channel nominations to the Brazilians, they should not have taken positions on the 1net coordination committee, which to date has one identifiable function— channeling nominations to the Brazilians. If the view is that because its launch and initial expiation were not handled well 1net therefore has no legitimacy as a channel, then the networks shouldn’t lend it legitimacy and should resign from its coordination committee. I don’t share that view of 1net, but if someone else does they should behave according to their principles rather than trying to have it both ways. Best Bill On Dec 27, 2013, at 3:41 PM, parminder wrote: > > Ok, Bill, There was a category confusion here. Since we were/ are interacting within the IGC and BB space I meant simply 'our CS groups' here had made that decision. I agree that it is factually incorrect to say that it is a civil society decision. Should only say it is IGC plus BB plus APC plus IRP decision. I stand corrected. > > (Since I was writing to Carlos I was also mindful that Carlos knew exactly which groups put forward this position and will communicate accordingly...) > > In any case, I request the leaderships of IGC, BB, APC and IRP colaition to let us know what there current position is on this issue, and what do they propose to do since it seems that things are going in the direction that they did not want them to go.. > > parminder > > > > On Friday 27 December 2013 04:35 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >> On Dec 27, 2013, at 11:34 AM, parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> On Friday 27 December 2013 02:53 PM, William Drake wrote: >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> Small corrections please >>>> >>>> On Dec 27, 2013, at 9:48 AM, parminder wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Carlos >>>>> >>>>> I understand that the local organising group will meet in a few hours from now... >>>>> >>>>> I will request you to let them know that civil society groups >>>> >>>> Should read “some civil society groups”. Probably necessary to give their names so the message is understood properly. >>> >>> I understand that it is a decision of 4 CS organisations/ networks - IGC, BB, IRP and APC - which was sent in a written form to the Brazilians and I am only reiterating that decision... I understand that decision stand unless a counter decision is taken.. >> >> Well…As Nnenna and other have documented, IGC and BB are in fact the same people, and as BB is a voting platform with formal members it’s not clear how legitimately this position was adopted without a vote. IRP I thought was a multistakeholder coalition, is it not? I don’t recall what APC’s position was, would be good to have reconfirmation. Either way, not endorsing that approach is NCSG (almost 400 organization and individual members), Diplo (quite a lot), or various other CS networks and organizations engaged in IG. So you really are not in a position to issue grandiose totalizing proclamations on behalf of all global civil society. And FWIW, as both a founding IGC member and a BB attendee, I certainly I don’t recall an open and inclusive discussion in either setting about whether to stand aloof of the process the Brazilians are asking us to use (which I can’t believe we’re still debating). What I do remember is a few loud and aggressive voices demanding that this be the stance and nobody wanting to tangle. I also remember the very same people who denounced using 1net as the agreed aggregator of nominations and anything else then demanding to be appointed to its coordination committee, which is a pretty blatant bit of have your cake and eat it too incoherence. >> >> Anyway, it’s of course totally fine if there are groups that feel that on principle you will not interface with the Brazilian process in the manner the Brazilians have asked for. Then simply say who you are, and don’t pretend to speak for other parts of CS that don’t agree with you. >>> >>> However, if you and or others want that decision to be reversed, please indicate so, and we can gather opinions. >> >> I’m not asking you to change your view, I know you won’t. I’m asking you to please report accurately who supports your statement so that others of us don’t have to waste time issuing a public corrective. Such a process is not going to add luster to CS participation. >> >>> Otherwise please do not confuse people about what is an existing decision of key civil society groups… >> >> I’m not confusing people, you are. You are claiming, yet again, to be speaking for “civil society,” when you are not. It is a pretty major misrepresentation. >> >> BD >>> >>> parminder >>> >>>> >>>>> stand by their decision to communicate their nominees for various organising committees directly to the local organising group (LOG) ... All other kinds of communication from the civil society side >>>> >>>> from these members of the civil society ‘side’ >>>> >>>>> will also continue to be done from civil society side directly to the LOG, and later, as appropriate to the relevant organising committees. We >>>> >>>> These civil society groups >>>> >>>> These amendments add some precision and avoid some of the unnecessary confusion that’s arisen. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>>> do not intend to mediate any such communication through 1Net or any such other group. >>>>> >>>>> I will add as a personal opinion that: Brazil/ CGI.Br has taken the political role of organising this important meeting; it cannot now shirk from the corresponding political responsibilities, by passing them on to others who have not been given the needed legitimacy. The world sees and approves Brazil as the host and organiser of this meeting, and it will be best if they are able to continue to do so. Any change of perception would have important bearing on the legitimacy and success of the meeting. >>>>> >>>>> I would also like to request LOG to give civil society Liaisons - the names being already communicated to them - equal status and involvement in your meetings and decisions as, apparently, is being given to some other non governmental groups. >>>>> >>>>> In this regard I also request the Liaisons to be in contact with the LOG, and also with us. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks and best regards >>>>> >>>>> Parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> >>>> ******************************************************************* >>>> 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 (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >>>> www.williamdrake.org >>>> ******************************************************************** >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ******************************************************************* >> 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 (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >> www.williamdrake.org >> ******************************************************************** >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Dec 28 04:58:07 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 15:28:07 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52BEA0AF.5010804@itforchange.net> On Saturday 28 December 2013 02:58 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Thanks Parminder, glad we are able to agree on this. > > But further to the question of being clear about who’s speaking, I > guess I also don’t understand why you’re only asking for the views of > the leaderships of these networks? Because they alone can either respond on the basis of already established views of the respective groups or initiate a process for establishing such views. > Undoubtedly there are varying views among their memberships about > whether CS should present its nominations to the conference committees > in the same way as other stakeholders, as the LOG has asked us to do > for simplicity’s sake. I dont see the alleged 'simplicity'. Simplicity consists in any nominating process writing directly to the email id of the local organising group which has been publicised. I see a clear layer of complexity being added by introducing 1Net into this process. And I read a huge political factor behind it. BTW, if it were just for 'simplicity's' sake it would also mean there was not much 'substantive' difference between one process and the other... In which case what do you have against CS directly corresponding with Brazilian organisers? > Surely you’re not suggesting that the leaders should just take > whatever stances they want because their memberships have varying > views (well, Best Bits doesn’t actually have members to represent, but > whatever). We agree. I have been telling BB guys this for a long time.. > While I’m not trying to initiate another long and needlessly divisive > thread about representational modalities, I don’t think continuing > down this road will be helpful to anyone. > > FWIW my view remains that if the networks involved refuse to work > through the 1net mechanism to channel nominations to the Brazilians, > they should not have taken positions on the 1net coordination > committee, which to date has one identifiable function— channeling > nominations to the Brazilians. You know, Bill. 1Net like one mystery novel of which no one is able to make out the plot... You say it has just one identifiable function that of channelling nominations. John Curran of the I* group, who was present at Montevedio when 1Net idea was born - recently said on the 1Net list that he doesnt know of any such function and 1Net is a discussion space (unless and until be becomes something else).... To be precise, let me quote John "At this point, until there is a seated 1net coordinating committee, I know of no mechanism for "1net" to even respond to the meeting organizers about its role (whatever that may be) ...." It is my opinion that majority of people here do not think what you say is 1Net's 'one identifiable function'. > If the view is that because its launch and initial expiation were not > handled well 1net therefore has no legitimacy as a channel, Whether 1Net should be or not the channel for CS role in Brazil meeting was extensively discussed among 'many' CS members in Bali, and also on IGC and BB lists... In fact I dont remember any opposition at all to the view that was adopted - that no, CS would like to engage directly with Brazilian on the Brazil meeting, and 4 mentioned CS groups - IGC, BB, IRP and APC signed on it. > then the networks shouldn’t lend it legitimacy and should resign from > its coordination committee. I don’t share that view of 1net, but if > someone else does they should behave according to their principles > rather than trying to have it both ways. I think those who are nominated/ slated to sit on the 1Net coordination committee from the CS side should answer this. They must certainly have some idea about what the purpose and function of 1Net is. I really hope they have some such idea.. And most of them were closely associated with developing the civil society position that I have been referring to. Parminder > > Best > > Bill > > > > > On Dec 27, 2013, at 3:41 PM, parminder > wrote: > >> >> Ok, Bill, There was a category confusion here. Since we were/ are >> interacting within the IGC and BB space I meant simply 'our CS >> groups' here had made that decision. I agree that it is factually >> incorrect to say that it is a civil society decision. Should only say >> it is IGC plus BB plus APC plus IRP decision. I stand corrected. >> >> (Since I was writing to Carlos I was also mindful that Carlos knew >> exactly which groups put forward this position and will communicate >> accordingly...) >> >> In any case, I request the leaderships of IGC, BB, APC and IRP >> colaition to let us know what there current position is on this >> issue, and what do they propose to do since it seems that things are >> going in the direction that they did not want them to go.. >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> On Friday 27 December 2013 04:35 PM, William Drake wrote: >>> >>> On Dec 27, 2013, at 11:34 AM, parminder >> > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Friday 27 December 2013 02:53 PM, William Drake wrote: >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> Small corrections please >>>>> >>>>> On Dec 27, 2013, at 9:48 AM, parminder >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear Carlos >>>>>> >>>>>> I understand that the local organising group will meet in a few >>>>>> hours from now... >>>>>> >>>>>> I will request you to let them know that civil society groups >>>>> >>>>> Should read “some civil society groups”. Probably necessary to >>>>> give their names so the message is understood properly. >>>> >>>> I understand that it is a decision of 4 CS organisations/ networks >>>> - IGC, BB, IRP and APC - which was sent in a written form to the >>>> Brazilians and I am only reiterating that decision... I understand >>>> that decision stand unless a counter decision is taken.. >>> >>> Well…As Nnenna and other have documented, IGC and BB are in fact the >>> same people, and as BB is a voting platform with formal members it’s >>> not clear how legitimately this position was adopted without a vote. >>> IRP I thought was a multistakeholder coalition, is it not? I don’t >>> recall what APC’s position was, would be good to have >>> reconfirmation. Either way, not endorsing that approach is NCSG >>> (almost 400 organization and individual members), Diplo (quite a >>> lot), or various other CS networks and organizations engaged in IG. >>> So you really are not in a position to issue grandiose totalizing >>> proclamations on behalf of all global civil society. And FWIW, as >>> both a founding IGC member and a BB attendee, I certainly I don’t >>> recall an open and inclusive discussion in either setting about >>> whether to stand aloof of the process the Brazilians are asking us >>> to use (which I can’t believe we’re still debating). What I do >>> remember is a few loud and aggressive voices demanding that this be >>> the stance and nobody wanting to tangle. I also remember the very >>> same people who denounced using 1net as the agreed aggregator of >>> nominations and anything else then demanding to be appointed to its >>> coordination committee, which is a pretty blatant bit of have your >>> cake and eat it too incoherence. >>> >>> Anyway, it’s of course totally fine if there are groups that feel >>> that on principle you will not interface with the Brazilian process >>> in the manner the Brazilians have asked for. Then simply say who >>> you are, and don’t pretend to speak for other parts of CS that don’t >>> agree with you. >>>> >>>> However, if you and or others want that decision to be reversed, >>>> please indicate so, and we can gather opinions. >>> >>> I’m not asking you to change your view, I know you won’t. I’m asking >>> you to please report accurately who supports your statement so that >>> others of us don’t have to waste time issuing a public corrective. >>> Such a process is not going to add luster to CS participation. >>> >>>> Otherwise please do not confuse people about what is an existing >>>> decision of key civil society groups… >>> >>> I’m not confusing people, you are. You are claiming, yet again, to >>> be speaking for “civil society,” when you are not. It is a pretty >>> major misrepresentation. >>> >>> BD >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> stand by their decision to communicate their nominees for various >>>>>> organising committees directly to the local organising group >>>>>> (LOG) ... All other kinds of communication from the civil society >>>>>> side >>>>> >>>>> from these members of the civil society ‘side’ >>>>> >>>>>> will also continue to be done from civil society side directly to >>>>>> the LOG, and later, as appropriate to the relevant organising >>>>>> committees. We >>>>> >>>>> These civil society groups >>>>> >>>>> These amendments add some precision and avoid some of the >>>>> unnecessary confusion that’s arisen. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>>> Bill >>>>> >>>>>> do not intend to mediate any such communication through 1Net or >>>>>> any such other group. >>>>>> >>>>>> I will add as a personal opinion that: Brazil/ CGI.Br has taken >>>>>> the political role of organising this important meeting; it >>>>>> cannot now shirk from the corresponding political >>>>>> responsibilities, by passing them on to others who have not been >>>>>> given the needed legitimacy. The world sees and approves Brazil >>>>>> as the host and organiser of this meeting, and it will be best if >>>>>> they are able to continue to do so. Any change of perception >>>>>> would have important bearing on the legitimacy and success of the >>>>>> meeting. >>>>>> >>>>>> I would also like to request LOG to give civil society Liaisons - >>>>>> the names being already communicated to them - equal status and >>>>>> involvement in your meetings and decisions as, apparently, is >>>>>> being given to some other non governmental groups. >>>>>> >>>>>> In this regard I also request the Liaisons to be in contact with >>>>>> the LOG, and also with us. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks and best regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Parminder >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ******************************************************************* >>>>> 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 (direct), >>>>> wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >>>>> www.williamdrake.org >>>>> ******************************************************************** >>>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ******************************************************************* >>> 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 (direct), >>> wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >>> www.williamdrake.org >>> ******************************************************************** >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dave at difference.com.au Sat Dec 28 05:27:11 2013 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 18:27:11 +0800 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <069b01cf02e1$3c7fcf60$b57f6e20$@gmail.com> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B858E4.9090902@ITforChange.net> <52B85DEF.9060807@acm.org> <52B97CEB.50806@acm.org> <039401cf00f9$793002c0$6b900840$@gmail.com> <37AF7CF8-469B-412B-8C43-CD982B76F33C@difference.com.au> <00ae01cf020c$0172af30$04580d90$@gmail.com> <069b01cf02e1$3c7fcf60$b57f6e20$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <12FD547B-F25D-4C1D-8BA7-EFBB5885797A@difference.com.au> On 27 Dec 2013, at 4:54 pm, michael gurstein wrote: > David, > > The sequence of activities as I understand them has been Sure, but I just want to make it clear that I responded to a specific series of suggestions about the specific issue of desirable nominating criteria. You may certainly infer if you wish that that discussion must by its context be assumed to be about the entirety of the committee selection process, and in particular the role of the CI list, but that wasn't my assumption. I personally think that the criteria I objected too remain bad ideas regardless of the context, or whether they advantage or disadvantage any particular group in this or another context. > 1. the creation of the CS "coordinating committee"--which was drawn from > certain CS groupings but not others... I have two problems with this, first > that the Best Bits coordinating group, a founding member of the CS CC, > itself is self-selected without due procedures or transparency; While the initial message best bits, this discussion seems to be on the governance list only. If your issue is with BB, it might be best discussed there. I personally have no strong feelings about the BB group, and have only recently joined that list - as should be clear, while I am happy to participate in IGC processes (and of course just served on the IGC MAG NomCom) most of my participation in broader civil society networks is via NCSG. > secondly > the CS coordinating committee did not appear to have any criteria for who > should be included in this grouping, and one moreover where I have made > several approaches on behalf of the Community Informatics network to be > included with no useful response (see my correspondence with Ian Peter and > Jeremy Malcolm in this regard. And while I disagree with some of your assertions, I think your position deserves some consideration. It remains, however, not really addressing the points I raised, which were about selection criteria more generally. I still personally think that the suggested idea by Guru, that we do NOT have the ability to cooperate with other civil society organisations as a criteria for representatives, remains a bad idea no matter what organisation it might apply too, while you have referred to that criteria disparagingly as the ability to 'play nice', so it appears that, regardless of the legitimacy of process, we have disagreements about what makes a good representative no matter how they are selected. > 2. this "coordinating committee" without any evident larger consultation > pulled some criteria out of the air for making its nominations for various > CS positions within the Brazil committee structure evidently designed > specifically to exclude the Community Informatics network. No matter the process of arriving at them, we can still judge whether they are good or bad. And as discussing the value of various suggested selection criteria is the only contribution I have made to the debate, I remain confused as to why you wish to lecture me about the general process (about which I have made few comments) while not addressing my specific criticisms. > 3. without any evident transparent or accountable process it proceeded to > make nominations in these regards and forward them to responsible parties. > > I'm not sure what happens when you pile an illegitimate process onto an > illegitimate process on top of a further illegitimate process but to my mind > the result is not one that any reasonable person should find acceptable > under any circumstances. So, you believe the CS CC selection criteria for participation in the Brazil committees are bad, because it is is an illegitimate process? Or are bad criteria, independent of the legitimacy of the process? But you have suggested that the CI group be included in this process, on two separate criteria (both as a CS group, and as an academic group). So my understanding of your position is that either the process is illegitimate, but would have been if the CI group was included, in which case the process would have gained some legitimately? Or that the process is illegitimate, but you wish to participate anyway? Or the Brazil process is not necessarily illegitimate, it is only some parts of the process (the CS CC committee, or just parts of it such as BB and IGC?) that are illegitimate, and you intend the CI group to bypass those processes and apply to 1net etc directly? And do you believe that the CS representative process would have become legitimate if it had included your CI group as one of those, or included the selection criteria you suggested? Or is it just a matter of the degree of illegitimacy? I'm sorry if that sounds an unnecessarily dismissive or pejorative characterisation of your views - I am genuinely confused as to what alternative process you believe would have been appropriate, legitimate, and expedient. I merely suggested that regardless of the process by which they were arrived at, I thought some of the changes to the selection criteria were a bad idea. > I know nothing about NCSG and can't comment on that... I'm quite familiar > with the IGC which, though it had significant faults, the lack of legitimate > processes was not one of them... Let me assure you that in NCSG we think about process a lot, and generally rely on elections or open elections for most office bearers, but there are times when a more ad hoc process is forced by circumstances, in which case we allow our elected representatives to come up with as legitimate a process as expediency allows (making such expedient decisions is, after all, one of the reasons we elected them). I'm certainly happy with those who have been chosen to represent NCSG so far. (I am currently an elected representative of the NCSG only for roles within ICANN, so I am not claiming any right to speak on their behalf regarding broader issues myself) > I know little about the internal activities > of either Diplo or APC although I have had very significant respect for > Diplo I know little about eithers internal processes, but have significant respect for both. > (and honestly I'm a bit tired of all this and will withdraw from future > discussion on these matters Well, me too, but in part because my contributions seem to have been met by messages that don't directly address my arguments, but vociferously raise different ones, Whether or not the process by which the selection criteria were decided should not make bad ideas good ones, nor good ones bad - we can judge the criteria independently from the process, surely? > as the CI network works towards making its own > nomination process and ultimately nominations. I wish the CI network all the best. I've recently joined the CI list (I only heard of it for the first time a few weeks ago, but I have some relevant academic interests, primarily in disability issues), and I will watch its processes with interest. Cheers David -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sat Dec 28 06:19:33 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 18:19:33 +0700 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees In-Reply-To: <12FD547B-F25D-4C1D-8BA7-EFBB5885797A@difference.com.au> References: <88A07EC6-71FC-498A-932E-80B84171C94F@ciroap.org> <52B80717.7020603@itforchange.net> <52B809B3.4060500@ciroap.org> <52B84583.3010500@acm.org> <52B858E4.9090902@ITforChange.net> <52B85DEF.9060807@acm.org> <52B97CEB.50806@acm.org> <039401cf00f9$793002c0$6b900840$@gmail.com> <37AF7CF8-469B-412B-8C43-CD982B76F33C@difference.com.au> <00ae01cf020c$0172af30$04580d90$@gmail.com> <069b01cf02e1$3c7fcf60$b57f6e20$@gmail.com> <12FD547B-F25D-4C1D-8BA7-EFBB5885797A@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <045401cf03be$b1db42c0$1591c840$@gmail.com> Hi David, Thanks for your comments, however, as I said in my earlier email I'm rather tired of this general discussion (not specifically with the discussion with you) as it doesn't lead to any useable outcomes; and given the circumstances my opinions on existing or possible criteria for selection by (let's brand it) "Coordinating Committee CS" (CC:CS)) doesn't really matter anymore (if it ever did)... Community Informatics insofar as it is active in the IG CS space will have its processes and criteria and CC:CS can use whatever criteria and processes that it chooses. Since you've joined the Community Informatics list (welcome!) you know that we've initiated some significant (nomination and other) processes there which I'm heavily involved in moving forward and which are taking most of my available time and attention and where I do see some productive outcomes. All the best and I look forward to your contributing and becoming part of the CI community. Although we've had spurts of activity in the disability area in the past and I know a number of CI folks are working with this as their focus we haven't really had any specific activities in that area recently. It is something that I think we/CI should be more active in as we move forward particularly of course focusing on (marginalized and other) communities as the framework and target for ICTs and support for the disabled. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of David Cake Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2013 5:27 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call to Best Bits participants for nominations to Brazil meeting committees On 27 Dec 2013, at 4:54 pm, michael gurstein wrote: > David, > > The sequence of activities as I understand them has been Sure, but I just want to make it clear that I responded to a specific series of suggestions about the specific issue of desirable nominating criteria. You may certainly infer if you wish that that discussion must by its context be assumed to be about the entirety of the committee selection process, and in particular the role of the CI list, but that wasn't my assumption. I personally think that the criteria I objected too remain bad ideas regardless of the context, or whether they advantage or disadvantage any particular group in this or another context. > 1. the creation of the CS "coordinating committee"--which was drawn > from certain CS groupings but not others... I have two problems with > this, first that the Best Bits coordinating group, a founding member > of the CS CC, itself is self-selected without due procedures or > transparency; While the initial message best bits, this discussion seems to be on the governance list only. If your issue is with BB, it might be best discussed there. I personally have no strong feelings about the BB group, and have only recently joined that list - as should be clear, while I am happy to participate in IGC processes (and of course just served on the IGC MAG NomCom) most of my participation in broader civil society networks is via NCSG. > secondly > the CS coordinating committee did not appear to have any criteria for > who should be included in this grouping, and one moreover where I have > made several approaches on behalf of the Community Informatics network > to be included with no useful response (see my correspondence with Ian > Peter and Jeremy Malcolm in this regard. And while I disagree with some of your assertions, I think your position deserves some consideration. It remains, however, not really addressing the points I raised, which were about selection criteria more generally. I still personally think that the suggested idea by Guru, that we do NOT have the ability to cooperate with other civil society organisations as a criteria for representatives, remains a bad idea no matter what organisation it might apply too, while you have referred to that criteria disparagingly as the ability to 'play nice', so it appears that, regardless of the legitimacy of process, we have disagreements about what makes a good representative no matter how they are selected. > 2. this "coordinating committee" without any evident larger > consultation pulled some criteria out of the air for making its > nominations for various CS positions within the Brazil committee > structure evidently designed specifically to exclude the Community Informatics network. No matter the process of arriving at them, we can still judge whether they are good or bad. And as discussing the value of various suggested selection criteria is the only contribution I have made to the debate, I remain confused as to why you wish to lecture me about the general process (about which I have made few comments) while not addressing my specific criticisms. > 3. without any evident transparent or accountable process it proceeded > to make nominations in these regards and forward them to responsible parties. > > I'm not sure what happens when you pile an illegitimate process onto > an illegitimate process on top of a further illegitimate process but > to my mind the result is not one that any reasonable person should > find acceptable under any circumstances. So, you believe the CS CC selection criteria for participation in the Brazil committees are bad, because it is is an illegitimate process? Or are bad criteria, independent of the legitimacy of the process? But you have suggested that the CI group be included in this process, on two separate criteria (both as a CS group, and as an academic group). So my understanding of your position is that either the process is illegitimate, but would have been if the CI group was included, in which case the process would have gained some legitimately? Or that the process is illegitimate, but you wish to participate anyway? Or the Brazil process is not necessarily illegitimate, it is only some parts of the process (the CS CC committee, or just parts of it such as BB and IGC?) that are illegitimate, and you intend the CI group to bypass those processes and apply to 1net etc directly? And do you believe that the CS representative process would have become legitimate if it had included your CI group as one of those, or included the selection criteria you suggested? Or is it just a matter of the degree of illegitimacy? I'm sorry if that sounds an unnecessarily dismissive or pejorative characterisation of your views - I am genuinely confused as to what alternative process you believe would have been appropriate, legitimate, and expedient. I merely suggested that regardless of the process by which they were arrived at, I thought some of the changes to the selection criteria were a bad idea. > I know nothing about NCSG and can't comment on that... I'm quite > familiar with the IGC which, though it had significant faults, the > lack of legitimate processes was not one of them... Let me assure you that in NCSG we think about process a lot, and generally rely on elections or open elections for most office bearers, but there are times when a more ad hoc process is forced by circumstances, in which case we allow our elected representatives to come up with as legitimate a process as expediency allows (making such expedient decisions is, after all, one of the reasons we elected them). I'm certainly happy with those who have been chosen to represent NCSG so far. (I am currently an elected representative of the NCSG only for roles within ICANN, so I am not claiming any right to speak on their behalf regarding broader issues myself) > I know little about the internal activities of either Diplo or APC > although I have had very significant respect for Diplo I know little about eithers internal processes, but have significant respect for both. > (and honestly I'm a bit tired of all this and will withdraw from > future discussion on these matters Well, me too, but in part because my contributions seem to have been met by messages that don't directly address my arguments, but vociferously raise different ones, Whether or not the process by which the selection criteria were decided should not make bad ideas good ones, nor good ones bad - we can judge the criteria independently from the process, surely? > as the CI network works towards making its own nomination process and > ultimately nominations. I wish the CI network all the best. I've recently joined the CI list (I only heard of it for the first time a few weeks ago, but I have some relevant academic interests, primarily in disability issues), and I will watch its processes with interest. Cheers David -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Sat Dec 28 06:34:48 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 12:34:48 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52BEA0AF.5010804@itforchange.net> References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> <52BEA0AF.5010804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi P I knew our moment of agreement would be fleeting :-) Just to reply and then from there whatever whomever decides is fine by me. On Dec 28, 2013, at 10:58 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Saturday 28 December 2013 02:58 PM, William Drake wrote: >> Hi >> >> Thanks Parminder, glad we are able to agree on this. >> >> But further to the question of being clear about who’s speaking, I guess I also don’t understand why you’re only asking for the views of the leaderships of these networks? > > Because they alone can either respond on the basis of already established views of the respective groups or initiate a process for establishing such views. In Bali the initial presentation of 1net was problematic, you and few others were forcefully negative in response, and so the 30-odd people in the room rolled with it rather than arguing, which seemed advisable coming on the heels of the reportedly riotously confrontational IGC meeting that a bunch of people walked out of (which I alas had to miss). But there were certainly people there who didn’t agree then and probably don’t now, especially since the situation has become clearer over time. If again nobody wants to engage on the point fine, they missed last call at the bar, but it doesn’t seem right to simply assume that what a subset of folks thought two months ago commits everyone else now. > >> Undoubtedly there are varying views among their memberships about whether CS should present its nominations to the conference committees in the same way as other stakeholders, as the LOG has asked us to do for simplicity’s sake. > > I dont see the alleged 'simplicity'. Simplicity consists in any nominating process writing directly to the email id of the local organising group which has been publicised. I see a clear layer of complexity being added by introducing 1Net into this process. And I read a huge political factor behind it. > > BTW, if it were just for 'simplicity's' sake it would also mean there was not much 'substantive' difference between one process and the other... In which case what do you have against CS directly corresponding with Brazilian organisers? I don’t care what the networks involved decide as long as it is not characterized in a totalizing manner as the stance of CS generally. I’ve had people from other corners of the universe ask “why is CS refusing to participate in 1net” and have had to explain it is not, there are different groupings, blah blah blah…So I’m just asking for clarity on who’s speaking when statements are made. As to the LOG, I read their messages to date as to boiling down to a simplicity rationale, but if that’s the wrong word Carlos or Hartmut or whomever can explain what would be the right one. > >> Surely you’re not suggesting that the leaders should just take whatever stances they want because their memberships have varying views (well, Best Bits doesn’t actually have members to represent, but whatever). > > We agree. I have been telling BB guys this for a long time.. Twice in one day we agree? Break out the champagne! > >> While I’m not trying to initiate another long and needlessly divisive thread about representational modalities, I don’t think continuing down this road will be helpful to anyone. >> >> FWIW my view remains that if the networks involved refuse to work through the 1net mechanism to channel nominations to the Brazilians, they should not have taken positions on the 1net coordination committee, which to date has one identifiable function— channeling nominations to the Brazilians. > > You know, Bill. 1Net like one mystery novel of which no one is able to make out the plot... You say it has just one identifiable function that of channelling nominations. John Curran of the I* group, > who was present at Montevedio when 1Net idea was born - recently said on the 1Net list that he doesnt know of any such function and 1Net is a discussion space (unless and until be becomes something else).... To be precise, let me quote John > > "At this point, until there is a seated 1net coordinating committee, I know of no mechanism for "1net" to even respond to the meeting organizers about its role (whatever that may be) > …." John is obviously correct that until 1net has a seated CC, there’s no way for the CC to provide the LOG with names….? > > It is my opinion that majority of people here do not think what you say is 1Net's 'one identifiable function’. To my knowledge the only identifiable function the 1net CC has been asked to perform to date is to provide the LOG with names. Unlike you I am unable intuit the thinking of hundreds of people from the few bits of conversation about the CC’s function, so if people believe others have been agreed it’d be good to hear what these are. >> If the view is that because its launch and initial expiation were not handled well 1net therefore has no legitimacy as a channel, > > Whether 1Net should be or not the channel for CS role in Brazil meeting was extensively discussed among 'many' CS members in Bali, and also on IGC and BB lists... In fact I dont remember any opposition at all to the view that was adopted - that no, CS would like to engage directly with Brazilian on the Brazil meeting, and 4 mentioned CS groups - IGC, BB, IRP and APC signed on it. And if that’s still their position in light of events since Bali, great. But it’d be better to confirm than assume, no? > >> then the networks shouldn’t lend it legitimacy and should resign from its coordination committee. I don’t share that view of 1net, but if someone else does they should behave according to their principles rather than trying to have it both ways. > > I think those who are nominated/ slated to sit on the 1Net coordination committee from the CS side should answer this. They must certainly have some idea about what the purpose and function of 1Net is. I really hope they have some such idea.. And most of them were closely associated with developing the civil society position that I have been referring to. Sounds good. Cheers Bill > > > > > >> >> Best >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> >> On Dec 27, 2013, at 3:41 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> Ok, Bill, There was a category confusion here. Since we were/ are interacting within the IGC and BB space I meant simply 'our CS groups' here had made that decision. I agree that it is factually incorrect to say that it is a civil society decision. Should only say it is IGC plus BB plus APC plus IRP decision. I stand corrected. >>> >>> (Since I was writing to Carlos I was also mindful that Carlos knew exactly which groups put forward this position and will communicate accordingly...) >>> >>> In any case, I request the leaderships of IGC, BB, APC and IRP colaition to let us know what there current position is on this issue, and what do they propose to do since it seems that things are going in the direction that they did not want them to go.. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> On Friday 27 December 2013 04:35 PM, William Drake wrote: >>>> >>>> On Dec 27, 2013, at 11:34 AM, parminder wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Friday 27 December 2013 02:53 PM, William Drake wrote: >>>>>> Hi >>>>>> >>>>>> Small corrections please >>>>>> >>>>>> On Dec 27, 2013, at 9:48 AM, parminder wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Carlos >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I understand that the local organising group will meet in a few hours from now... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I will request you to let them know that civil society groups >>>>>> >>>>>> Should read “some civil society groups”. Probably necessary to give their names so the message is understood properly. >>>>> >>>>> I understand that it is a decision of 4 CS organisations/ networks - IGC, BB, IRP and APC - which was sent in a written form to the Brazilians and I am only reiterating that decision... I understand that decision stand unless a counter decision is taken.. >>>> >>>> Well…As Nnenna and other have documented, IGC and BB are in fact the same people, and as BB is a voting platform with formal members it’s not clear how legitimately this position was adopted without a vote. IRP I thought was a multistakeholder coalition, is it not? I don’t recall what APC’s position was, would be good to have reconfirmation. Either way, not endorsing that approach is NCSG (almost 400 organization and individual members), Diplo (quite a lot), or various other CS networks and organizations engaged in IG. So you really are not in a position to issue grandiose totalizing proclamations on behalf of all global civil society. And FWIW, as both a founding IGC member and a BB attendee, I certainly I don’t recall an open and inclusive discussion in either setting about whether to stand aloof of the process the Brazilians are asking us to use (which I can’t believe we’re still debating). What I do remember is a few loud and aggressive voices demanding that this be the stance and nobody wanting to tangle. I also remember the very same people who denounced using 1net as the agreed aggregator of nominations and anything else then demanding to be appointed to its coordination committee, which is a pretty blatant bit of have your cake and eat it too incoherence. >>>> >>>> Anyway, it’s of course totally fine if there are groups that feel that on principle you will not interface with the Brazilian process in the manner the Brazilians have asked for. Then simply say who you are, and don’t pretend to speak for other parts of CS that don’t agree with you. >>>>> >>>>> However, if you and or others want that decision to be reversed, please indicate so, and we can gather opinions. >>>> >>>> I’m not asking you to change your view, I know you won’t. I’m asking you to please report accurately who supports your statement so that others of us don’t have to waste time issuing a public corrective. Such a process is not going to add luster to CS participation. >>>> >>>>> Otherwise please do not confuse people about what is an existing decision of key civil society groups… >>>> >>>> I’m not confusing people, you are. You are claiming, yet again, to be speaking for “civil society,” when you are not. It is a pretty major misrepresentation. >>>> >>>> BD >>>>> >>>>> parminder >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> stand by their decision to communicate their nominees for various organising committees directly to the local organising group (LOG) ... All other kinds of communication from the civil society side >>>>>> >>>>>> from these members of the civil society ‘side’ >>>>>> >>>>>>> will also continue to be done from civil society side directly to the LOG, and later, as appropriate to the relevant organising committees. We >>>>>> >>>>>> These civil society groups >>>>>> >>>>>> These amendments add some precision and avoid some of the unnecessary confusion that’s arisen. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>>> Bill >>>>>> >>>>>>> do not intend to mediate any such communication through 1Net or any such other group. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I will add as a personal opinion that: Brazil/ CGI.Br has taken the political role of organising this important meeting; it cannot now shirk from the corresponding political responsibilities, by passing them on to others who have not been given the needed legitimacy. The world sees and approves Brazil as the host and organiser of this meeting, and it will be best if they are able to continue to do so. Any change of perception would have important bearing on the legitimacy and success of the meeting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would also like to request LOG to give civil society Liaisons - the names being already communicated to them - equal status and involvement in your meetings and decisions as, apparently, is being given to some other non governmental groups. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In this regard I also request the Liaisons to be in contact with the LOG, and also with us. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks and best regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Parminder >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ******************************************************************* >>>>>> 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 (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >>>>>> www.williamdrake.org >>>>>> ******************************************************************** >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> ******************************************************************* >>>> 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 (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >>>> www.williamdrake.org >>>> ******************************************************************** >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Sat Dec 28 07:48:47 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 13:48:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU In-Reply-To: References: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4A0C17AF-FCEF-467A-B01E-C815E066C17C@uzh.ch> Hi On Dec 27, 2013, at 5:23 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Hi Wolfgang, all, > > I very much share the concerns you raised, however I wonder if strategically the intergovernmental consultations on the modalities for the overall WSIS review can be separated from the modalities themselves. [see OP22 below] In other words, couldn't CS and other stakeholders take advantage of the fact that the modalities for the review haven't been decided yet and push for a CSTD WG-like structure to be the the outcome of the consultations that will be taking place early next year? > > 22. Decides to finalize the modalities for the overall review by the General Assembly of the implementation of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society, in accordance with paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda, as early as possible, but no later than the end of March 2014, and invites the President of the Assembly to appoint two co-facilitators to convene open intergovernmental consultations for that purpose; It’s beginning to look like 2003 all over again. Perhaps we should add to our fun projects by rebooting the CS Bureau, Content and Themes Group, and Plenary? It looks like the plenary list is still functioning and has received mail as late as February of this year...http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/ > > Perhaps it's optimistic to think an intergovernmental consultation could result in a more open prep-com process, but given that UNGA has created 2 MS WGs through CSTD in the last few years and that theis resolution reaffirms CSTD (through ECOSOC) as "the focal point in the system-wide follow-up" for WSIS (PP10), maybe it's worth a try? Yes a push would be needed, but then CS would have to be able to collaborate with other stakeholders, the suggestion of which is of course ideological, and a reflection of your false consciousness and co-optation by hegemonic power structures. Cheers Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Dec 28 08:24:26 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 18:54:26 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU In-Reply-To: <4A0C17AF-FCEF-467A-B01E-C815E066C17C@uzh.ch> References: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4A0C17AF-FCEF-467A-B01E-C815E066C17C@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <52BED10A.8030705@itforchange.net> On Saturday 28 December 2013 06:18 PM, William Drake wrote: SNIP > Yes a push would be needed, but then CS would have to be able to > collaborate with other stakeholders, the suggestion of which is of > course ideological, and a reflection of your false consciousness Well, depending on ones socio-economic location the consciousness may indeed be true :) > and co-optation by hegemonic power structures. Sitting cosily with big business reps (like the 5 recently proposed by BCCI for 1Net ) to oppose global public policy making can indeed be constructed as co-optation by hegemonic power structures. Surprising that having promoted development agenda in IG for years you fail to catch the basis of such very widespread, often even the dominant, perception in global civil society outside of the IG kinds. As for WSIS plus 10, I welcome WSIS plus 10 process on the lines WSIS was held. Almost everything good that has happened in global IG in the last 10 years can some way or the other be traced to the WSIS - that inter-governmental process with exemplary stakeholder participation. Best, parminder > > Cheers > > Bill > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Dec 28 10:42:08 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 11:42:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU In-Reply-To: <52BD8033.1050705@wzb.eu> References: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <52BD8033.1050705@wzb.eu> Message-ID: I agree with Jeanette. I would even go a little further. Why don't "we" - civil society - have a "meeting" too? I know we don't have funds to take people to Brazil or London or wherever, but we do have the Internet which we keep advocating as a potential solution to that type of challenge. We could stipulate a time (say the third week in January - from 19th). We must have someone - techier than I am - who can create a space?? We could publish a list of issues - which could be added to - and the conclusions reached so far by the people who have been considering those issues up to now. We could invite everyone who would like to come and participate. We could spend the selected week in intensive discussion to tease out a summary of our collective approach to the issues under discussion to give to whoever will finally "represent" us at these other meetings. If we find we can't agree we should at least have a clear idea of where we differ. Deirdre On 27 December 2013 09:27, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Am 27.12.13 11:38, schrieb "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang": > > Hi everybody >> >> I would prefer on this list a discussion on substance and the >> concrete CS contribution to the two envisaged outcome documents for >> the meeting in Brazil: 1. a declaration of principles and 2. a road >> map/plan of action. It is not a secondary issue how CS channels its >> ideas into the process, and we should be represented in a proper way >> in all committees respecting the special responsibilities of the >> local organizers. However, substance comes first and if we want to >> have a seat on the table, we have to demonstrate that we make >> substantial contributions and come with new, fresh, fair and workable >> ideas how to enhance and improve the IG processes in 2014 an beyond >> in the intersts of individual users based on our commitmenet to human >> rights and development. >> >> >> Since there seem to be several people who are tired of these big-ego > cultivating exchanges on this list, we could actually try to work on the > Andrew's compilation of contributions which he circulated on Dec 13. > (subject line: input into Brazil summit). There has been no substantive > response to this as far as I am aware of. > > The amount of text is a bit daunting and not easy to handle for a mailing > list. One way to go about this would be to decide with which section we > want to start and have someone drafting a shorter text out of all answers. > My suggestion would be to start with questions 3: > > What is the case for reform of these arrangements and on what grounds > (better protection of human rights and democracy, better representation > from global south etc) > and 4: > What existing proposals for reform are you aware of and how do they meet > the criteria for reform you set out in the previous question > > jeanette > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 pouzin at well.com Sat Dec 28 12:10:53 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 18:10:53 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:28 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Thanks Parminder, glad we are able to agree on this. > > [snip] > > > FWIW my view remains that if the networks involved refuse to work through > the 1net mechanism to channel nominations to the Brazilians, they should > not have taken positions on the 1net coordination committee, which to date > has one identifiable function— channeling nominations to the Brazilians. > If the view is that because its launch and initial expiation were not > handled well 1net therefore has no legitimacy as a channel, then the > networks shouldn’t lend it legitimacy and should resign from its > coordination committee. I don’t share that view of 1net, but if someone > else does they should behave according to their principles rather than > trying to have it both ways. > > *+ 2*Louis Best > > Bill > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Sat Dec 28 12:11:56 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 18:11:56 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <03e701cf03a1$71b59fa0$5520dee0$@gmail.com> References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> <03e701cf03a1$71b59fa0$5520dee0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: *+ 2* Louis - - - On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:50 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Hi Jeremy, > > > > I’m not quite sure who you are addressing with your message below, but if > is meant to be CS in IG as a whole perhaps it would be better to phrase > what you have written as “the coordinating group will be responsible for > “its” nominations” since as already noted the CI community has launched > its own nominating process and will be submitting nominations, to the > appropriate authority as that becomes clear, in parallel to those of CC-CS. > I would add that I agree with Parminder’s point that CS should not be going > through a third party for its nominations (this was generally, perhaps > universally, agreed to in Bali). > > > > As well, it should be noted that at this point precisely the provenance of > Inet is not clear. If Inet is a creature of ICANN then we, as CS overall > should be concerned since ICANN is not CS and may, because of its > activities and mandate have its own interests which it may be concerned to > pursue in this context as with others. If Inet is rather more linked to I* > then clearly we should not be passing our nominations through a body > organically linked to one of the other stakeholder groups. > > > > Mike > > > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: > bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Jeremy Malcolm > *Sent:* Friday, December 27, 2013 9:48 PM > *To:* parminder > *Cc:* William Drake; Governance; Carlos A. Afonso; Best Bits; Anriette > Esterhuysen > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR > meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 > > > > On 27 Dec 2013, at 10:41 pm, parminder wrote: > > > > In any case, I request the leaderships of IGC, BB, APC and IRP colaition > to let us know what there current position is on this issue, and what do > they propose to do since it seems that things are going in the direction > that they did not want them to go.. > > > > Just speaking personally for now, while I remain skeptical about 1net, I > am content with the position that Ian has described, that the coordinating > group will be responsible for the nominations, and the 1net committee will > just be a conduit. I don't see much "value add" there, but neither do I > see grave harm. > > > > -- > > > > *Dr Jeremy MalcolmSenior Policy OfficerConsumers 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 28 12:22:25 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 22:52:25 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52BF08D1.2080404@itforchange.net> This is some interesting congruence of views that is emerging.. Can we hope that that 'responsibility holders' among us - various committees, their heads, cocordinators of networks, our appointed Liaisons, etc come out with their views and stand on this issue..... parminder On Saturday 28 December 2013 10:40 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:28 AM, William Drake > wrote: > > Hi > > Thanks Parminder, glad we are able to agree on this. > > [snip] > > > FWIW my view remains that if the networks involved refuse to work > through the 1net mechanism to channel nominations to the > Brazilians, they should not have taken positions on the 1net > coordination committee, which to date has one identifiable > function— channeling nominations to the Brazilians. If the view > is that because its launch and initial expiation were not handled > well 1net therefore has no legitimacy as a channel, then the > networks shouldn’t lend it legitimacy and should resign from its > coordination committee. I don’t share that view of 1net, but if > someone else does they should behave according to their principles > rather than trying to have it both ways. > > *+ 2 > *Louis > > Best > > Bill > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Dec 28 12:31:42 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 23:01:42 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52BF08D1.2080404@itforchange.net> References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> <52BF08D1.2080404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52BF0AFE.6070601@itforchange.net> On Saturday 28 December 2013 10:52 PM, parminder wrote: > This is some interesting congruence of views that is emerging.. > > Can we hope that that 'responsibility holders' among us - various > committees, their heads, cocordinators of networks, our appointed > Liaisons, etc come out with their views and stand on this issue..... and yes, of course those selected through various processes for 1Net committees .... > > parminder > > On Saturday 28 December 2013 10:40 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:28 AM, William Drake > > wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> Thanks Parminder, glad we are able to agree on this. >> >> [snip] >> >> >> FWIW my view remains that if the networks involved refuse to work >> through the 1net mechanism to channel nominations to the >> Brazilians, they should not have taken positions on the 1net >> coordination committee, which to date has one identifiable >> function— channeling nominations to the Brazilians. If the view >> is that because its launch and initial expiation were not handled >> well 1net therefore has no legitimacy as a channel, then the >> networks shouldn’t lend it legitimacy and should resign from its >> coordination committee. I don’t share that view of 1net, but if >> someone else does they should behave according to their >> principles rather than trying to have it both ways. >> >> *+ 2 >> *Louis >> >> Best >> >> Bill >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Dec 28 12:53:17 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 23:23:17 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52BF0AFE.6070601@itforchange.net> References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> <52BF08D1.2080404@itforchange.net> <52BF0AFE.6070601@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52BF100D.7070006@itforchange.net> On the other hand, I also agree with Bill that this may be too important a matter to be decided just by the leadership of various CS groups. I propose that a vote be taken among membership of different groups here whether CS will like to deal directly with Brazilian hosts in the matter of participating in the Brazil meeting or go through the 1Net.. parminder On Saturday 28 December 2013 11:01 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Saturday 28 December 2013 10:52 PM, parminder wrote: >> This is some interesting congruence of views that is emerging.. >> >> Can we hope that that 'responsibility holders' among us - various >> committees, their heads, cocordinators of networks, our appointed >> Liaisons, etc come out with their views and stand on this issue..... > > and yes, of course those selected through various processes for 1Net > committees .... > >> >> parminder >> >> On Saturday 28 December 2013 10:40 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:28 AM, William Drake >> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> Thanks Parminder, glad we are able to agree on this. >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> >>> FWIW my view remains that if the networks involved refuse to >>> work through the 1net mechanism to channel nominations to the >>> Brazilians, they should not have taken positions on the 1net >>> coordination committee, which to date has one identifiable >>> function— channeling nominations to the Brazilians. If the >>> view is that because its launch and initial expiation were not >>> handled well 1net therefore has no legitimacy as a channel, then >>> the networks shouldn’t lend it legitimacy and should resign from >>> its coordination committee. I don’t share that view of 1net, >>> but if someone else does they should behave according to their >>> principles rather than trying to have it both ways. >>> >>> *+ 2 >>> *Louis >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Bill >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Dec 28 13:40:39 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 00:10:39 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52BF100D.7070006@itforchange.net> References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> <52BF08D1.2080404@itforchange.net> <52BF0AFE.6070601@itforchange.net> <52BF100D.7070006@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Seems to me that the proposal for an alternate forum, and this other one below, miss out on something. Has anybody at all advocating these moves asked the Brazilians whether they have the intent, bandwidth etc to deal with input from a multiplicity of fora / direct input sent by multiple different civil society, and by extension, industry, academia, groups representing other civil society that aren't necessarily the igov usual suspects, etc? --srs (iPad) > On 28-Dec-2013, at 23:23, parminder wrote: > > On the other hand, I also agree with Bill that this may be too important a matter to be decided just by the leadership of various CS groups. > > I propose that a vote be taken among membership of different groups here whether CS will like to deal directly with Brazilian hosts in the matter of participating in the Brazil meeting or go through the 1Net.. > > parminder > > >> On Saturday 28 December 2013 11:01 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> On Saturday 28 December 2013 10:52 PM, parminder wrote: >>> This is some interesting congruence of views that is emerging.. >>> >>> Can we hope that that 'responsibility holders' among us - various committees, their heads, cocordinators of networks, our appointed Liaisons, etc come out with their views and stand on this issue..... >> >> and yes, of course those selected through various processes for 1Net committees .... >> >>> >>> parminder >>> >>>> On Saturday 28 December 2013 10:40 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >>>>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:28 AM, William Drake wrote: >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Parminder, glad we are able to agree on this. >>>>> >>>>> [snip] >>>> >>>>> >>>>> FWIW my view remains that if the networks involved refuse to work through the 1net mechanism to channel nominations to the Brazilians, they should not have taken positions on the 1net coordination committee, which to date has one identifiable function— channeling nominations to the Brazilians. If the view is that because its launch and initial expiation were not handled well 1net therefore has no legitimacy as a channel, then the networks shouldn’t lend it legitimacy and should resign from its coordination committee. I don’t share that view of 1net, but if someone else does they should behave according to their principles rather than trying to have it both ways. >>>> + 2 >>>> Louis >>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> Bill > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Dec 28 14:16:36 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 06:16:36 +1100 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: <52BF100D.7070006@itforchange.net> References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> <52BF08D1.2080404@itforchange.net> <52BF0AFE.6070601@itforchange.net> <52BF100D.7070006@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I think it would be good to find out from our Brazilian representatives why this change happened before framing any reaction. There may be other dimensions we are unaware of. Ian From: parminder Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 4:53 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 On the other hand, I also agree with Bill that this may be too important a matter to be decided just by the leadership of various CS groups. I propose that a vote be taken among membership of different groups here whether CS will like to deal directly with Brazilian hosts in the matter of participating in the Brazil meeting or go through the 1Net.. parminder On Saturday 28 December 2013 11:01 PM, parminder wrote: On Saturday 28 December 2013 10:52 PM, parminder wrote: This is some interesting congruence of views that is emerging.. Can we hope that that 'responsibility holders' among us - various committees, their heads, cocordinators of networks, our appointed Liaisons, etc come out with their views and stand on this issue..... and yes, of course those selected through various processes for 1Net committees .... parminder On Saturday 28 December 2013 10:40 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:28 AM, William Drake wrote: Hi Thanks Parminder, glad we are able to agree on this. [snip] FWIW my view remains that if the networks involved refuse to work through the 1net mechanism to channel nominations to the Brazilians, they should not have taken positions on the 1net coordination committee, which to date has one identifiable function— channeling nominations to the Brazilians. If the view is that because its launch and initial expiation were not handled well 1net therefore has no legitimacy as a channel, then the networks shouldn’t lend it legitimacy and should resign from its coordination committee. I don’t share that view of 1net, but if someone else does they should behave according to their principles rather than trying to have it both ways. + 2 Louis Best Bill -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 28 23:30:03 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 10:00:03 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 In-Reply-To: References: <52BC7DC0.2010605@itforchange.net> <52BD2EAA.3090408@itforchange.net> <52BD3EED.2050709@itforchange.net> <855190B1-7012-4530-9147-D9D9418BB942@gmail.com> <52BD57AE.6010504@itforchange.net> <3CE0D58A-801F-4AEC-99B5-7AE33B3B3223@gmail.com> <52BD91AD.7090309@itforchange.net> <52BF08D1.2080404@itforchange.net> <52BF0AFE.6070601@itforchange.net> <52BF100D.7070006@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <52BFA54B.1090101@itforchange.net> On Sunday 29 December 2013 12:46 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > I think it would be good to find out from our Brazilian > representatives why this change happened before framing any reaction. > There may be other dimensions we are unaware of. > Ian Yes, I agree. But also, we should not be placated by any kind of superficial justification thrown our way ... We are supposed to representing 'the outsider' majority in these spaces, and need to stand up for our convictions... As is already evident, too many take IG civil society for granted, which is the reason this thing happened in the first place.. I really hope that sooner or later we will hear from our Brazilian Liaisons, among others. parminder > *From:* parminder > *Sent:* Sunday, December 29, 2013 4:53 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; > mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Re: [discuss] [governance] Report from the > BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013 > On the other hand, I also agree with Bill that this may be too > important a matter to be decided just by the leadership of various CS > groups. > > I propose that a vote be taken among membership of different groups > here whether CS will like to deal directly with Brazilian hosts in the > matter of participating in the Brazil meeting or go through the 1Net.. > > parminder > > > On Saturday 28 December 2013 11:01 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> On Saturday 28 December 2013 10:52 PM, parminder wrote: >>> This is some interesting congruence of views that is emerging.. >>> >>> Can we hope that that 'responsibility holders' among us - various >>> committees, their heads, cocordinators of networks, our appointed >>> Liaisons, etc come out with their views and stand on this issue..... >> >> and yes, of course those selected through various processes for 1Net >> committees .... >> >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> On Saturday 28 December 2013 10:40 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >>>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:28 AM, William Drake >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi >>>> Thanks Parminder, glad we are able to agree on this. >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>> FWIW my view remains that if the networks involved refuse to >>>> work through the 1net mechanism to channel nominations to the >>>> Brazilians, they should not have taken positions on the 1net >>>> coordination committee, which to date has one identifiable >>>> function— channeling nominations to the Brazilians. If the >>>> view is that because its launch and initial expiation were not >>>> handled well 1net therefore has no legitimacy as a channel, >>>> then the networks shouldn’t lend it legitimacy and should >>>> resign from its coordination committee. I don’t share that >>>> view of 1net, but if someone else does they should behave >>>> according to their principles rather than trying to have it >>>> both ways. >>>> >>>> *+ 2 >>>> *Louis >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Bill >>>> >>> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Sun Dec 29 00:21:15 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 06:21:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU In-Reply-To: References: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <52BD8033.1050705@wzb.eu> Message-ID: *+ 1* Deirdre's suggestion must be of interest to a sizable part of the CS. Many meetings of that ilk are held at local or national level. It would require more resources to reach an audience on a larger scale. A typical way to get started at minimum cost is a workshop organized by invitation as a rider in a well attended international conference where CS people are expected to flock together. Btw, São Paulo could be just that kind of opportunity. A critical size of CS people should show up, with an excellent organizational capacity. One might assume that a few meeting rooms would be made available by the local hosts. What do you think ? Louis - - - On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with Jeanette. > I would even go a little further. > Why don't "we" - civil society - have a "meeting" too? > I know we don't have funds to take people to Brazil or London or wherever, > but we do have the Internet which we keep advocating as a potential > solution to that type of challenge. > We could stipulate a time (say the third week in January - from 19th). We > must have someone - techier than I am - who can create a space?? We could > publish a list of issues - which could be added to - and the conclusions > reached so far by the people who have been considering those issues up to > now. We could invite everyone who would like to come and participate. > We could spend the selected week in intensive discussion to tease out a > summary of our collective approach to the issues under discussion to give > to whoever will finally "represent" us at these other meetings. If we find > we can't agree we should at least have a clear idea of where we differ. > Deirdre > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Dec 29 00:46:02 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 13:46:02 +0800 Subject: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU In-Reply-To: References: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <52BD8033.1050705@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <0156072A-D543-4850-ACD9-C4F861F656F9@ciroap.org> I may have omitted to mention on this list that with a bit of funding that I hope to confirm soon, IDEC (Brazilian consumer group) and Consumers International are proposing to host a Best Bits pre-meeting in São Paulo as a preparatory event for the Brazil meeting. So we aim to have more news on this early in the new year. -- 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 29 Dec 2013, at 1:21 pm, "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > > + 1 > > Deirdre's suggestion must be of interest to a sizable part of the CS. Many meetings of that ilk are held at local or national level. It would require more resources to reach an audience on a larger scale. A typical way to get started at minimum cost is a workshop organized by invitation as a rider in a well attended international conference where CS people are expected to flock together. > > Btw, São Paulo could be just that kind of opportunity. A critical size of CS people should show up, with an excellent organizational capacity. One might assume that a few meeting rooms would be made available by the local hosts. > > What do you think ? > > Louis > - - - > >> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> I agree with Jeanette. >> I would even go a little further. >> Why don't "we" - civil society - have a "meeting" too? >> I know we don't have funds to take people to Brazil or London or wherever, but we do have the Internet which we keep advocating as a potential solution to that type of challenge. >> We could stipulate a time (say the third week in January - from 19th). We must have someone - techier than I am - who can create a space?? We could publish a list of issues - which could be added to - and the conclusions reached so far by the people who have been considering those issues up to now. We could invite everyone who would like to come and participate. >> We could spend the selected week in intensive discussion to tease out a summary of our collective approach to the issues under discussion to give to whoever will finally "represent" us at these other meetings. If we find we can't agree we should at least have a clear idea of where we differ. >> Deirdre >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 29 02:34:53 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 14:34:53 +0700 Subject: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU In-Reply-To: References: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <52BD8033.1050705@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <07eb01cf0468$7af0e030$70d2a090$@gmail.com> I, we would support a big tent/inclusive event like that although for practical/logistics reasons I would see it as something more directly linked in time and place with the Brazil event (i.e. in Sao Paulo at the end of April) I’d also see what we could do to get local Brazil Community Informatics folks involved in organizing/supporting. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Deirdre Williams Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2013 10:42 PM To: Internet Governance; Jeanette Hofmann Subject: Re: [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU I agree with Jeanette. I would even go a little further. Why don't "we" - civil society - have a "meeting" too? I know we don't have funds to take people to Brazil or London or wherever, but we do have the Internet which we keep advocating as a potential solution to that type of challenge. We could stipulate a time (say the third week in January - from 19th). We must have someone - techier than I am - who can create a space?? We could publish a list of issues - which could be added to - and the conclusions reached so far by the people who have been considering those issues up to now. We could invite everyone who would like to come and participate. We could spend the selected week in intensive discussion to tease out a summary of our collective approach to the issues under discussion to give to whoever will finally "represent" us at these other meetings. If we find we can't agree we should at least have a clear idea of where we differ. Deirdre On 27 December 2013 09:27, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: Am 27.12.13 11:38, schrieb "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang": Hi everybody I would prefer on this list a discussion on substance and the concrete CS contribution to the two envisaged outcome documents for the meeting in Brazil: 1. a declaration of principles and 2. a road map/plan of action. It is not a secondary issue how CS channels its ideas into the process, and we should be represented in a proper way in all committees respecting the special responsibilities of the local organizers. However, substance comes first and if we want to have a seat on the table, we have to demonstrate that we make substantial contributions and come with new, fresh, fair and workable ideas how to enhance and improve the IG processes in 2014 an beyond in the intersts of individual users based on our commitmenet to human rights and development. Since there seem to be several people who are tired of these big-ego cultivating exchanges on this list, we could actually try to work on the Andrew's compilation of contributions which he circulated on Dec 13. (subject line: input into Brazil summit). There has been no substantive response to this as far as I am aware of. The amount of text is a bit daunting and not easy to handle for a mailing list. One way to go about this would be to decide with which section we want to start and have someone drafting a shorter text out of all answers. My suggestion would be to start with questions 3: What is the case for reform of these arrangements and on what grounds (better protection of human rights and democracy, better representation from global south etc) and 4: What existing proposals for reform are you aware of and how do they meet the criteria for reform you set out in the previous question jeanette ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Sun Dec 29 05:55:57 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 11:55:57 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU In-Reply-To: <52BED10A.8030705@itforchange.net> References: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4A0C17AF-FCEF-467A-B01E-C815E066C17C@uzh.ch> <52BED10A.8030705@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5E79A36C-9A81-4F87-8956-6A636F68930F@uzh.ch> Hi Parminder On Dec 28, 2013, at 2:24 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Saturday 28 December 2013 06:18 PM, William Drake wrote: > > SNIP > >> Yes a push would be needed, but then CS would have to be able to collaborate with other stakeholders, the suggestion of which is of course ideological, and a reflection of your false consciousness > > Well, depending on ones socio-economic location the consciousness may indeed be true :) > >> and co-optation by hegemonic power structures. > > Sitting cosily with big business reps (like the 5 recently proposed by BCCI for 1Net ) Uh, cosy is not me or “my ilk" sitting next to BCCI folks (nice people but different positions). Come to a GNSO Council meeting and watch actual MS negotiations over real decisions that impact the net and tell me how cosy everyone looks. Cosy is you (sans ilk) sitting next to the Indian and Saudi et al government dels in the WGEC, arguing for intergovernmentalism > multistakeholderism. Compared to us allegedly mindless compromised types, it’s like peas in a pod :-) > to oppose global public policy making I don’t. I oppose bad global public policy making undertaken in institutional environments that are designed to fail. > can indeed be constructed as co-optation by hegemonic power structures. Surprising that having promoted development agenda in IG for years you fail to catch the basis of such very widespread, often even the dominant, perception in global civil society outside of the IG kinds. 'Fail to catch' and 'do not agree' are two different things. I admit I lack your ability to intuit the dominant perceptions in global civil society outside of the IG kinds on matters that have never been discussed with them. But I can tell you from empirical lived experience that the CS actors of the IG kind that I collaborate with don’t appear to forgot their positions simply by working with stakeholders holding to other positions. That certainly didn’t happen to in the course of pushing IG4D onto the IGF main session agenda (although I recognize we have different takes on what policies and action would best advance development). > > As for WSIS plus 10, I welcome WSIS plus 10 process on the lines WSIS was held. So you want us to be locked out of rooms again, shouted down again, and ultimately grudgingly consigned to five minutes at the end of a session for joint statements again? If I may borrow your channeling tools, I don’t think that’s the dominant desire of global civil society. > Almost everything good that has happened in global IG in the last 10 years can some way or the other be traced to the WSIS - that inter-governmental process with exemplary stakeholder participation. You might consider going to some meetings that are not organized under UN auspices. Or do you believe that nothing good has ever happened in ICANN, IETF, etc? Cheers Bill > > Best, parminder > > >> >> Cheers >> >> Bill >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 29 06:38:13 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 17:08:13 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Brazil, WSIS 10+ and ITU In-Reply-To: <5E79A36C-9A81-4F87-8956-6A636F68930F@uzh.ch> References: <52BC70C4.70808@itforchange.net> <52BC7408.8060902@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133232D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4A0C17AF-FCEF-467A-B01E-C815E066C17C@uzh.ch> <52BED10A.8030705@itforchange.net> <5E79A36C-9A81-4F87-8956-6A636F68930F@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <248B81D7-69CC-458D-9FD8-8540D6A0F824@hserus.net> Very true. Funny when a GONGO keeps trying to speak for all of CS, and then accuses other civil society people / groups of being co opted by big business. --srs (iPad) > On 29-Dec-2013, at 16:25, William Drake wrote: > > Hi Parminder > >> On Dec 28, 2013, at 2:24 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> >> On Saturday 28 December 2013 06:18 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >> SNIP >> >>> Yes a push would be needed, but then CS would have to be able to collaborate with other stakeholders, the suggestion of which is of course ideological, and a reflection of your false consciousness >> >> Well, depending on ones socio-economic location the consciousness may indeed be true :) >> >>> and co-optation by hegemonic power structures. >> >> Sitting cosily with big business reps (like the 5 recently proposed by BCCI for 1Net ) > > Uh, cosy is not me or “my ilk" sitting next to BCCI folks (nice people but different positions). Come to a GNSO Council meeting and watch actual MS negotiations over real decisions that impact the net and tell me how cosy everyone looks. Cosy is you (sans ilk) sitting next to the Indian and Saudi et al government dels in the WGEC, arguing for intergovernmentalism > multistakeholderism. Compared to us allegedly mindless compromised types, it’s like peas in a pod :-) > >> to oppose global public policy making > > I don’t. I oppose bad global public policy making undertaken in institutional environments that are designed to fail. > >> can indeed be constructed as co-optation by hegemonic power structures. Surprising that having promoted development agenda in IG for years you fail to catch the basis of such very widespread, often even the dominant, perception in global civil society outside of the IG kinds. > > 'Fail to catch' and 'do not agree' are two different things. I admit I lack your ability to intuit the dominant perceptions in global civil society outside of the IG kinds on matters that have never been discussed with them. But I can tell you from empirical lived experience that the CS actors of the IG kind that I collaborate with don’t appear to forgot their positions simply by working with stakeholders holding to other positions. That certainly didn’t happen to in the course of pushing IG4D onto the IGF main session agenda (although I recognize we have different takes on what policies and action would best advance development). >> >> As for WSIS plus 10, I welcome WSIS plus 10 process on the lines WSIS was held. > > So you want us to be locked out of rooms again, shouted down again, and ultimately grudgingly consigned to five minutes at the end of a session for joint statements again? If I may borrow your channeling tools, I don’t think that’s the dominant desire of global civil society. > >> Almost everything good that has happened in global IG in the last 10 years can some way or the other be traced to the WSIS - that inter-governmental process with exemplary stakeholder participation. > > You might consider going to some meetings that are not organized under UN auspices. Or do you believe that nothing good has ever happened in ICANN, IETF, etc? > > Cheers > > Bill >> >> Best, parminder >> >> >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Bill >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Dec 29 16:01:01 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 04:01:01 +0700 Subject: [governance] Spiegel: Inside TAO: Documents Reveal Top NSA Hacking Unit Message-ID: <00af01cf04d9$16446870$42cd3950$@gmail.com> 29-12-13 19:42 Inside TAO: Documents Reveal Top NSA Hacking Unit - Part 3: The NSA's Shadow Network: spiegel.de/international/… via -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Dec 30 00:05:33 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 16:05:33 +1100 Subject: [governance] Input needed - criteria for CS Coordination Group Message-ID: <7BFB3F646F374FE5833D67CB95E8804F@Toshiba> Sorry to initiate a process discussion but I think it is important we move on on this particular issue. I’m starting this discussion to get wider input into how civil society people think it would be appropriate to expand the current co ordination group. To date, this debate has largely been about people thinking they should be included rather than any formal criteria to ensure that the group is representative while still staying at a reasonable size. The group came into existence out of a need for civil society groups to work together to nominate representatives for various forums; originally for 1net and Brazil events, but certainly with thoughts of IGF MAG as well in the future. Currently included (in no particular order) are the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN (NCSG), and (pending new coordinator elections) the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). Remember, these are criteria for a co-ordination group concerned with internet governance matters. Optimal membership levels may be about 9, I think, but certainly well less than 20. So how do we choose? Criteria discussed so far include: 1. Is a coalition which is globally representative - all regions covered? 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to business)? 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, business or government in its categorization? 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one of the existing members? 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent and accountable to its members. Other suggestions have been discussed from time to time and I invite others to make up for any omissions here. An additional criteria that might be useful would be a reference to having a substantial current involvement in and knowledge of internet governance debates. That however might not be acceptable to all – but for me, the criteria as they stand would be open to approaches from YWCA, Medicin sans Frontieres, Pirate Parties International, Red Cross, Amnesty International, CONGO, Creative Commons, International Commission of Jurists,etc. All good groups, and it would be great to see them involved here, but the question is whether the presence of all of them would be useful for a small working co-ordination group on matters specific to internet governance. This along with other suggestions should be discussed. Interested in any thoughts relevant to refining this into a workable set of criteria for expanding a small co-ordination group, the members of which will be different coalitions of civil society organisations who will want to maintain their independence while working together. One thought that has been raised is to look at rotation of members, or perhaps a combination of permanent and rotating members. So I am just opening this up for conversation to see what people think. Please this is a discussion about criteria, not about individual groups and their cases to be involved. Ian Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nnenna75 at gmail.com Mon Dec 30 04:34:24 2013 From: nnenna75 at gmail.com (Nnenna Nwakanma) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 09:34:24 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Input needed - criteria for CS Coordination Group In-Reply-To: <7BFB3F646F374FE5833D67CB95E8804F@Toshiba> References: <7BFB3F646F374FE5833D67CB95E8804F@Toshiba> Message-ID: Hi Ian Dunno how many of our folks are still doing mails this late in the year. My original understanding was that networks = organisations or platforms that are actually a gathering of other organisations.. are the ones to be repped in the group. My understanding was therefore, that there reps will help disseminate information in those networks and network members will take the calls further down. There is the Web We Want group, which has hit membership in the hundreds, of organisations in about 2 years. They are basically organisations that advocate for online freedoms, openness of the Internet and certain human rights. Does WWW qualify? Maybe yes, maybe no, but some WWW members can easily take any "call for nomination" and forward to the list. Does WWW necessarily need to be in the Coordinating group to do that? I think "No". I'm not sure about having "substantial current involvement" but I will definitely say having "broad-based and historic involvement" in an issue, where the perspectives of such an organization will provide knowledge in areas of IG that current group reps are not very knowledgeable about... will be welcome. Best regards Nnenna On 12/30/13, Ian Peter wrote: > Sorry to initiate a process discussion but I think it is important we move > on on this particular issue. > > > > I’m starting this discussion to get wider input into how civil society > people think it would be appropriate to expand the current co ordination > group. To date, this debate has largely been about people thinking they > should be included rather than any formal criteria to ensure that the group > is representative while still staying at a reasonable size. > > The group came into existence out of a need for civil society groups to work > together to nominate representatives for various forums; originally for 1net > and Brazil events, but certainly with thoughts of IGF MAG as well in the > future. Currently included (in no particular order) are the Association for > Progressive Communications (APC), Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the > Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN (NCSG), and (pending new > coordinator elections) the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). > > Remember, these are criteria for a co-ordination group concerned with > internet governance matters. Optimal membership levels may be about 9, I > think, but certainly well less than 20. > > > > So how do we choose? > > > > Criteria discussed so far include: > > > > 1. Is a coalition which is globally representative - all regions > covered? > > > > 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to > business)? > > > 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, business > or government in its categorization? > > > > > 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one of > the existing members? > > > > > 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent and > accountable to its members. > > > > Other suggestions have been discussed from time to time and I invite others > to make up for any omissions here. > > > > An additional criteria that might be useful would be a reference to having a > substantial current involvement in and knowledge of internet governance > debates. That however might not be acceptable to all – but for me, the > criteria as they stand would be open to approaches from YWCA, Medicin sans > Frontieres, Pirate Parties International, Red Cross, Amnesty International, > CONGO, Creative Commons, International Commission of Jurists,etc. All good > groups, and it would be great to see them involved here, but the question is > whether the presence of all of them would be useful for a small working > co-ordination group on matters specific to internet governance. This along > with other suggestions should be discussed. > > > > > > Interested in any thoughts relevant to refining this into a workable set of > criteria for expanding a small co-ordination group, the members of which > will be different coalitions of civil society organisations who will want to > maintain their independence while working together. One thought that has > been raised is to look at rotation of members, or perhaps a combination of > permanent and rotating members. > > > > So I am just opening this up for conversation to see what people think. > Please this is a discussion about criteria, not about individual groups and > their cases to be involved. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Dec 30 04:56:06 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 14:56:06 +0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Input needed - criteria for CS Coordination Group In-Reply-To: References: <7BFB3F646F374FE5833D67CB95E8804F@Toshiba> Message-ID: Some of the challenges I see with a larger representation group is the emergence of internal politics within such a group if it was beyond the traditional remit. Similarly the voluntary and non-profit nature of some groups is so diversified that they are either very large and strong within the global context in the sense of their outreach and membership or are small loosely connect online/offline community groups working in the context of only their country, region or smaller town/district/village. The balance cannot be achieved at all and there is an evident possibility that the coordination group can be taken over by different people from different non-profits but members of the same larger or global civil society group so this is a double edged issue. Personally speaking I would only explore a model where we had one rep from each continent and more based on its size and on a yearly rotating basis so that any larger coordination group would never fall pray to groupings though this is impossible. For example, we would need atleast 3 reps for Asia, one from ME, one from SA and one from AP, two from Australasia, 3 from Africa, 2 from EU/EE, 4 from Africa, 2 from Latin America, 2 from North America and Canada etc. with risk that It really would turn into another IGF group within the IGC. Consensus maybe achieved but then IGC would not be IGC anymore. The relevant and prevalent problems at the moment are that there are never seen hardliners and there are people that want to contribute but fierceness and irrelevance of issues to the developing context provoke us to keep silent and observant while continuing to ready to play our role and share our contributions when the need arises. Saying this, it might actually turn into a bad idea. On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: > Hi Ian > > Dunno how many of our folks are still doing mails this late in the > year. My original understanding was that networks = organisations or > platforms that are actually a gathering of other organisations.. are > the ones to be repped in the group. My understanding was therefore, > that there reps will help disseminate information in those networks > and network members will take the calls further down. > > There is the Web We Want group, which has hit membership in the > hundreds, of organisations in about 2 years. They are basically > organisations that advocate for online freedoms, openness of the > Internet and certain human rights. Does WWW qualify? Maybe yes, > maybe no, but some WWW members can easily take any "call for > nomination" and forward to the list. Does WWW necessarily need to be > in the Coordinating group to do that? I think "No". > > I'm not sure about having "substantial current involvement" but I will > definitely say having "broad-based and historic involvement" in an > issue, where the perspectives of such an organization will provide > knowledge in areas of IG that current group reps are not very > knowledgeable about... will be welcome. > > Best regards > > Nnenna > > On 12/30/13, Ian Peter wrote: >> Sorry to initiate a process discussion but I think it is important we move >> on on this particular issue. >> >> >> >> I’m starting this discussion to get wider input into how civil society >> people think it would be appropriate to expand the current co ordination >> group. To date, this debate has largely been about people thinking they >> should be included rather than any formal criteria to ensure that the group >> is representative while still staying at a reasonable size. >> >> The group came into existence out of a need for civil society groups to work >> together to nominate representatives for various forums; originally for 1net >> and Brazil events, but certainly with thoughts of IGF MAG as well in the >> future. Currently included (in no particular order) are the Association for >> Progressive Communications (APC), Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the >> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN (NCSG), and (pending new >> coordinator elections) the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). >> >> Remember, these are criteria for a co-ordination group concerned with >> internet governance matters. Optimal membership levels may be about 9, I >> think, but certainly well less than 20. >> >> >> >> So how do we choose? >> >> >> >> Criteria discussed so far include: >> >> >> >> 1. Is a coalition which is globally representative - all regions >> covered? >> >> >> >> 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to >> business)? >> >> >> 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, business >> or government in its categorization? >> >> >> >> >> 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one of >> the existing members? >> >> >> >> >> 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent and >> accountable to its members. >> >> >> >> Other suggestions have been discussed from time to time and I invite others >> to make up for any omissions here. >> >> >> >> An additional criteria that might be useful would be a reference to having a >> substantial current involvement in and knowledge of internet governance >> debates. That however might not be acceptable to all – but for me, the >> criteria as they stand would be open to approaches from YWCA, Medicin sans >> Frontieres, Pirate Parties International, Red Cross, Amnesty International, >> CONGO, Creative Commons, International Commission of Jurists,etc. All good >> groups, and it would be great to see them involved here, but the question is >> whether the presence of all of them would be useful for a small working >> co-ordination group on matters specific to internet governance. This along >> with other suggestions should be discussed. >> >> >> >> >> >> Interested in any thoughts relevant to refining this into a workable set of >> criteria for expanding a small co-ordination group, the members of which >> will be different coalitions of civil society organisations who will want to >> maintain their independence while working together. One thought that has >> been raised is to look at rotation of members, or perhaps a combination of >> permanent and rotating members. >> >> >> >> So I am just opening this up for conversation to see what people think. >> Please this is a discussion about criteria, not about individual groups and >> their cases to be involved. >> >> >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Dec 30 04:58:33 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 14:58:33 +0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Input needed - criteria for CS Coordination Group In-Reply-To: References: <7BFB3F646F374FE5833D67CB95E8804F@Toshiba> Message-ID: Typo in the second last paragraph where it says "with risk that It really would turn into another IGF group within the IGC." IGF needs to be read as IGC as: 'with risk that It really would turn into another ""IGC"" group within the IGC.' On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Some of the challenges I see with a larger representation group is the > emergence of internal politics within such a group if it was beyond > the traditional remit. Similarly the voluntary and non-profit nature > of some groups is so diversified that they are either very large and > strong within the global context in the sense of their outreach and > membership or are small loosely connect online/offline community > groups working in the context of only their country, region or smaller > town/district/village. > > The balance cannot be achieved at all and there is an evident > possibility that the coordination group can be taken over by different > people from different non-profits but members of the same larger or > global civil society group so this is a double edged issue. > > Personally speaking I would only explore a model where we had one rep > from each continent and more based on its size and on a yearly > rotating basis so that any larger coordination group would never fall > pray to groupings though this is impossible. For example, we would > need atleast 3 reps for Asia, one from ME, one from SA and one from > AP, two from Australasia, 3 from Africa, 2 from EU/EE, 4 from Africa, > 2 from Latin America, 2 from North America and Canada etc. with risk > that It really would turn into another IGF group within the IGC. > > Consensus maybe achieved but then IGC would not be IGC anymore. The > relevant and prevalent problems at the moment are that there are never > seen hardliners and there are people that want to contribute but > fierceness and irrelevance of issues to the developing context provoke > us to keep silent and observant while continuing to ready to play our > role and share our contributions when the need arises. > > Saying this, it might actually turn into a bad idea. > > > On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >> Hi Ian >> >> Dunno how many of our folks are still doing mails this late in the >> year. My original understanding was that networks = organisations or >> platforms that are actually a gathering of other organisations.. are >> the ones to be repped in the group. My understanding was therefore, >> that there reps will help disseminate information in those networks >> and network members will take the calls further down. >> >> There is the Web We Want group, which has hit membership in the >> hundreds, of organisations in about 2 years. They are basically >> organisations that advocate for online freedoms, openness of the >> Internet and certain human rights. Does WWW qualify? Maybe yes, >> maybe no, but some WWW members can easily take any "call for >> nomination" and forward to the list. Does WWW necessarily need to be >> in the Coordinating group to do that? I think "No". >> >> I'm not sure about having "substantial current involvement" but I will >> definitely say having "broad-based and historic involvement" in an >> issue, where the perspectives of such an organization will provide >> knowledge in areas of IG that current group reps are not very >> knowledgeable about... will be welcome. >> >> Best regards >> >> Nnenna >> >> On 12/30/13, Ian Peter wrote: >>> Sorry to initiate a process discussion but I think it is important we move >>> on on this particular issue. >>> >>> >>> >>> I’m starting this discussion to get wider input into how civil society >>> people think it would be appropriate to expand the current co ordination >>> group. To date, this debate has largely been about people thinking they >>> should be included rather than any formal criteria to ensure that the group >>> is representative while still staying at a reasonable size. >>> >>> The group came into existence out of a need for civil society groups to work >>> together to nominate representatives for various forums; originally for 1net >>> and Brazil events, but certainly with thoughts of IGF MAG as well in the >>> future. Currently included (in no particular order) are the Association for >>> Progressive Communications (APC), Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the >>> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN (NCSG), and (pending new >>> coordinator elections) the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). >>> >>> Remember, these are criteria for a co-ordination group concerned with >>> internet governance matters. Optimal membership levels may be about 9, I >>> think, but certainly well less than 20. >>> >>> >>> >>> So how do we choose? >>> >>> >>> >>> Criteria discussed so far include: >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. Is a coalition which is globally representative - all regions >>> covered? >>> >>> >>> >>> 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to >>> business)? >>> >>> >>> 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, business >>> or government in its categorization? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one of >>> the existing members? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent and >>> accountable to its members. >>> >>> >>> >>> Other suggestions have been discussed from time to time and I invite others >>> to make up for any omissions here. >>> >>> >>> >>> An additional criteria that might be useful would be a reference to having a >>> substantial current involvement in and knowledge of internet governance >>> debates. That however might not be acceptable to all – but for me, the >>> criteria as they stand would be open to approaches from YWCA, Medicin sans >>> Frontieres, Pirate Parties International, Red Cross, Amnesty International, >>> CONGO, Creative Commons, International Commission of Jurists,etc. All good >>> groups, and it would be great to see them involved here, but the question is >>> whether the presence of all of them would be useful for a small working >>> co-ordination group on matters specific to internet governance. This along >>> with other suggestions should be discussed. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Interested in any thoughts relevant to refining this into a workable set of >>> criteria for expanding a small co-ordination group, the members of which >>> will be different coalitions of civil society organisations who will want to >>> maintain their independence while working together. One thought that has >>> been raised is to look at rotation of members, or perhaps a combination of >>> permanent and rotating members. >>> >>> >>> >>> So I am just opening this up for conversation to see what people think. >>> Please this is a discussion about criteria, not about individual groups and >>> their cases to be involved. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 -- 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 wjdrake at gmail.com Mon Dec 30 05:38:52 2013 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 11:38:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Input needed - criteria for CS Coordination Group In-Reply-To: <7BFB3F646F374FE5833D67CB95E8804F@Toshiba> References: <7BFB3F646F374FE5833D67CB95E8804F@Toshiba> Message-ID: <9BBE8525-517E-4068-9544-B7FE89CC2887@gmail.com> Hi Ian Thanks for this > On Dec 30, 2013, at 6:05 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Criteria discussed so far include: > > 1. Is a coalition which is globally representative - all regions covered? > 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to business)? > 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, business or government in its categorization? > > 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one of the existing members? > 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent and accountable to its members. > > Other suggestions have been discussed from time to time and I invite others to make up for any omissions here. > An additional criteria that might be useful would be a reference to having a substantial current involvement in and knowledge of internet governance debates. That however might not be acceptable to all – but for me, the criteria as they stand would be open to approaches from YWCA, Medicin sans Frontieres, Pirate Parties International, Red Cross, Amnesty International, CONGO, Creative Commons, International Commission of Jurists,etc. All good groups, and it would be great to see them involved here, but the question is whether the presence of all of them would be useful for a small working co-ordination group on matters specific to internet governance. This along with other suggestions should be discussed. I’m hard pressed to understand on what grounds your last suggestion would be unacceptable; frankly, one could argue it should be the first criteria. Networks wanting to claim leadership roles in a network of networks focused on global IG should actually be involved in global IG. Such involvement should be empirically verifiable—there should be some way to ascertain, other than through the applicants’ insistent assertions, that participants have demonstrated their interest and expertise on xyz GIG issues and participated in xyz GIG processes, release xyz position statements, something….there’s ought be a digital paper trail. Absent this, you we might as well invite the Global Donkey Association to apply. Best Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Dec 30 06:14:35 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 12:14:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Input needed - criteria for CS Coordination Group In-Reply-To: <7BFB3F646F374FE5833D67CB95E8804F@Toshiba> References: <7BFB3F646F374FE5833D67CB95E8804F@Toshiba> Message-ID: <20131230121435.0995dab5@quill> Ian Peter wrote: > Remember, these are criteria for a co-ordination group concerned with > internet governance matters. Optimal membership levels may be about > 9, I think, but certainly well less than 20. I would suggest that if there are more networks with a viable claim that they should be included than seats in a reasonably-sized committee, those networks should still be accepted as members of the coordination group, and the practical problem could be addressed e.g. by forming an “executive committee” with rotating membership. > So how do we choose? > > Criteria discussed so far include: > > 1. Is a coalition which is globally representative - all > regions covered? > > 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as > opposed to business)? > > 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, > business or government in its categorization? > > 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by > one of the existing members? > > 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent > and accountable to its members. All good criteria which I wholeheartedly support. With the caveat that just looking at who is subscribed to a discussion mailing list is *not* how “coverage” should be determined. > Other suggestions have been discussed from time to time and I invite > others to make up for any omissions here. > > An additional criteria that might be useful would be a reference to > having a substantial current involvement in and knowledge of internet > governance debates. I see some danger here - we need to ensure that whatever criteria we develop don't end up having the effect of creating a self-perpetuating cabal which increases rather than decreases the obstacles which civil society communities with Internet governance related interests face on the path of becoming formally and effectively involved in Internet governance discourses. > That however might not be acceptable to all – but > for me, the criteria as they stand would be open to approaches from > YWCA, Medicin sans Frontieres, Pirate Parties International, Red > Cross, Amnesty International, CONGO, Creative Commons, International > Commission of Jurists,etc. All good groups, and it would be great to > see them involved here, but the question is whether the presence of > all of them would be useful for a small working co-ordination group > on matters specific to internet governance. I agree that there is a need for some criterion that will help focus the coalition on member networks whose primary area of interest is within the scope of Internet governance, as per the Tunis Agenda working definition, broadly understood. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Dec 30 06:37:22 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 17:07:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Input needed - criteria for CS Coordination Group In-Reply-To: <7BFB3F646F374FE5833D67CB95E8804F@Toshiba> References: <7BFB3F646F374FE5833D67CB95E8804F@Toshiba> Message-ID: <52C15AF2.5070001@itforchange.net> BTW, Ian, I had asked you earlier, how many and which networks have applied to be inside the committee, so that we can judge the nature and extent of the problem you are trying to deal with.. I understand that should be public information. parminder On Monday 30 December 2013 10:35 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > Sorry to initiate a process discussion but I think it is important we > move on on this particular issue. > > I’m starting this discussion to get wider input into how civil society > people think it would be appropriate to expand the current co > ordination group. To date, this debate has largely been about people > thinking they should be included rather than any formal criteria to > ensure that the group is representative while still staying at a > reasonable size. > > The group came into existence out of a need for civil society groups > to work together to nominate representatives for various forums; > originally for 1net and Brazil events, but certainly with thoughts of > IGF MAG as well in the future. Currently included (in no particular > order) are the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), Diplo > Foundation, Best Bits, the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN > (NCSG), and (pending new coordinator elections) the Civil Society > Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). > > Remember, these are criteria for a co-ordination group concerned with > internet governance matters. Optimal membership levels may be about 9, > I think, but certainly well less than 20. > > So how do we choose? > > Criteria discussed so far include: > > 1.Is a coalition which is globally representative - all regions covered? > > 2.Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to > business)? > > > 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, > business or government in its categorization? > > > 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one > of the existing members? > > > 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent > and accountable to its members. > > Other suggestions have been discussed from time to time and I invite > others to make up for any omissions here. > > An additional criteria that might be useful would be a reference to > having a substantial current involvement in and knowledge of internet > governance debates. That however might not be acceptable to all – but > for me, the criteria as they stand would be open to approaches from > YWCA, Medicin sans Frontieres, Pirate Parties International, Red > Cross, Amnesty International, CONGO, Creative Commons, International > Commission of Jurists,etc. All good groups, and it would be great to > see them involved here, but the question is whether the presence of > all of them would be useful for a small working co-ordination group on > matters specific to internet governance. This along with other > suggestions should be discussed. > > Interested in any thoughts relevant to refining this into a workable > set of criteria for expanding a small co-ordination group, the members > of which will be different coalitions of civil society organisations > who will want to maintain their independence while working together. > One thought that has been raised is to look at rotation of members, or > perhaps a combination of permanent and rotating members. > > > > So I am just opening this up for conversation to see what people > think. Please this is a discussion about criteria, not about > individual groups and their cases to be involved. > > Ian Peter > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Dec 30 14:45:11 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 06:45:11 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Input needed - criteria for CS Coordination Group In-Reply-To: <52C15AF2.5070001@itforchange.net> References: <7BFB3F646F374FE5833D67CB95E8804F@Toshiba> <52C15AF2.5070001@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <76EF0364C15143AAA7DFC061874A8863@Toshiba> Thanks everyone for comments so far and some helpful suggestions. Parminder, the initial suggestions and approaches included IRP Coalition Privacy International Community Informatics ISOC (suggested, not an approach) Civicus (suggested, not an approach) Giganet (suggested, not an approach) I might have missed some, but I hope that helps. It is quite likely individual members of the group have been approached and I am unaware of it. But really what we are looking at is the potential for a substantial number of additional approaches, particularly if we start to expand, and a fair way to treat both current and future approaches. We can certainly think of a lot more organisations (present here and not present) who could approach us in time with valid claims, so planning ahead and getting some sensible ground rules and approaches in place is prompting out thoughts. Ian From: parminder Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 10:37 PM To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Input needed - criteria for CS Coordination Group BTW, Ian, I had asked you earlier, how many and which networks have applied to be inside the committee, so that we can judge the nature and extent of the problem you are trying to deal with.. I understand that should be public information. parminder On Monday 30 December 2013 10:35 AM, Ian Peter wrote: Sorry to initiate a process discussion but I think it is important we move on on this particular issue. I’m starting this discussion to get wider input into how civil society people think it would be appropriate to expand the current co ordination group. To date, this debate has largely been about people thinking they should be included rather than any formal criteria to ensure that the group is representative while still staying at a reasonable size. The group came into existence out of a need for civil society groups to work together to nominate representatives for various forums; originally for 1net and Brazil events, but certainly with thoughts of IGF MAG as well in the future. Currently included (in no particular order) are the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN (NCSG), and (pending new coordinator elections) the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). Remember, these are criteria for a co-ordination group concerned with internet governance matters. Optimal membership levels may be about 9, I think, but certainly well less than 20. So how do we choose? Criteria discussed so far include: 1. Is a coalition which is globally representative - all regions covered? 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to business)? 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, business or government in its categorization? 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one of the existing members? 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent and accountable to its members. Other suggestions have been discussed from time to time and I invite others to make up for any omissions here. An additional criteria that might be useful would be a reference to having a substantial current involvement in and knowledge of internet governance debates. That however might not be acceptable to all – but for me, the criteria as they stand would be open to approaches from YWCA, Medicin sans Frontieres, Pirate Parties International, Red Cross, Amnesty International, CONGO, Creative Commons, International Commission of Jurists,etc. All good groups, and it would be great to see them involved here, but the question is whether the presence of all of them would be useful for a small working co-ordination group on matters specific to internet governance. This along with other suggestions should be discussed. Interested in any thoughts relevant to refining this into a workable set of criteria for expanding a small co-ordination group, the members of which will be different coalitions of civil society organisations who will want to maintain their independence while working together. One thought that has been raised is to look at rotation of members, or perhaps a combination of permanent and rotating members. So I am just opening this up for conversation to see what people think. Please this is a discussion about criteria, not about individual groups and their cases to be involved. Ian Peter -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 30 16:26:50 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2013 02:56:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Input needed - criteria for CS Coordination Group In-Reply-To: <76EF0364C15143AAA7DFC061874A8863@Toshiba> References: <7BFB3F646F374FE5833D67CB95E8804F@Toshiba> <52C15AF2.5070001@itforchange.net> <76EF0364C15143AAA7DFC061874A8863@Toshiba> Message-ID: Thanks Ian. Your criterion of previous active involvement of the organization / community in general, rather than one or two specific individuals in a diverse community, is a good pre filter. As is a requirement for consensus building. You are going to hit an expansion point beyond which the opportunity cost of identifying, reaching out to and integrating new participants is just not worth the incremental gain from bringing them in, or the time spent that could be spent on actual rather than process and membership issues. When you reach that point, and how you pace integrations, is something to ponder. --srs (iPad) > On 31-Dec-2013, at 1:15, "Ian Peter" wrote: > > Thanks everyone for comments so far and some helpful suggestions. > > Parminder, > > the initial suggestions and approaches included > > IRP Coalition > Privacy International > Community Informatics > ISOC (suggested, not an approach) > Civicus (suggested, not an approach) > Giganet (suggested, not an approach) > > I might have missed some, but I hope that helps. It is quite likely individual members of the group have been approached and I am unaware of it. But really what we are looking at is the potential for a substantial number of additional approaches, particularly if we start to expand, and a fair way to treat both current and future approaches. We can certainly think of a lot more organisations (present here and not present) who could approach us in time with valid claims, so planning ahead and getting some sensible ground rules and approaches in place is prompting out thoughts. > > Ian > > From: parminder > Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 10:37 PM > To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Input needed - criteria for CS Coordination Group > > BTW, Ian, I had asked you earlier, how many and which networks have applied to be inside the committee, so that we can judge the nature and extent of the problem you are trying to deal with.. I understand that should be public information. > > parminder > >> On Monday 30 December 2013 10:35 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Sorry to initiate a process discussion but I think it is important we move on on this particular issue. >> >> >> >> I’m starting this discussion to get wider input into how civil society people think it would be appropriate to expand the current co ordination group. To date, this debate has largely been about people thinking they should be included rather than any formal criteria to ensure that the group is representative while still staying at a reasonable size. >> >> The group came into existence out of a need for civil society groups to work together to nominate representatives for various forums; originally for 1net and Brazil events, but certainly with thoughts of IGF MAG as well in the future. Currently included (in no particular order) are the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), Diplo Foundation, Best Bits, the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group of ICANN (NCSG), and (pending new coordinator elections) the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). >> >> Remember, these are criteria for a co-ordination group concerned with internet governance matters. Optimal membership levels may be about 9, I think, but certainly well less than 20. >> >> >> >> So how do we choose? >> >> >> >> Criteria discussed so far include: >> >> >> >> 1. Is a coalition which is globally representative - all regions covered? >> >> 2. Is it non-commercial and public interest oriented (as opposed to business)? >> >> 3. Would it more properly fit under technical community, academic, business or government in its categorization? >> >> >> 4. Is a large part of this coalition's members already covered by one of the existing members? >> >> >> 5. The internal governance of the coalition is adequately transparent and accountable to its members. >> >> Other suggestions have been discussed from time to time and I invite others to make up for any omissions here. >> >> An additional criteria that might be useful would be a reference to having a substantial current involvement in and knowledge of internet governance debates. That however might not be acceptable to all – but for me, the criteria as they stand would be open to approaches from YWCA, Medicin sans Frontieres, Pirate Parties International, Red Cross, Amnesty International, CONGO, Creative Commons, International Commission of Jurists,etc. All good groups, and it would be great to see them involved here, but the question is whether the presence of all of them would be useful for a small working co-ordination group on matters specific to internet governance. This along with other suggestions should be discussed. >> >> >> Interested in any thoughts relevant to refining this into a workable set of criteria for expanding a small co-ordination group, the members of which will be different coalitions of civil society organisations who will want to maintain their independence while working together. One thought that has been raised is to look at rotation of members, or perhaps a combination of permanent and rotating members. >> >> >> So I am just opening this up for conversation to see what people think. Please this is a discussion about criteria, not about individual groups and their cases to be involved. >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t